Another way of looking at Timeform Ratings

Don’t why this has only just occurred to me, having been a Timeform customer for longer than I care to admit.

Take for example the 4.20 BetVictor GRAND NATIONAL NON-RUNNER FREE BET HANDICAP HURDLE (3) 2m

Here are the weight adjusted ratings, with unadjusted (Master) hurdling ratings in brackets.

THE TRACEY SHUFFLE 11-12 Tom Scudamore 142 (133)
SIMPLY NED (IRE) 11-06 Fearghal Davis 141 (126)
ROCKAWANGO (FR) 11-05 Brian Hughes 137 (121)
LADY BLUESKY 11-03 Ewan Whillans (3) 139 (121)
STAR OF ARAGON (IRE) 11-02 D. J. Casey 140 (121)
EMBSAY CRAG 10-05 Richie McGrath 140 (110)

Just to illustrate, take the top and bottom weights

In terms of ability EMBSAY CRAG is rated 23lb inferior to THE TRACEY SHUFFLE

The weight adjusted ratings show them just 2lbs apart.

So we are saying that the additional 21lb weight (attributable to Tom Scudamore and any dead weight) will bring them almost together.

However, an extra 21lb may seem like nothing to some horses and like 3 stone to another, depending on how they are built. Also if the 21lb is all in the jockey, that is likely to be significantly more favourable than if the 21lb was dead weight.

So I am suggesting that by noting which horses are natural weight carriers and which aren't and also taking note of the jockey's best riding weight and how much of the allotted weight is dead weight, we may come up with a completely revised set of ratings.

Obviously this would involve a lot of research but I reckon it could unearth a few good priced winners.

Maybe the professionals on here already do this, in which case apologies to them.

 

Timeform also give you an opinion on how the horse is built in their publications. You are right that horses carry weight and some don't do it aswell.

 

I've long been a believer in the dead weight theory Ron. Twenty pounds of lead as against a human who can position his/her own weight, has to be an advantage. But just how big an advantage is the question. For decades I've wondered about the addition of ten pounds to a five hundred and fifty pound horse. Sometimes I get the feeling that has to be next to nothing, but time and again I see a horse's performance pulled up by what seems the extra burden. I keep telling myself that it doesn't make sense, it just seems to defy logic.

In addition to the possible effect lead or a difference in weight might have on the outcome, I've long thought that the animal is really very inconsistent when it comes down to racetrack performance. I know that heaps of people bank on the belief that the horse will run a similar time week in, week out, against the clock, if the conditions are the same. Same track, going, weight etc. This to me doesn't make sense either. As I'm no horseman, I can only try back up my opinions with what to me is common sense. (Which of course runs the risk of being a load of bullshit.) Being an animal, the horse must for one reason or another, be prone to failure or a certain lessening of capabilities, as are all beings. So how often does a horse run close to it's potential? For mine, seldom. This leaves the reader with the option of asking, "How can that claim be verified?" Well, as mentioned above, an animal is an animal. And as I'm an animal myself, the best way for me to illustrate my point, is to use what I believe to be truth in the human being, to hopefully get my point across. And possibly the best way to do that, is to use the efforts top class athletes as a guide.

I'm an old bastard. I've been on this planet for some sixty odd Summers, and for about fifty of those years, I've been a avid athletics fan. It might have had something to do with my Granny telling us the the greatest miler of all time, Herb Elliot, was a cousin of hers. Dear uncle Herb. Not long after uncle Herb was admitted into my immediate family, the legendary Abebe Bikila burst onto the Olympic scene in the early 60s. I've been smitten ever since. Over that period of time I've noticed that during an athlete's career, they have the devil's own job getting close to there optimum time. Once they've reached their peak and posted a PB in the prime of their careers, it becomes a never ending battle to even get close to again again. There are of course freaks like Bolt who come along once in a blue moon, but will he ever again go really close to the world record? But Bolt is a Frankel, he is the exception to the rule. How many times have we watched runners lining up at the start and listened to their seasonal and personal PB, and wondered why they can't get close to their best time anymore. They tend to target a race and hope to peak, but they seldom do. They usually walk off the track with an unsatisfactory run behind them. If these crack athletes can't find a reasonable consistency, for a single run, after an in depth training schedule, how can we expect another animal to come close to his/her optimum effort each and every time it steps out? Over an extended trip, say three miles, I firmly believe that a horse's times can't be guaranteed. Not even close.

 

Following your theme Cyc, I think if I was carrying extra weight, it would seem to get heavier the further I carried it. I wonder if there is anything in that. Or whether the weight makes more difference in different ground?.

 

A thought on your inconsistency point Cyc. Firstly, how do we know when a horse has reached its prime. One can see from the ratings going into race that there is a range of ratings covering each horse's previous runs.

I would suggest that we look at the trend of ratings on the forecast going and the distance of the race. If this shows and upward trend the question is will it continue upwards, plateau or drop. Maybe, to be on the safe side we take its second highest rating. If the ratings indicate inconsistency we should look to see if there is any consistency over similar tracks and discount those ratings achieved on "unsuitable" tracks.

