Sea The Stars - Retirement Announced

SteveM said:
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 It's historical reference that is at issue here (something of which Timeform has a tradition).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.
Click to expand...

By that logic then, is it not possible that the only thing separating a 145/6 animal from a 137/8 one is that the former was running against better horses than the latter?

edit: was just thinking about Montjeu when typing my post, sunybay!
 
A horse's performance figures are also available for anyone wishing to take the results of races entirely at face value or for anyone wishing to come up with their own master rating for that horse by some other means.

In the case of Sea The Stars, they are (and there is no secrecy about this) in chronological order:

97, 97, 113, 128, 126, 136, 131, 138, all performance ratings with a "+" attached to indicate that a higher rating might have been achieved.
 
J Alfred Prufrock said:
Indeed.

Something tells me that Timeform probably is, however.
Click to expand...

Indeed so… but you can’t be expedient with the service you purport to offer, bending the actual result out of recognition. This is akin to creative accountancy and we’ve seen where that has gotten the markets. By pandering to such popular and topical notions Timeform is doing a disservice to itself as well as the past in awarding ratings that have plainly not been achieved.
 
I think what would help this debate is an understanding of Timeform's MO - is it to produce ratings in the style of raceform (using the + or P to denote capable of better etc), or is it to apply a subjective slant to a horse/race, thereby allowing the subscriber the benefit of their opinion. I always thought it was the former, but only the latter can justify the disparity between Sea the Stars and Fame and Glory.
 
Originally Posted by SteveM
Fame's Timeform rating in the Irish Champion (which I think is too high), which is higher than any rating for RVW.


If STS had not run and F & G had beaten MCM nearly three lengths with the rest beaten out of sight would you have still thought so ?
 
Timeform made a big deal at the time of not building anything in to Montjeu’s KG rating (a standpoint I would agree with), although it seems obvious it has now moved the goalposts and built up STS’s rating according to ease of victory.

Few would doubt that Dancing Brave actually had to run to about 140 in the Arc to be credited with 140 by Timeform, while even the most ardent fan of STS must realise that he hasn’t actually run to 140, but that Timeform has built that into its figure.
 
Ardross said:
If STS had not run and F & G had beaten MCM nearly three lengths with the rest beaten out of sight would you have still thought so ?
Click to expand...

A fair question but yes. STS simply has not run to 140. He might be capable of doing so, but he didn't do it in Ireland. I expected Fame to beat MCM well, as it is I don't believe Fame ran much/any better than he did in the Irish Derby.
 
Last edited:
I think they'll realise this by the end of the season and unless he puts it up in the Arc I don't think you'll see 140 next to STS name in their Annual next March.
 
Euronymous said:
I think they'll realise this by the end of the season and unless he puts it up in the Arc I don't think you'll see 140 next to STS name in their Annual next March.
Click to expand...

This has happened before... so you may well be right. Perhaps he'll murder them in the Arc and save some red faces though.

...still think we're on the right one however.
 
sunybay said:
wont get placed?
we live in a different world.
Click to expand...

not got enough gears for the Arc..its not a tough 12f test..F&G will find himself lacking pace like he did in the "short" Epsom Derby..only this time he will have older horses also leaving him behind

be careful that the world you live in doesn't involve having blind allegiances to horses Suny
 
EC1 said:
not got enough gears for the Arc..its not a tough 12f test..F&G will find himself lacking pace like he did in the "short" Epsom Derby..only this time he will have older horses also leaving him behind

be careful that the world you live in doesn't involve having blind allegiances to horses Suny
Click to expand...

How exactly did a high to mid 120s run on decent ground over 10 furlongs at Leopardstown give any suggestion the horse does not have the pace for an Arc. Granted he might not win it, but he clearly has every right to line up in it.
 
I haven't been the horse's biggest fan throughout the season, but for me the best bet for the Arc right now is Fame and Glory to place at 2.6; very, very hard to see him out of the frame.
 
EC1 said:
not got enough gears for the Arc..its not a tough 12f test..F&G will find himself lacking pace like he did in the "short" Epsom Derby..only this time he will have older horses also leaving him behind
Click to expand...

The history of the Arc is littered with horses like Oscar Schindler, Snurge, Mubtaker and Westerner. All stayers who lacked "gears", all placed in the Arc. And i've not even mentioned the likes of Sinndar and Alleged who actually won the race.
 
how many stayers have run in the Arc though?..how many placed?

its no use just coming up with a few names without seeing the full picture

2.6 to place on a horse that isn't a definate runner..mishaps happen etc...looks poor value to me...even on the day it would be

but if all you guys are so sure..then dip yer bread
 
Euronymous said:
The history of the Arc is littered with horses like Oscar Schindler, Snurge, Mubtaker and Westerner. All stayers who lacked "gears", all placed in the Arc. And i've not even mentioned the likes of Sinndar and Alleged who actually won the race.
Click to expand...

Levmoss won in 1969 , Ardross should have won in 1982 , Gold River won in 1981 .
 
Euronymous said:
Shall I just count the stayers who have been placed in Group 1 company over 10 furlongs?
Click to expand...

the point is..just pulling a few names out when there are hundreds of stayers that have run in these races over the years..isn't really convincing me

yes..F&G could place in the Arc..but many with his profile..haven't...which means 2.6 to place..isn't great value

F&G was a natural for the Leger..but because these days that race means your horse is a slowboat..he runs here instead

so the choice was..near on cert win Leger...a chancers run in the Arc
 
EC1 said:
the point is..just pulling a few names out when there are hundreds of stayers that have run in these races over the years..isn't really convincing me

yes..F&G could place in the Arc..but many with his profile..haven't...which means 2.6 to place..isn't great value

F&G was a natural for the Leger..but because these days that race means your horse is a slowboat..he runs here instead

so the choice was..near on cert win Leger...a chancers run in the Arc
Click to expand...

It is fair to say you have not been impressed with Fame And Glory from Day 1 - seemingly taking Mourayan as the horse to follow out of the early Leopardstown Derby Trials.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top