Sea The Stars - Retirement Announced

Galileo said:
Great reading Desert Orchid.

My question is that if it is generally accepted that Fame And Glory is better on an easier surface and over 12furlongs what sort of rating do you think he can hit if he can reach such heights over 10 furlongs on a drying surface?
Click to expand...

This is the point. Fame has been generally overrated for his Irish Champion run. I would not think he has run any/much better than he did in the Irish Derby. I would agree Mastercraftsman underperformed his best (he is better suited to 8 furlongs than 10 furlongs anyway)... given this I can go along with STS running to 135/136+ (possibly) any more than than seems over generous to all of the players.
 
Galileo said:
So now from being a Leger horse, he is now a genuine 10 furlong horse - in fact the best 10 furlong horse Ballydoyle has produced.
Click to expand...

:lol: Very apt...they can't have it both ways (...the Irish Champion may well have been overrated).
 
Last edited:
Roddy Owen said:
Don`t think so judging on Timeforms recent World ratings. Seems they have no doubt about Sea the Stars performance.;)
Click to expand...

They might not have, but they are out on a limb, even compared with other ratings agencies/experts. The plain truth is that this performance in Ireland simply was not the equivalent of Dancing Brave's or Peintre Celebre's Arcs.

Timeform has Fame running to 133 in that race. As Galileo points out are we to believe this is Ballydoyle's best ever 10 furlong performer? I think not... if this were true Heaven knows what Fame might achieve over 2 or 4 furlongs further... he'd be close to the all-time top-rated 3-y-o (which he's not)... and I'm a big fan of Fame (as well as STS).
 
Last edited:
Steve if you are going to quote Timeform ratings in your argument, please go to the trouble of ensuring they are correct. Fame And Glory has been credited with 133 in the Irish Chmapion Stakes. Not 135 and certianly not 135+.
 
davidjohnson said:
Steve if you are going to quote Timeform ratings in your argument, please go to the trouble of ensuring they are correct. Fame And Glory has been credited with 133 in the Irish Chmapion Stakes. Not 135 and certianly not 135+.
Click to expand...

Thanks David. I had in mind the provisional figures mentioned earlier on here. I'll amend my post. Cheers.

133 is closer to what I think Fame might have run to, but still too high for me (closer to 129/130 I reckon). I take it Timeform still state about 140 for STS or have they come down from that? I can't check many of these things on the computer I'm working from at the moment.
 
Last edited:
How can his 140 rating be justified if Fame and Glory is rated 133? Is there a new pounds per length scale?
 
From Timeform's own explanation of their process:

http://www.timeform.com/show_article.asp?num=166

Where individual horses are concerned, the handicapper is allowed sizeable scope for fine-tuning ratings to reflect factors such as unlucky losers, badly drawn horses, particularly appropriate or inappropriate conditions, horses winning with plenty to spare, and so on. All of this, we hope, makes for a better product for our customers.
Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)
 
Gareth Flynn said:
From Timeform's own explanation of their process:

http://www.timeform.com/show_article.asp?num=166



(emphasis mine)
Click to expand...

Thanks Gareth. This is something they should not do. It's what the +s and Ps are for. If Montjeu's KG had been thus rated he would have been accorded a rating more in keeping with a Cheltenham Gold Cup winner rather than low 130s. One rule for one and another for another is bad method.
 
Last edited:
SteveM said:
Thanks Gareth. This is something they should not do. It's what the +s and Ps are for.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Not sure how serious you can take their ratings with cases like this. Either the +s and Ps are for things like this, or else get rid of them. You can't have it both ways.
 
I was under the impression that this is how Timeform have always done things. If so, it appears they indeed can, and do, have it both ways.
 
This latest brigade of raters at Timeform are a bit slap happy in my opinion. I think they are after a bit of headline seeking. Steve Mason on the Post rates STS 136+. I can live with that.
 
As Prufrock pointed out earlier in the thread, the Racing Posts scale is a few pounds lower across the board. You can't pick and choose between them whilst complaining about a lack of consistency elsewhere.

Worth noting, also, that the Racing Post rated Montjeu's King George as 133, and that's the best they could do even after considering his 1 3/4 length margin of victory worth 7lbs, when normally it would be around 3lbs!
 
Thanks, Gareth.

It appears it needs to be repeated: Timeform's scale is similar, but not identical to, Racing Post's and significantly different to the BHA's. Timeform was founded in 1947; Racing Post in 1986; the BHA's various predecessors began publishing end-of-year definitive ratings much more recently than did Timeform.

Racing Post and BHA chose to set their level lower than Timeform's, which is their prerogative.

Timeform is not "out of line" in its rating when that is taken into account, though if it were it would not automatically mean that it was "wrong".

