Timeform Best Ever Lists

I agree that horses who win with seemingly plenty in hand are difficult to accurately assess; however in Istabraq's case when winning the Irish Champion Hurdle that day from 143-rated Matles Prince and 115-rated Penny Rich, to rate him higher than exceptional winners of better races is poor.
 
Again I think what you say is entirely reasonable ven.

This is what Timeform came back with. It states: The Timeform scale was used for rating horses in 'Century of Champions'. For the most part the authors accepted Timeform's evaluation of most horses covered in Timeform annuals, but for some, like Star Of India, a different assessment was arrived at.

In regard to my query about the Timeform statement that: "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".
i.e. how do they achieve this? It went on to say:

“The level of the ratings is maintained by the handicappers. The mean has been kept almost constant over time, although it has been adjusted to reflect that these days, with more opportunities for lower grade horses, more horses lower down the racing pyramid are given actual ratings (rather than being rated a dash).”

Which didn’t really answer what I asked.

Anyway there we have it... In the Timeform annuals Star Of India is the greatest filly of all time. In the real world, the juvenile is unlikely to feature in any top fifty fillies and was excluded from the Century of Champions top fifty (being tenth in terms of juvenile fillies).

Perhaps we can agree that she appears to have been a great 2-y-o filly (one of the best). But in terms of overall status she must give place to others.
 
I really don´t know how good Star of india was.My father was 4 years old back then .
But I have a really open mind about it and there is a question that comes to my mind every time that somebody says that her rating is wrong.

This is what Timeform says about Tudor minstrel performance in the Guineas :
"It is probably true that Tudor Minstrel was the fittest animal in the Guineas field, and it is certainly true that apart from Petition, who did not give his running, and Sarajirao, who was backward and would in any case have required a longer distence, they were a poor lot that he beat.But neither of these facts can be held to disparage Tudor Minstrel´s Guineas feat, in the face of a racefigure of 1.74 fast"
The others speed figures of the horse that season were 1.29,0.75 ( QE ll) ,0.45 and 0.05 ( St james pl )

If we doubt the true value of SOindia speed figure ( or Windy city´s for that matter ), why shouldn´t we doubt the true value of TM, especially having in mind that the horse "beat a poor field" ?
The filly was unbeaten and apart from a 1,1/2 length victory giving 15 pounds to the second home, she won the rest of her races by 4l or more.
Why everybody is almost certain that TM was one of the fastest horses ever, but at the same time, they think that the ratings of SOI or WC are crazy ?
 
Steve, their answers indicate to me that they haven't understood the question put to them.

Re "In the Timeform annuals Star Of India is the greatest filly of all time." , to be absolutely fair to Timeform, what Timeform/Phil Bull is really asserting is that, roughly speaking, Star of India showed the greatest positive variation from the mean in her age group in one particular year, than any other filly before or after.

That may possibly be true, although I doubt it, but that is not the same thing as asserting that she is the best filly of all time, for all the reasons that we've been discussing.

This reminds me of a Bull diatribe in the 1966 Annual against those journalists who voted for either Charlottown or Sodium in the Racehorse of the Year awards. I forget who actually won, but these two rather ordinary classic winners (the French couldn't come over that year because of some disease scare) were well clear of the outstanding 2-y-o champion, Bold Lad.

Bull/Timeform strongly suggested that Bold Lad ought to have won, because he was a far better 2-y-o than those two 3-y-os. He was indeed, but so disappointing was he as a 3-y-o (due almost entirely to crass management of his racing career), that his 3-y-o rating was (I think) less than that of Charlottown and Sodium at the same age.
 
Difference is Luis that TM put up one of the most brilliant performances seen on a racecourse as a 3-y-o in the Guineas against proper horses, correctly timed.

SOR had one top rating at two where she beat nothing in an unrecognised race, where the timing appears to be dubious. There's your answer.

An open mind would question whether it is reasonable to expect SOR to have run better than any other filly has managed as a mature horse in her juvenile season, also given that she never beat a high-class rival or won a race that is now a Pattern event.

I suspect all that this rating shows is as ven puts it the "greatest positive variation" against her peer group and possibly not even her peer group but a single race that has had a disproportionate influence. If Timeform itself has severe doubts about the rating I don't see why we should embrace it with open arms.
 
Originally posted by Bar the Bull@Nov 28 2005, 02:42 PM
Highest Timeform Annual Ratings (Jumps - Hurdlers)
182 Night Nurse
180 Istabraq, Monksfield
179 Persian War
178 Comedy of Errors, Le Sauvignon
177 Lanzarote, Limestone Lad
176 Bird's Nest, Bula, Golden Cygnet
175 Baracouda, Gaye Brief, Salmon Spray, Sea Pigeon
Click to expand...
And Golden Cygnet was still a novice when he died in a fall at Ayr.
 
Back
Top