As I know next to nothing about the Timeform ratings, I though someone here might be able to throw some light on a rating of 136 for a filly or mare. A lot is being made of the rating in the Australian press. According to what's been written where, only Habibti, Allez France and Black Caviar have reached this mark. Is it true that a female has never risen above 136?
I think she is the highest rated filly/mare they have ever had. Ron appears to be the resident Timeform expert so perhaps he can explain more.
Wonder if you could ring in a female as a male? Of course an operation or two would have to be undertaken. I seem to recall some famous Olympic woman being outed in old age as a man.
Any male with a rating that high would probably be more value as a stallion. A 133 colt dressed as a female receiving the sex allowance would be the equivalent of a 136 colt.
Ahh, but what if he was gelded as a youngster, before they knew he was a decent horse? So they make him into a female, then after he/she becomes a 136 female, they secretly perform a dodgy pregnancy. One of those ugly things that some bloke in the USA did. Then they sell the foals for a couple of million each. Easy.
Always thought Timeform were a wee bit stingy with some distaff ratings, e.g. Zarkava (prov. rating was 133, can't remember her final figure), Dahlia, Pebbles (both 135) and Petite Etoile and All Along (134). As Cyc said, Allez France (1974) and Habibti (1983) were the two rated 136, and now Black Caviar. Surely, for example, Petite Etoile was quite as good as the first two? Maybe not, hard to say of course, but makes one wonder.
I've always had the feeling that fillies G1 events are concidered as a step below the colts when it comes to prestige. Sex discrimination in the horse world.
Timeform try to be objective and, as indicated by the name, time is a significant factor in that if a horse can get from A to B in a certain time (taking account, as much as possible, of all positive and negative factors) then that horse has proved beyond all doubt that it can get from A to B in that time. And generally there are other races to compare with, particularly on the same day at the same course. Other horse haven't got from A to B in that time, some because they haven't needed to; some because they can't. When there is enough form, it is probably relatively easy to identify those that can't. The problem is the ones that haven't because they haven't needed to. Just how much faster could they go if pushed? I imagine Timeform try to assess this by the ease of their victories. However, winning easily in a slow time does not mean they could go any faster over the full distance (eg if the race was run at a faster pace from outset that horse could be struggling and actually return a slower time than when it won easily). It isn't an exact science which, by definition, leaves room for an element of subjectivity. When comparing horses of different generations the element of subjectivity becomes even greater. Hence there will always be disagreements about ratings. You only have to look at Timeform ratings for major races (ie where one could be excused for thinking all have been trained for the race and will be trying), and then look at the results, to appreciate that Timeform ratings are far from infallible; and that's just across a single generation.
Ron: Very interesting comments. As you well know, when Phil Bull started it all late '40s, it was intended to help and advise ordinary racegoers, i.e. the majority. He always used to thrust home, let our ratings and comments be a guide for you. There is still plenty of work for the reader to do, but here's a start. He made the study of form so much more interesting for most of us. Have to say it was a lot more manageable then due to there being far fewer racehorses in training. Nowadays, even with computers, it's damn difficult for people like Timeform. I mean, how in hell does one rate many of these inconsistent donkeys who roam around the synthetic tracks? Difficult, to say the least. Erm, must be honest, used to think old Phil was bloody near infallible, sometimes.