To the earlier poster who used official ratings of beaten horses in Ireland, the 138 that results for Sea The Stars would be equivalent to 145/146 on Timeform.

I don't know whose standard times were being referred to, but whichever ones they are it needs to be taken into account that the outer course - on which the Irish Champion was run - needs different standard times to the inner course.
 
My argument (in case it causes confusion) is not about the apparent confusion between RPRs and TRs; it is to do with how a horse who wins by 2 and a half lengths over 1m2 is rated 7 pounds superior, when any superiority assumed (I agree, there was plenty left) over the official margin was meant to be denoted by a '+' or a 'p'; if it is now possible to rate horses based on assumed superiority, wouldn't it be better to do away with the '+' or 'p' and avoid any confusion?
 
Gareth Flynn said:
As Prufrock pointed out earlier in the thread, the Racing Posts scale is a few pounds lower across the board. You can't pick and choose between them whilst complaining about a lack of consistency elsewhere.

Worth noting, also, that the Racing Post rated Montjeu's King George as 133, and that's the best they could do even after considering his 1 3/4 length margin of victory worth 7lbs, when normally it would be around 3lbs!
Click to expand...

I'm a firm believer of comparing like-with-like. They are actually calculated on the same scale, but fluctuations will of course occur.
 
The guiding principle for any rating agency is that they record what the horse has actually run to, not what they believe it could have run to. To do otherwise is both inaccurate and irresponsible.

They can of course indicate if they believe the horse is capable of better or if it has perceived improvement through the use of +s and ps, Ps. But the actually figure must not be messed around with. The International Classifications (also to the same scale) will not tolerate such nonsense.
 
Last edited:
I'm not convinced they don't rate differently in the big scheme of things, in the sense that they are all technically rating a genuine G1 performance at 126 (9st) or 140 (10st).

Timeform, I reckon, take the view that winning/placed handicappers have more in hand of their ORs than Raceform do, and once the ripple effect of this reaches the upper echelons of the classes, it creates a differential. However, if it so happens that there is an agreement at handicapping level, the relevant lines will result in the higher class horses being rated along similar lines to other firms/raters.

If Sea Bird's 145 with Timeform equates to 138 with Raceform then plenty of horses will have been at least the equal of Mill Reef etc down through the years.

Interesting.

I find RPRs broadly close to my own but sometimes I find myself going much higher, sometimes much lower.

My Timeform subscription 20 years ago was very short-lived as I simply could not fathom how they arrived at some ridiculously high ratings for ordinary horses.
 
SteveM said:
The guiding principle for any rating agency is that they record what the horse has actually run to, not what they believe it could have run to. To do otherwise is both inaccurate and irresponsible.

They can of course indicate if they believe the horse is capable of better or if it has perceived improvement through the use of +s and ps, Ps. But the actually figure must not be messed around with. The International Classifications (also to the same scale) will not tolerate such nonsense.
Click to expand...

I disagree both in principle and in practice.

They are trying to give the paying customer the most accurate indicator of a horse's true ability. If I see a horse visibly (tautologist's alert) eased by three lengths in the final half-furlong I will rate it according to the distance by which it would otherwise have won. If I find I can't quantify it to my satisfaction I'll add a symbol.
 
SteveM said:
I'm a firm believer of comparing like-with-like. They are actually calculated on the same scale, but fluctuations will of course occur.
Click to expand...

That might once have been the Racing Post's intention, but it is not the case.

As an example, the remaining Flat handicaps to be run today have higher means on Timeform to the following degrees: +2, +1, +2, +3, +3, +3, +4.

You will do well to find any Flat handicap in which Racing Post ratings do not lag behind Timeform's.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I disagree both in principle and in practice.

They are trying to give the paying customer the most accurate indicator of a horse's true ability. If I see a horse visibly (tautologist's alert) eased by three lengths in the final half-furlong I will rate it according to the distance by which it would otherwise have won. If I find I can't quantify it to my satisfaction I'll add a symbol.
Click to expand...

I suppose that is the difference with a company that charges it's customers and say the official handicapper who does not or should not have the luxury.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I disagree both in principle and in practice.

They are trying to give the paying customer the most accurate indicator of a horse's true ability. If I see a horse visibly (tautologist's alert) eased by three lengths in the final half-furlong I will rate it according to the distance by which it would otherwise have won. If I find I can't quantify it to my satisfaction I'll add a symbol.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in the paying customer (but of course you will have your own idea about how much better than its actual performance it may be and are entitled to build that into your private rating) - I want to know from Timeform what a horse ran to (not what it thinks about that). It's historical reference that is at issue here (something of which Timeform has a tradition). The IC will arrive at an 'absolute' figure of what the horse has achieved. Timeform should do (and in the past has done) the same.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top