Timeform Best Ever Lists

This is what Timeform has to say about the book.Anybody takes their own conclusion.

Dear Mr Martin

Timeform published ' A Century of Champions' for John Randall and Tony Morris and assisted in the preparation of parts of the book. The Timeform ratings were used for most of the horses but the authors changed some to reflect their own views of the horses in retrospect. None of the Timeform ratings published over the years in the Racehorses annuals has been revised or changed. A Century of Champions has the advantage of covering the whole century. Timeform began in 1948.

Yours sincerely

Timeform
 
Originally posted by PDJ@Nov 30 2005, 06:07 AM
Flyingbolt was rated 2lbs below Arkle so yes, he was almost as good.
Click to expand...
My point was in relation to Grey`s doubt about Flyingbolt`s ability to give Mill House 19lb and his assertion that only Arkle could do that. The figure`s suggest otherwise.

As for Phil`s point, Arkle regular gave weight and beatings to horses who went on to be placed and even win the Gold Cup.
 
Mo - like you I would never discount the possibility of drug use being responsible for unusual and unexpected performance inprovements.

A Couple of considerations though.

- Why was the vast improvement confined to (a) one stable and (B) only to 2 horses within that stable?.

- These horses were that good from the start. Its not like they improved, say, from a continual 4th in Grade 1's to suddenly dominate the sport.

But I agree it is a valid question.
 
Exactly so Luis. They had sent me a similar reply. I have followed it up with further query relating to their statement that they made about care being taken to keep their ratings consistent over a period and what this resides in.

Timeform states: "Her best timefigure of 1.52 fast equates to a Timeform rating of 138 and must have been the major factor in her being awarded 138 in Racehorses of 1955."

It states that this is the highest rating it has ever accorded a filly but also states that "severe doubts [have subsequently been made] about the 138 awarded to Star of India". Particularly relating to the fact that this was achieved by a 2-y-o and is superior to what any other filly has achieved in maturity.

It added that "Allez France, Habibti and Texana are on 136, followed by Coronation V, Dahlia, La Tendresse and Pebbles on 135. Pretty Polly, Sceptre and Sun Chariot raced in the pre-Timeform era (see Century of Champions for their ratings)."


We know the ratings in the annuals are what they are, but what efforts (other than collaboration between authors in such publications as Century of Champions) are made to ensure that comparisons between different generations can be made as Timeform claims. I am awaiting their further reply.
 
To be honest, I think we are demanding too much from Timeform.
Electrical timing was introduced at Newmarket and Goodwood in 1952 ( I don´t know when it was introduced in other racecourses ).Maybe the 1.58 factor was misleading because of lack of data base and the time was not in reality that fast.
Anyway, one of the most controversial ratings by Timeform in my opinion was Old vic and Zilzal over Nashwan .R&M got them with the son of BGroom on top .They also have PCelebre on 139 (2 more than Timeform´s annuals ) , Nijinsky on 140 ( 2 more ) ,Halling at 134 in 1995 ( 3 more ) ,Reference point on 136 ( 3 less), Habibti 132 ( 4 less) ,etc...The discrepancies on 2 years old ratings are even more frequents.Horses like Arazi or Intikhab are not even named in the book.
I guess the only tool that it can be used to ensure that comparations between different generations can be make is direct handicapping between members of different generations .I am not a great fan of take time into the equation. For instance, it seems quite obvious now that the maiden that Proclamation won as a juvenile is worth more than the 100 that was given to him at that moment .One can take the view that the horse has imroved this season, but also can be said that the quality of the whole field was higher than was firstly thought of, after seeing some of the horses in the field running against their olders the following season.It´s impossible to compare two horse of crops that differ in 10 years if you have not taken the time to study the 8 crops in between.That´s why Timeform changes his ratings from the black books to the annuals and in my opinion, no rating should need to be revaluated later other than 2 years old races in which you don´t have nothing to compare with .
 
Yes I think this is right. We cannot expect it to be an exact science.

Star Of India's rating was based on her best performance, which apparently was some way ahead of her other ratings. It could be something was amiss with the timing. However, even Timeform itself seems to suspect ("severe doubts") that it is unreasonable to believe she outperformed every other performance from any filly of any age in her juvenile season.

Timeform notoriously ducked the issue with Nashwan as they knew the other two would be appearing the following season and Nashwan wouldn't. There was significant press debate about it at the time.
 
Originally posted by Luis Martin@Nov 30 2005, 01:49 PM
Anyway, one of the most controversial ratings by Timeform in my opinion was Old vic and Zilzal over Nashwan.
Click to expand...
I wasn't around at the time (well, not in a horse racing sense) so my opinion is not biased in any way by personal feelings from the time.

On checking their results I can confirm that they were right to award higher ratings to Old Vic and Zilzal. Zilzal beat Opening Verse by 5l and a short head, whilst Nashwan could only manage the 5l. Old Vic beat Zayyani by 14 and a bit lengths, whilst Nashwan could only manage 6l.

Case closed. :lol: :lol:
 
By and large Timeform do a great job, but obviously they will get the odd rating wrong. Reference Point (too high) Pentre Celebre (too low) Mark of Esteem (too high) are three that stand out for me. I too side with them on Zilzal and Old Vic over Nashwan though.
 
