[close]

One of the many facilities Racing And Sports provides for all users is the ability to access "audio" content. Because of our significant domestic and international presence at the race track and of it, not only are we delivering extensive racing information and technology along with form content, you can avail yourself of a substantial amount of interviews conducted by the Racing And Sports team.

They include discussions with Jockeys, Trainers and Owners through the week, Post-Race interviews, Press conferences at major meetings and also Race Day Previews from our racing staff. All these emanate from racing right around the world.

Forum - HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Order by Date Ascending

 RacePost -- Any Racing topic goes
Page 2 of 2

Go to Page: 21.  Next >>


Original Blog Post:

I have just noticed this list of ratings that has an assessment on Phar Lap, Peter Pan, Tulloch & Bernborough. To name a few, why Rising Fast, Lord, Light Fingers, Leilani and Todman (or even Carbine) were not assessed, is disappointing. It can be found on the link below but I have copied and pasted the list below for your convenience.

There are a few surprises on the list plus 2 with question marks following the rating. The question mark means "the rating is suspect or (used alone) the horse is out of form or cannot be assessed with confidence"

Makybe Diva, Northerly, Dulcify and Sunline, all on 129, with Dundeel and Weekend Hussler on 130, are IMHO, are not representative of the relative merits of those horses. Occy and Rough Habit, back in the pack on 126, are also underated in my book.

I am sure many out there will have differing opinions - let's hear some of them.

http://www.racingandsports.com.au/en/tf-rating-summary.asp?tfe=TFAll-Aus#GbqbeEfmRUSPplty.97


Order  Horse TFE
1   Phar Lap 141 
2   Bernborough 138 
2   Tulloch 138 
4   Peter Pan 137 
4   Kingston Town 137 
6   Todman 136 
6   Vain 136 
6   Manikato 136 
6   Black Caviar 136 
10   Chatham 135 
10   Tobin Bronze 135 
10   Better Loosen Up 135 
13   Galilee 134 
14   Might and Power 133 
14   So You Think 133 
14   Gunsynd 133 
17   Lankan Rupee 132 
17   Hay List 132 
19   Strawberry Road 130 
19   Weekend Hussler 130 
19   Dunaden 130 
22   Dundeel 129 
22   All Too Hard 129 
22   Americain 129 
22   Dulcify 129 
22   Placid Ark 129 
22   Northerly 129 
22   Sunline 129 
22   Sepoy 129 
22   Makybe Diva 129 
22   Divide And Rule 129 
22   Century 129 
33   Grand Armee 128 
33   Atlantic Jewel 128 
33   Taj Rossi 128 
33   Beau Zam 128 
33   Bonecrusher 128 
33   Saintly 128 
33   Hareeba 128 
33   Lonhro 128 
33   Maybe Mahal 128 
33   Schillaci 128 
33   Super Impose 128 
33   Vo Rogue 128 
33   Luskin Star 128 
33   Filante 128 
33   Takeover Target 128 
33   Sobar 128 
33   Vinnie Roe 128 
33   Whobegotyou 128 
33   More Joyous 128 
33   Foxwedge 128 
33   Pierro 128 
33   Ocean Park 128 
33   Reliable Man 128 
56   Buffering 127 
56   Mental 127 
56   Red Cardeaux 127 
56   Juggler 127 
56   All Our Mob 127 
56   Sacred Falls 127 
56   Tontonan 127 
56   Baguette 127 
56   Dual Choice 127 
56   Red Anchor 127 
56   Emancipation 127 
56   Naturalism 127 
56   Doriemus 127 
56   Shaftesbury Avenue 127 
56   Testa Rossa 127 
56   Rubitano 127? 
56   Veandercross 127 
56   Fastnet Rock 127 
56   Mahogany 127 
56   Desert War 127 
56   Miss Andretti 127 
56   Apache Cat 127 
56   Helmet 127 
56   Zipping 127 
56   All Silent 127 
81   Scenic Shot 126 
81   Boban 126 
81   Campaign King 126 
81   Choisir 126 
81   Citius 126 
81   Epaulette 126 
81   Eskimo Prince 126 
81   Royal Sovereign 126 
81   Defier 126 
81   Exceed and Excel 126 
81   Gurners Lane 126 
81   Horlicks 126 
81   Hyperno 126 
81   Intergaze 126 
81   Jeune 126 
81   Let's Elope 126 
81   Octagonal 126 
81   Our Maizcay 126 
81   Redoute's Choice 126 
81   Rough Habit 126 
81   Rubiton 126 
81   Sir Dapper 126 
81   Surround 126 
81   Tie The Knot 126 
81   Shogun Lodge 126 
81   Grandera 126 
81   Racing To Win 126 
81   Marasco 126 
81   PompeII Ruler 126 
81   Viewed 126 
81   Rangirangdo 126 
81   Predatory Pricer 126 
81   Mic Mac 126 
81   Jimmy Choux 126 
81   Manawanui (3yo) 126 
81   Shoot Out 126 
81   Shocking 126 
81   Starspangledbanner (3yo) 126 
81   Wanted (3yo) 126 
81   Scenic Blast 126 
81   Rain Affair 126 
81   Jimmy Choux 126 
81   Manighar 126 
81   Mentality 126? 

