Timeform Best Ever Lists
- Thread starter Bar the Bull
- Start date
Irish Stamp
Forum Moderator
Everyone uses the "well past his best" argument with regards to Montjeu. I prefer to look at Dubai Millennium's bridle job of top horses in Dubai, hammering of high class horses at Royal Ascot.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
Stats like that can never give any idea as to a horses`s worth. It`s like saying Rock of Gibraltar should have been 140+ because of his tally of Group 1`s...you have to look into the races to discover a horses rating, not just the results.
Behrans ran a lot in Grade two handicaps and in 2000 ran close to his 128 Dubai rating when being beaten by the top class Lemon Drop Kid. To call Behrens second rate is just wrong.
LBM
At the Start
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2003
- Messages
- 401
Steve, I am not going to get into an argument with you about this as I know you a little bit and you are uncapable of saying you were wrong.
The scale of "a century of champions" is enterely based on the author´s opinion. A lot of horses have different ratings from Timeform´s and like it says in their preface, "adjustments have been made to set the record straight, as we see it "( Randall and Morris , 1999), the same way that one couldn´t say that all the ratings before 1947 in the book are Timeform ratings.
The scale of "a century of champions" is enterely based on the author´s opinion. A lot of horses have different ratings from Timeform´s and like it says in their preface, "adjustments have been made to set the record straight, as we see it "( Randall and Morris , 1999), the same way that one couldn´t say that all the ratings before 1947 in the book are Timeform ratings.
Yes her rating was originally 138 in the Annuals (I am not disputing that). But the Portway Press publication reassesses the absolutes with Timeform's cooperation to bring a century of performances together.
It is unreasonable to necessarily expect that a rating set so long ago should not be re-examined and odd to assume it is more accurate to simply allow it to stand.
It is not my rating Luis, so how can I be wrong about it. I'm not making it up.
That she "never beat a high-class rival or won a race that is now a Pattern event" ought to indicate that there may well be a justifiable basis for excluding her from the top fifty. If you have some other evidence to suggest she was better than Pretty Polly I'd like to hear it.
It is unreasonable to necessarily expect that a rating set so long ago should not be re-examined and odd to assume it is more accurate to simply allow it to stand.
It is not my rating Luis, so how can I be wrong about it. I'm not making it up.
That she "never beat a high-class rival or won a race that is now a Pattern event" ought to indicate that there may well be a justifiable basis for excluding her from the top fifty. If you have some other evidence to suggest she was better than Pretty Polly I'd like to hear it.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
Exactly. A lot of their ratings in the past are just plain wrong.
Example:
The average rating for the top two year old filly of the year
1960`s - 128
1970`s - 129
1980`s - 122
1990`s - 114
2000`s - 119
What you had in the sixties and seventies were fillies like La Tendresse, Jacinth,
Cawston`s Pride and Broadway Dancer being rated at or near the same level as Miesque. <_<
LBM
At the Start
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2003
- Messages
- 401
I agree that some old ratings should be revised, but my point is that the adjustments made in the book are not made in the name of Timeform.Venusian seems to be the only one who wants to understand my point.
The same year the book was written, Randall and Morris rated Daylami 137 while Timeform got him 138. R&M got Montjeu rated 138 but Timeform got him 137 .They are completely different ratings, not only about old rates, but they also are along the whole book and they cannot be considered as "Timeform best ever list " which I think is what the rest of the people in this topic was talking about.
The same year the book was written, Randall and Morris rated Daylami 137 while Timeform got him 138. R&M got Montjeu rated 138 but Timeform got him 137 .They are completely different ratings, not only about old rates, but they also are along the whole book and they cannot be considered as "Timeform best ever list " which I think is what the rest of the people in this topic was talking about.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,009
In a match race Dubai M v Montjeu, I'd have DM any time up to 10f, and I speak as a huge fan of Montjeu. On his day, DM was fully entitled to be up there with the very best of all time. Montjeu is in the Dancing Brave / Peintre Celebre class.
Compare and contrast the relative esteem in which Dubai Millenium and St Jovite are held.
Each horse produced just two performances of genuine note and apart from those two races their form was relatively mediocre.
We all know about what DM did.
On his day St Jovite beat an Epsom Derby winner out of sight and then won the King George + QE Stakes by six lengths but nowadays he's pretty much a forgotten horse.
It's difficult to rate horses who produce only one or two peaks, but in my opinion horses who give of their best over a longer span deserve greater attention.
Each horse produced just two performances of genuine note and apart from those two races their form was relatively mediocre.
We all know about what DM did.
On his day St Jovite beat an Epsom Derby winner out of sight and then won the King George + QE Stakes by six lengths but nowadays he's pretty much a forgotten horse.
It's difficult to rate horses who produce only one or two peaks, but in my opinion horses who give of their best over a longer span deserve greater attention.
Yes all of the ratings are revised in the Century of Champions book in full cooperation with Timeform (it is a Portway Press/Timeform publication).
Most ratings are not different, a percentage differ by 1-2lbs. However the demotion of this one looks to be the biggest change.
This rating was made in her 2-y-o season in 1955. Timeform reflected just the following year (1956) that they had probably overated her, she was a non descript 3-y-o who failed to train on and did not make it back.
Yes Timeform made that rating at the time (everyone understands that), but no one is now saying she is the all-time best filly. The list as I say is currently headed by Pretty Polly (who looks to be a much more plausible candidate).
Everyone can see the point you are making Luis, I'm suprised you cannot see beyond that.
This is the list of best fillies:
Pretty Polly 137
Allez France 136
Sun Chariot 136
Sceptre 135
Dahlia 135
Pebbles 135
Coronation 135.