My point was in relation to Grey`s doubt about Flyingbolt`s ability to give Mill House 19lb and his assertion that only Arkle could do that. The figure`s suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

Euronymous, it wasn't me who said that.

Maurice, plenty of people would rather fall off the planet than believe Tom Dreaper capable of such skullduggery.

I don't find it so surprising that Flyingbolt and Arkle were contemporaries in the same stable. I think horses can bring each other along on the home gallops. Often when a trainer has a very good 2-y-old they have several, eg Kevin Ryan or Eoghan O'Neill this year, David Wachman last year.

Best Mate and Edredon Bleu probably helped keep each other on their toes as well. But perhaps you would find the example of Sean Kelly and Stephen Roche more instructive. :)
 
Talking about speed figures, in the essay about Warning Timeform wrote that the horse ran a 1.71 figure in the QEll and that figure was the fasterst since Troy´s Derby .I know Habibti put up a huge figure in the Abbaye and they couldn´t believe it and disregarded it . Could somebody write down Timeform´s top ten speed figures ?
As far as I know Tudor minstrel was the highest at 1.74.Has it been beaten since?
For two years old, I believe Windy city was the best and Celtic swing was the second best .
Cheers.
 
Originally posted by Grey@Nov 30 2005, 03:36 PM
Maurice, plenty of people would rather fall off the planet than believe Tom Dreaper capable of such skullduggery.
Click to expand...
I was really hoping my query wasn't suggesting skulduggery.

It was an era when steroid science was still relatively in its infancy and was not seen as in any way underhand. It would have been no more unusual than a modern day trainer adding newly-formulated (legal) supplements to feed.

As for An's point, horses make abnormal improvement through the ranks without any artificial help. Maybe they thought they'd experiment with their two best horses to see just how far beyond the established norm their use could take an animal. Maybe the results frightened them!
 
Does anyone know how Timeform calculate their speed figures?

Also following on from that would it be possible to calculate speed figures for say a 2yo at a breeze up?
 
"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".

Steve, this seems at first sight to be good sensible stuff from them, but I don't think this is what actually happens.

The most obvious example is that 2-y-os are given the same range of ratings as older horses, so that a juvenile is given a rating that only makes sense (with respect to comparisons between different generations) if it makes normal (no more and no less) improvement from 2 to 3 and from 3 to 4.

But with precocious horses like Star of India or Windy City this doesn't make sense when you're trying to compare generations.

So I maintain that my original "quote" about Timeform treating each generation as being the same as any other is what they really do.

On a related point, I'm always dubious about a horse producing one outstanding time performance, particularly from hand-timing eras, which it never subsequently comes near to equalling. There are enough mysteries in estimating the actual going and wind speeds, not to mention round-course races where they may have been messing around with the running rails. I'd be interested to know what the annual Timeform ratings of these two now notorious juveniles would have been if they had been based on their second-best time figures.
 
There's no official scale, ie. it's all opinionated with regards the link Gareth set up.

I would prefer it to be a formula or an exact science with regards to the speed figure, would be possible to work out figures at breeze ups or in work outs etc.
 
Yes I agree with you ven. They are paying lip service to it rather than doing it. I have given them a chance to square this statement with what they actually do. I haven't got access to the e-mail from that computer until the end of the week though.

Tudor Minstrel's Guineas if often described as the greatest pure performance seen on a racetrack. Secretariat has also posted unbelievable time figures.
 
I'd be interested in what they have to say, Steve.

It is a problem that since Phil Bull's reign, Timeform has rather metamorphosed from being a wittily-annotated time-based rating system designed to help punters pick winners, into a hybrid of that, a sort of cross with being a historical record of the comparative abilities of the top horses over the last 60 years.

But what may be an accurate rating for a horse in its own particular era (or season) for betting may not be so appropriate many years later for "place in the pantheon" purposes.
 
Originally posted by Venusian@Dec 1 2005, 10:55 PM


But what may be an accurate rating for a horse in its own particular era (or season) for betting may not be so appropriate many years later for "place in the pantheon" purposes.
Click to expand...
I dont think betting really comes into it. By the time these ratings come out, a lot of the horses in question have retired. I think the annuals and the ratings therein work perfectly well as an historical record of each individual year.
 
"I think the annuals and the ratings therein work perfectly well as an historical record of each individual year. "

But that's the very point I'm trying to make!

For an individual year, yes, but as a comparative record spanning different generations, no.
 
So are you saying the ratings are flawed then? Two year olds aside, the figures given for the cream of the crop animals have been very consistant over the last few decades. When another horse comes along that breaks the 140 barrier it`ll be nice to reflect on the company that particular horse keeps in that very exclusive club no?
 
I like to think I'm extremely open-minded with regards to people's methods and theories - remember weight doesn't matter - but for Timeform to rate Istabraq 180 for his win in the Irish Champion Hurdle in 2001 (he beat Mantles Prince - officially rated 143 - by 4.5 lengths with 115-rated Penny Rich 2 lengths back in 3rd) because his jockey "looked over his shoulder no fewer than 8 times" (genuine reply from Timeform), well, that just borders on desperation.
 
A retarded expanation from Timeform to be sure, but the biggest problem ratings people have is the figures they get for horses who are notably superior to their rivals but who never win by that far.....Rock of Gibraltar being the best recent example on the flat.
 
Back
Top