 
Author: Todman
Subject: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 29/12/2015 9:41:01 AM
 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: theking
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 11/3/2019 11:26:06 PM

Blog Reply:

15 years for both.

One Group 2 AND The other Group 1

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: Fairburn
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 11/3/2019 4:58:02 PM

Blog Reply:

King,

So how many years after your mystery horse won the two Principal races were they graded as a Group One and a Group Two race, as you claim - and was that their initial grading when the new grading system was introduced.

The question you should have asked is “should a horse that has won only two Principal races in open company, be awarded a rating of 136?”.    

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: Fairburn
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 11/3/2019 4:24:18 PM

Blog Reply:

King,

You say “I wrote: These two STAKES races won were both Principal races at the time. However these races were upgraded to Group race status some time after."

THESE ARE THE FACTS you then went on to ask the question if “a horse that has won only 1/G1 & a lesser class G2 in open company be awarded a rating of 136?” They were not Group races but Principal graded races at the time and as you have said “the Australian Stud Book sticks with only awarding the Status of the race that the horse actually ever won.”

It is NOT a MOOT point as your mystery horse either won a Group One and Group Two or didn't win a Group One and Group Two race. eg. Todman won a Lightning Stakes which was a Principal race at the time. You have already said they were Principal races when your mystery horse won them, but now hypocritically claim them to be Group One and Group Two races.

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: theking
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 11/3/2019 2:43:39 PM

Blog Reply:

Fairburn,

I wrote: "These two STAKES races won were both Principal races at the time. However these races were upgraded to Group race status some time after."

THESE ARE FACTS Fairburn. How can you possibly criticise me for stating facts?

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: Fairburn
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 11/3/2019 2:04:41 PM

Blog Reply:

King,

“Should a horse that has won only 1/G1 & a lesser class G2 in open company be awarded a rating of 136?”

The reality is that the races you mentioned wouldn't have been graded at G1 and G2. (reality is that it wasn't introduced earlier, end of story)


Perhaps you would be better served concentrating your efforts on attempting to convince the Australian Studbook to change and mirror your opinions.

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: Fairburn
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 11/3/2019 1:47:25 PM

Blog Reply:

King,

"Your comment is a MOOT point at best."

Simply repeating what you said on another thread regarding Manikato and his wins at three years of age in three Principal races that became G1 races the following season when the current grading system was introduced. The hypocrisy you are now sprouting is galling.

“Correct me if I am wrong here but the last time I looked the Australian studbook was NOT in the ratings business!”

Never said it was, but I will repeat a couple more of your comments from that thread..

“You suggest that previous Principal races with the same name should now be acknowledged as G1 races, but the reality is that they were NOT Group One races at the time.”

and

“the Australian Stud Book sticks with only awarding the Status of the race that the horse actually ever won.”

