Can these all be right?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Ron

Ron

Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator
Jan 25, 2011
51,967
19,412
113
France
Just looking at Timeform top rated horses since it was born

37 are rated 135
another 28 rated 136

That's 65 rated within 1 lb of each other.

Now, if all those were able to line up in a race, what's the betting there would be at least 20l between first and last?

Before anyone asks "You're point being?"

**** knows but it is a ponderable.
 
You've hit the nail on the head Ron, very few if any horses can perform anywhere near their optimum every time they step out. No animal can. How often has Usain Bolt run 9:58? And when you factor in that each horse has it's own strengths and weaknesses, the result of any given race can become hard to hard to get a handle on. Just a week or so ago, a Group race over 12 furlongs was run at a terrible tempo. They went the first half mile in 58 plus which made the race a lottery. For mine, Timeform has too many holes in it to deserve the credit it trades on. Rant over. :)
 
A bit unfair. They may not be as good as they were at the time of Phil Bull and Reg Griffin but they provide a considered measure. If a horse runs a 140 performance it doesn't get that type of rating, it has to prove its level of performance is at or about the level nearly all the time. Sea Bird's were, as were Mill Reef's and Brigadier Gerard's.
When you consider how many horses have been rated over 50+ years by Timeform (I guess somewhere near a 100,000) You could find it surprising that only 28 are rated as being able to get to the level of 136. That's about 0.03%. But then their abilities must be normally distributed around something like 90 and it's quite a few standard deviations from the mean, so perhaps not so surprising.
 
Actually I could have responded differently Ron. Remembering the Bill Shankly quote when told Tony Currie was as good as Tom Finney he replied 'yes but Tom Finney's 70 now'.
The difference in ages between some of the 28 who got 136 would be so enormous that it might be 2 furlongs and not 20 lengths.
 
Cannot improve at all on Bustino's educated comments above, but here are my uneducated views, or rant if you like:

Damn it, the whole point is the ratings are a guide when starting to study a race, and a good guide too. To bellyache about Timeform ratings having holes in them is, I'm sorry, just a bellyache. One has to read the associated comments on the animal as well, for goodness sake. Don't use Timeform any more as too expensive for me to use continually nowadays, but there were so many things to ponder and study before we were submerged in crap synthetic track donkeys and obscure NH participants (spoken like a true loser <laugh> ). If the basic conditions are good for a horse (distance, track, weight, etc,), and, on the day of the race, the variables (going, etc.) are also OK, then add a pound or so accordingly. If, not, and things are not exactly right, then deduct a point or two.

It's mostly up to the reader, which, in the old days anyway, is all Timeform ever asked. To moan that Timeform ratings are basically inaccurate is nonsense.

Rare rant over.........<peacedove>
 
Whoops.

It's simply a ponderable.

Don't get me wrong. I've been a Timeform follower since about 1962. They aren't as good as they used to be in weighing up a race (Phil Bull used to reside over them and was an absolute master) but still the only race card I would bother with when going to the races.

I think with sectional timing they could well re-emerge as the force they once were. We will have to see.

http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/timeform-features/simon-rowlands-how-to-use-sectional-times-for-profitable-betting-160412.html
 
Ron, yes I agree, Timeform are not as good as they used to be, but there are some pretty valid reasons for this. Did not intend to upset, but get a bit fed-up when Timeform ratings are taken as the be-all and end-all, which since its inception in 1948, was never intended. In the UK and Ireland, France too probably, I believe sectional timing would have to apply to each individual track only to be of much use, due to the huge differences in course layouts, and the RH/LH factors, etc.? Sectional timing has a much broader significance in North America with their standard oval tracks? Although, the surfaces are starting to vary now over there, which will make a heck of a difference of course.

Lived the other side of the pond for nearly 8-years once upon a time, and I always paid attention to the time experts; paid off too sometimes! Weight was almost insignificant, compared with how important it is over here.
 
What are the tracks like in Australia and do they have sectional timing. Timeform could become big over there. They obviously have intentions.

Just a thought though. Something that often happens with a takeover is that the best people decide to up and go and start off on their own. Or did Betfair make sure they kept the best, or even take it lock stock and barrel. If the latter the weeding out happens a bit later, as does people being disenchanted with their new owners. Was there any of that as a result of the Betfair take-over and, if so, who and where did they go?
 
Most tracks on Australia are pretty much flat, so the times tend to look pretty smart. Sectionals are part and parcel of racing here. As for the track conditions, they look to be a fair bit quicker here too. That of course has little to do with the way the tracks are laid out, but more to do with the climate. All of this lends itself to breeding fast, short course horses. Most courses are around 2000m, give or take, and have a home straight of around 400m. As probably 6 races on an 8 race card are over 1400m or less, racing tends to be be a little hectic. Everyone loves an inside alley. They just want to ping the start, sit close, hold position as the pace kicks in from the 600, then let loose on straightening. And they usually have to be bloody quick to make a buck in town.

As for my Timeform rant, most of it is tongue in cheek. But I do have to draw the line when a pound or two is reckoned to be a factor in a race. I suppose one of the main reasons for my reluctance in embracing the Timeform format, is my stuck in the mud ideas about how we went about finding winners in the past. Alley, weight, rider, pace, track condition, course form, track work in the last few days before the race, betting in the last 5 minutes etc. Those brought up on TF have every right to trust it, and I wish them well. Now where's me dart? :)
 
All those things Cyc. Timeform does stress that ratings can not be taken in isolation. In fact the Timeform selection is often not the top rated. A few pounds here or there means nothing in a race where one had the run and the other didn't, one was race fit, the other one is being aimed at another race, stables in form etc etc. There are numerous factors that are more significant than a couple of pounds (in particular information known only to insiders) and if we could be armed with those and Timeform I would feel a lot more confident about betting.
 
Cyc: Please let me know when you throw in a tongue-in-cheek rant, 'cos I'm really gullible! No, it was all meant to help the ordinary racegoer when it all started, and in this Timeform succeeded. Nowadays, it all looks too bloody much sometimes?

Got to go, got a tricky eye operation tomorrow as lens I got put in 5-years ago has come unstuck (probably looking at pictures of Ron's French nurses too much) so that's why I am tipping so many losers, 'cos my eyes are not focusing on the winner. Well, that's my story anyway. <whistle>

See you all (hopefully <laugh>) in a few days.
 
Jongleur said:
Cyc: Please let me know when you throw in a tongue-in-cheek rant, 'cos I'm really gullible! No, it was all meant to help the ordinary racegoer when it all started, and in this Timeform succeeded. Nowadays, it all looks too bloody much sometimes?

Got to go, got a tricky eye operation tomorrow as lens I got put in 5-years ago has come unstuck (probably looking at pictures of Ron's French nurses too much) so that's why I am tipping so many losers, 'cos my eyes are not focusing on the winner. Well, that's my story anyway. <whistle>

See you all (hopefully <laugh>) in a few days.
Click to expand...

Sorry about the "rant" Swanny. <laugh> Hope all goes well with the eye op. I had interocular lenses put in about 20 years ago and they are still in great nick. When they went in, I asked if I'd have to come back every so often to get them replaced or something. I was told I'd have them for life. They are bloody brilliant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back