Most ratings are not different, a percentage differ by 1-2lbs. However the demotion of this one looks to be the biggest change.
This rating was made in her 2-y-o season in 1955. Timeform reflected just the following year (1956) that they had probably overated her, she was a non descript 3-y-o who failed to train on and did not make it back.
Yes Timeform made that rating at the time (everyone understands that), but no one is now saying she is the all-time best filly. The list as I say is currently headed by Pretty Polly (who looks to be a much more plausible candidate).
Everyone can see the point you are making Luis, I'm suprised you cannot see beyond that.
This is the list of best fillies:
Pretty Polly 137
Allez France 136
Sun Chariot 136
Sceptre 135
Dahlia 135
Pebbles 135
Coronation 135.
BrianH
At the Start
Lindop has been grossly underrated
Whatever...
I still don't know what it is I'm suppose to be wrong about Luis. You can continue to believe that Star Of India is the best filly ever. Everyone else, including Timeform, knows different.
But as usual we are getting nowhere...
I still don't know what it is I'm suppose to be wrong about Luis. You can continue to believe that Star Of India is the best filly ever. Everyone else, including Timeform, knows different.
But as usual we are getting nowhere...
Although Star of India's rating of 138 is not a true reflection of her ability, there is a reason why these apparently bizarre 2-y-o ratings have been arrived at.
Most people seem to overlook this, but Timeform annual ratings were never intended to reflect the "true ability" of horses, in the sense of being intended to be able to be used to compare top performers from different eras.
This is what Randall and Morris have tried to do, which is why they've altered the ratings to reflect their opinions regarding the relative abilities of top horses over the last century.
Timeform, ie Phil Bull, used to work on the basis that each generation, as a whole, was of equal merit to any other generation, a somewhat dubious assumption but there it is. But if you start from that premis, then it's only to be expected that you'll get some exaggerated ratings from time to time.
Furthermore, these are especially likely to be concentrated in the 2-y-o division. This is because the spread of ability, due to the greater relative variations in maturity of 2-y-os as compared to 3-y-os and older horses, will be wider (both at the top and bottom ends of the ability range).
Most people seem to overlook this, but Timeform annual ratings were never intended to reflect the "true ability" of horses, in the sense of being intended to be able to be used to compare top performers from different eras.
This is what Randall and Morris have tried to do, which is why they've altered the ratings to reflect their opinions regarding the relative abilities of top horses over the last century.
Timeform, ie Phil Bull, used to work on the basis that each generation, as a whole, was of equal merit to any other generation, a somewhat dubious assumption but there it is. But if you start from that premis, then it's only to be expected that you'll get some exaggerated ratings from time to time.
Furthermore, these are especially likely to be concentrated in the 2-y-o division. This is because the spread of ability, due to the greater relative variations in maturity of 2-y-os as compared to 3-y-os and older horses, will be wider (both at the top and bottom ends of the ability range).
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
I was so pre-occupied with the slating of the mighty DM that i forgot this one.
Leopardstown Chase March 1 1966
1 Arkle..........................9 - 12-7
2 Height O` Fashion........9 - 9-7 neck
3 Splash........................8 - 9-7 15L
Irish Grand National April 11 1966
1. Flyingbolt...................7 - 12-7
2. Height O`Fashion........9 - 9-9 2L
3. Splash.......................8 - 9-7 10L
Could it be that Flyingbolt was almost as good as Himself but didn`t/doesn` t get that credit because he didn`t win the "sexy" race?????
Colin Phillips
At the Start
It's amazing that two such horses were in the same yard at the same time.
Think I read somewhere that Flyingbolt was a real handful to look after, quite likely to take chunk out of you.
Think I read somewhere that Flyingbolt was a real handful to look after, quite likely to take chunk out of you.
P
Phil Waters
Guest
Exactly. And therein lies the location of the flaw in perception. I just haven't got my finger on the button yet, but I know it's there.
As for Timeform, some on here may remember I emailed them asking to explain how Istabraq achieved 180 in the year of foot and mouth and their reply was laughable at best and absurd at worst.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of Brian and many others, I've often wondered about those mega-performances (both Flat & National Hunt) from the 60s.
Is it possible anabolic steroids and/or blood boosting was responsible?
Before anyone loads their blunderbuss and points it in my direction, consider this:
Fatima Whitbread once appeared on Blue Peter extolling the virtues of anabolic steroids, claiming they were responsible for her much-improved strength and performances. They were not illegal at the time and it was not considered cheating to take them until much later.
Is it possible anabolic steroids and/or blood boosting was responsible?
Before anyone loads their blunderbuss and points it in my direction, consider this:
Fatima Whitbread once appeared on Blue Peter extolling the virtues of anabolic steroids, claiming they were responsible for her much-improved strength and performances. They were not illegal at the time and it was not considered cheating to take them until much later.
P
Phil Waters
Guest
It may just be that the horses Arkle and Flyingbolt faced were abysmal.
I agree with what you say ven this is the reason for such anomalies. However it does not square with Timeform's statement:
"Great care is taken to keep the level of Timeform ratings consistent from one season to the next (after due allowance has been made for various factors that might alter the overall picture), so that comparisons between different generations can be made".
The authors of Century of Champions actually worked with Timeform to arrive at the ratings published in their round up of ratings.
"Great care is taken to keep the level of Timeform ratings consistent from one season to the next (after due allowance has been made for various factors that might alter the overall picture), so that comparisons between different generations can be made".
The authors of Century of Champions actually worked with Timeform to arrive at the ratings published in their round up of ratings.