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: theking
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 11/3/2019 10:50:22 AM

Blog Reply:

Fairburn,
Your comment is a MOOT point at best.

Correct me if I am wrong here but the last time I looked the Australian studbook was NOT in the ratings business!

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: Fairburn
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 10/3/2019 10:20:37 PM

Blog Reply:

"Should a horse that has won only 1/G1 & a lesser class G2 in open company be awarded a rating of 136?"

But surely if the races were Principal races at the time then the Australian Studbook wouldn't recognise then as G1 and G2 races.

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: theking
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 10/3/2019 9:50:34 PM

Blog Reply:

Here we have a horse rated at 136 that only ever won two STAKES races over and above competing and winning against its own age group as a 2 & 3yo.

These two STAKES races won were both Principal races at the time. However these races were upgraded to Group race status some time after.

The only two STAKES races won by this horse in open age events were:

1. 3yo & upwards 7 furlong G1

2. Open WFA 5 furlong G2

Should a horse that has won only 1/G1 & a lesser class G2 in open company be awarded a rating of 136?

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: maccamax
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 8/3/2019 9:04:33 PM

Blog Reply:

The first I heard of Ratings was when the great Cliff Carey used to preach there is 7 pounds (3Kg)
between the classes, way back in the early 1950's.

The different classes have changed at the bottom end, but the higher grades are still the same. Rate the Race accurately before and after the race and your on the way to success in the ratings game.

The Rule was, you have the right to adjust 2Kg up or down on the basic rating, for the class of the Race.

All about personal opinion, as all ratings are. Use the Don Scott style bonus for some variables and your in business next start. You become very efficient at ratings, and pricing for value, with practice.

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: West Coast
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 25/2/2019 1:42:47 AM

Blog Reply:

Khaptingly - plenty of times ratings have produced the outcome of the winner...however it doesnt happen all the time and why...because that is the nature of horse racing.

Lwt me give you an example of when ratings has produced the outcome of a race.

In 1999 Rogan Josh won the G1 MacKinnon Stakes and produced a Timeform rating of 115 for that win. He then dropped from 58kg (Mackinnon) to 50kg in the Melbourne Cup....it was a massive drop in weight...8kg in fact. So basically you had a 115 rated horse in the Melbourne Cup with only 50kg...that alone says the horse was good and the light weight was a luxury weight.

Another example was Cross Counter...he produced a rating of 123 for his 2nd placing in the G2 Voltigeur Stakes at 2400m. He went into the 201i Melbourne Cup as a 123 rated horse and had 51kg on his back...and yes he was a 3 yr old hence the weight of 51kg...but...he was a good chance of winning the Cup based off his 123 rating and weight of 123.

So there you have it..two examples where ratings can (not all the time) point things in the right direction to finding a winner.

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: tigerrish
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 7/4/2017 12:43:27 PM

Blog Reply:

Things aren't right when you have a horse rated 128 for running second in a Melb Cup run in the slowest time in 30 years. On a wet track and finishing on par with a horse that had no wet track form who was 100/1.

Yet rated below him are horses who raced continuously against better opposition, in overall better times and won consistently.

Vinnie Roe's Melbourne Cup placing was a better run class wise, time wise and ability wise than anything Octagonal ever produced?......spare me

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: West Coast
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 4/4/2017 5:49:01 PM

Blog Reply:

And why isnt Rogan Josh on the list?

In the 1999/2000 season the ANZ CLASSIFICATION had Rogan Josh at a rating of 56kg, so if this is converted to pounds then the figure is 123. Or am i missing something here?

Its also interesting because I have seen The Timeform section on this site (Racing And Sports) which gives Rogan Josh 115 - but that figure seems too low cos 115 poinds is 52kg which again seems too low.

Again can anyone assist with my query.

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: Khaptingly
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 15/1/2016 10:51:42 AM

Blog Reply:

More proof that these ratings, interpreted by humans based on performances of horses, is an inaccurate science.