We just then need to consider if any of the horses cab be confidently expected to improve for the change in trip and we are getting close to finding a few certs.

please log in to view this image

 

So if we add in the few normal summers we've had........

 

A Summer is a Summer is a Summer......

Another point on a horse's inconsistencies Ron, concerns the way in which a more seasoned galloper appears to lose interest in competing at it's best. It's as though it's thinking. "Bugger this for a joke, I've done this before so I'll just run with the pack." I've noticed that some horses often run a great race, even over an inappropriate distance, (usually a shorter trip) when they are still fresh between the ears, because of the lack of racing due to spelling. This exuberance they feel seems short lived. It usually only lasts two or three runs before the rot sets in. Maybe this is one of the reasons some pro punters stick to two year olds during certain months, when it comes to serious punting. As stated, I'm no horseman, I can only go on what I've seen and read, and some of the reading has taken in herd mentality. This in itself seems a huge issue. From what I've read, there seems to be a strict pecking order when it comes to herd politics. Geez, it's all getting too deep for me Ron.

 

I think this is an interesting thread and you've covered most of the points.
I think that some horses can carry big weights and others can't is borne out by the fact that some group horses when dropped into handicaps and so carrying big weights don't live up to their ratings. A monster like Denman had no problem.
I think that going has a big effect as on firmer than good ground form tends to be more likely to stand up, and I was always told on firm ground back the top weights. Also you don't see a field strung out on firm ground in the same way as you do with heavy ground.
But I don't think a horse knows if it's got an 11st Tom Scudamore on them or a 10st Scudamore plus 14lb of lead. They wouldn't know the difference would they?

 

.


I can't say whether a horse can know the difference between an 11 stone rider and a 10 stoner with 14 pounds in lead Bustino, but I think it's probably possible. The rider gets the chance to be balanced in the saddle, while the lead sits in the saddle pad as a dead weight. That should make it easier to pick a winner.

 

I can't see it Cyc. Anything over body weight is dead-weight but I can't see how the horse can tell the difference. The jockey might feel it and it might be better to have a 'big' jockey to control a big horse but why should it feel different in terms of weight carrying. Willie Carson rode enough winners in handicaps carrying big weights and you wouldn't be put off having him on a horse but he was only about 7 and a half stone. It's hardly as if the weight sloshes around.

 

This is one of the advantages of producing your own handicap ratings. You can make the weight adjustments that you feel are appropriate for each horse. A simply way of doing this (without large amounts of research into the weight bearing capabilities of each horse) would be to assume that the weight of the horse itself determines how well it can carry additional weight. If you consider that an average horse weighs 1000 lbs and the normal range in weights is 900 - 1100 lbs, and you make the assumption that the 1100 lbs horse carries weight 20% more easily than the 900 lb horse then you can derive an equation to adjust the weight you factor into the ratings. In this case it would be, (weight of horse)*0.001 = weight adjustment factor.

So in this race
THE TRACEY SHUFFLE 11-12 Tom Scudamore 142 (133)
EMBSAY CRAG 10-05 Richie McGrath 140 (110)

if tracey shuffle weighed 1050 lbs and Embsay Crag weighed 950 lbs
calculate the weight adjustment factor for both horses, TS = 1.05, EC = 0.95
TS is carrying 166 lbs, EC carrying 145 lbs. Divide this number by the weight adjustment factor, gives adjusted weights of TS = 158, EC = 153

Then the timeform weight adjusted ratings would be TS = 150 and EC = 132, putting Tracey Shuffle 18 points clear due to his better weight carrying ability.

 

That's interesting NA. Not a very good race for us to illustrate the point. Maybe some of the other factors would have dismissed Tracey Shuffle

 

I was only guessing at the weights of the horses. Does anybody know if and where this information is available before the race?

 

I might have it back the front here Bustino, but I've always thought that the the weight is not on the rider, it's in the saddle pad on the horses's back.

 

You are right Cyc it is in the sadle. But what difference does that make? I know flat jockeys who have to do a couple of pound above their body-weight prefer the difference to be lightly greater so that they can ride on a decent sized saddle. Some saddles are little more than a strip of leather.
But this discussion reminds me of the Afghan joke where the children shout at the old man and ask why he's got heavy packages on his back and not in saddle bags. He shouts back dismissively that the horse is doing enough carrying just him so he wanted to help out.

 

Nice joke Bustino. Irrespective of where the weight is carried, you make a solid point. Does a stone make as much difference to a 550 pound animal as some think? Who knows. Personally, I believe that what's happening between the horse's ears plays a bigger role. But I've been losing on horses all my life. That should tell you a lot.

 

Will just repeat that Phil Bull, the founder of Timeform, would have nothing to do with rating National Hunt horses, far too many imponderables, etc. It was others in his management team who started rating jumpers (mid-sixties? I've forgotten). Bull was phenomenally successful between the 1940s and 1960s in his accurate ratings of flat racehorses. As Nassau pointed out, Timeform has always done much more than just give a rating, much more. Used to be a hell of a bargain, no idea nowadays though.

 

Agreed, it was much better when Phil Bull was head of the table. One can see why he kept away from NH.