Furthermore, when has a rating ever determined the outcome of a race.

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: saintly1996
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 11/1/2016 5:07:01 PM

Blog Reply:

WH's 130 rating was in the Ryder.

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: Rex
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 31/12/2015 10:06:44 PM

Blog Reply:

Todman,

I can remember Hoof It being given a 131 TFR for winning the Stewards Cup at Goodwood which made him the 3rd best sprinter in the world behind Black Caviar and Rocket Man.

I questioned this at the time and I think his subsequent record showed that someone had got a bit over excited. So I appreciate your point.

However to many people assume if a horse has a higher rating than another horse then that means the ratings are saying that horse is the superior animal. Ive had this discussion in here before. If a horses top 5 rated performances are 130, 124, 124, 122, 122 and anthers is 129, 129, 129, 128, 128 then who is the superior animal?

I haven't looked at which race WH was afforded the 130. But you would be best off asking someone in here at R&S to explain the rating. Ill think you will find a few of them know what they are talking about.

Fairburn, you haven't addressed my point re a horse being capable of running a 130 et which means I wasn't referring to you as a weekend warrior. But if you think you are then who am I to argue.

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: squid69
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 31/12/2015 10:04:08 PM

Blog Reply:

I am just glad that Northerly and Sunline are rated the same. A few years back any mention of those two horses being better than the other almost led to WWIII on the Forum!

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: Fairburn
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 31/12/2015 5:20:48 PM

Blog Reply:

I’m still at a total loss to understand how Lankan Rupee rated 132 for winning the TJ Smith in 2014 from Rebel Dane (2L), Buffering (2L) and Tiger Tees (3.5L) while Takeover Target could only rate 128 for winning the TJ Smith in 2009 from Northern Meteor (3L), Apache Cat (6L) and Nicconi (6L). Both Apache Cat and Nicconi went into the race of impressive last start G1 wins. Even Takeover Target’s time on a soft track relative to the track record was outstanding compared to the other race times posted that day and Rawiller was never anything other than just a passenger that day. Maybe Rex, our resident expert within the industry can explain that one to this weekend warrior.

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: Todman
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 31/12/2015 10:39:06 AM

Blog Reply:

Rex, I hear what you say re the Hussler, but I question the depth of his opposition. I assume his rating arose from his win in the Newmarket or the Ryder Stakes or perhaps even the Oakleigh Plate - I doubt it was from any of his wins in restricted 3 year old races.

The Hussler beat Magnus in both the open sprint races and the 3rd placegetters never rose to great heights. This leaves the Ryder Stakes where the placegetters were Racing To Win and Casino Prince.

My point is that if I analysed the depth of races won by say Northerly, then I am certain the races would measure up more than favorably to the Husslers.

I am sure you could relate to global TFE ratings that seem to be padded due to the prestige of the race. In Australia, this does not appear to be the case.

Once again, I stress that my opinion is based on quality rather than other factors such as weight carried, and margins, time and track conditions.


 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.



Author: pigracer
Subject: Re: HISTORICAL TIMEFORM RATINGS on R&S

Time: 31/12/2015 9:03:14 AM

Blog Reply:

I tend to agree Tod.I remember Heart of Dreams and Whobegotyou both rated 128 in the same season and some of the lesser rated horses would have run them ragged. I also recall that Occy,Saintly and Nothing like a Dane used to take turns to win in their 3Y/O season so should have roughly equal ratings. Makybe Diva's rating also sells her way short.

These ratings probably highlight the difficulties of rating horses from different eras and different effective distances.

Happy and prosperous New Year folks. The Pig.

 
Post a replyPost a reply to this message.


Page 2 of 2

Go to Page: 21.  Next >>

Racing and Sports now moderates the Talkback forum to ensure posting guidelines are adhered to.
The views expressed on Talkback are those of the writer and not necessarily those of Racing and Sports. You must be a registered user to write postings or send messages to other users. Click here to register.