Frankel: Queen Anne winner is Timeform's highest-rated horse in history on 147
Frankel’s stunning Queen Anne Stakes win is emphatically one in which the heart and head can provide the same answer: “Yes. Oh, yes indeed!”
The unbeaten Frankel increased his Timeform rating to an unparalleled 147 with a scintillating victory in the Queen Anne Stakes on day one of Royal Ascot 2012. Simon Rowlands explains the historical significance and some of the processes involved.
Frankel's performance in winning the Queen Anne Stakes on the opening day of Royal Ascot 2012 by 11 lengths rightly had the scribes reaching for superlatives. As racing fans, we can all take a few moments out to appreciate such a display, instinctively, for what it was: equine magnificence.
Yet, when the dust has settled, Frankel will be judged by history not just for the emotions he provoked and for the memories he gave us, but for his achievements in cold, hard terms.
How, then, do those achievements stack up, in clinical, rather than in visceral, terms?
Timeform was founded in 1948 by Phil Bull, a man who prided himself in dispassionate analysis. That mindset has informed every person who has worked at the company since.
Recent generations have been acutely aware of the legacy of Bull's philosophy, and of the defining horses and performances over what is more than 60 years now.
On the Flat, Sea-Bird (born in 1962, rated 145), Brigadier Gerard (born in 1968, rated 144) and Tudor Minstrel (born in 1944, rated 144) have towered over those who have come since. Until Frankel came along, no horse had breached the 140 rating barrier since the 1970s.
So, it was not done lightly when Frankel was rated 143 at the end of his three-year-old career. And it is not done lightly now that he, on 147, is rated higher than any horse in Timeform's history.
Frankel's 147 rating is not simply a response to just one remarkable performance, either. It might have been plausible to have rated him that highly on his facile win in the Lockinge Stakes at Newbury in May as well, but caution was exercised given the race's position early in the season.
Frankel has now won 11 races out of 11, the last six of them Group 1s by a combined winning margin of 31 and three-quarter lengths. That is an astonishing record even when judged against the greats of yesteryear.
Frankel may have taken his form to a different level at Royal Ascot on Tuesday, but it was not as if the effort came out of the blue, in other words.
An explanation of the mechanics of Timeform's assessment of this year's Queen Anne Stakes is, of course, required.
One important factor is the poundage for distance beaten in use. Margins between horses have, since 1997, been conversions of the time lapses between those horses at the finish. These conversions are made by the racecourse Judge on a fixed scale according to the official going.
It is, therefore, necessary first to come up with a pounds per second figure, into which the lengths per second allowance is divided, in order to come up with pounds per length.
The official conversion in use for the first two races at Royal Ascot on Tuesday was 5.5, in accordance with the official description of the going as "good to soft". Later races were calculated at 6 lengths per second, in line with an overdue change in the going to "good".
It follows that Frankel's 11 lengths winning margin was equivalent, more or less, to 2 seconds. If his race had taken place later on the card, that winning margin would have been returned as 12 lengths instead.
It is also folly to treat poundage allowances the same for a given race distance irrespective of the time of the race. Frankel ran the straight mile in 1 min 37.85 sec - not far off a course record - and it follows that each unit time converted into a length will have been greater than in a race run more slowly.
Both of these factors correctly give rise to a pounds-per-length allowance that is higher than under conventional circumstances.
Also, and very much to the point, Timeform categorically does not favour the dubious convention of rating races "around" cherry-picked horses. As we have explained often before, such "yardstick" handicapping is unscientific and far too subjective.
Instead, a race is tackled statistically according to historical measures (race standards) and information about the achievements of the individual runners themselves (prior-rating standards).
Both of these tried-and-trusted measures place Frankel's Queen Anne win well into the 140s on the Timeform scale. Race standards could justify the figure being as high as 148, prior-rating standards make it a few pounds less.
"Dispassionate analysis" points to a figure in the mid- to high-140s, in other words.
Frankel's 147 rating actually has his old foe Excelebration running a good few lengths below his previous form. It has the third and fourth, Side Glance and Indomito, within 2 lb of their previous form. And it has every other horse that contested the race below its best by between 4 and 34 lb.
We will leave it to others to explain the reasoning behind their own assessments. But it should be pointed out that the BHA - which works with a lower and rigid poundage allowance, and which favours yardstick handicapping - operates at a level that is, at least now, several pounds below Timeform's.
There have been plenty of performances over the decades since 1948 in which the heart has said "yes" but the head has said "no". This is not one of them.
Frankel's stunning Queen Anne Stakes win is emphatically one in which the heart and head can provide the same answer: "Yes. Oh, yes indeed!"
.......
Get unsurpassed levels of analysis & stats for Royal Ascot with Timeform Race Passes. Find Out More.
Sport News 24/7
Comments (24)
Drew | 20 June 2012
"Timeform categorically does not favour the dubious convention of rating races "around" cherry-picked horses."
Yet Timeform is happy to rate Black Caviar who DOES NOT run with a PACE maker and actually runs around corners, a much harder ride.
Oh and let's not forget the fact that Black Caviar is pretty much never even shaken up.
What a load.
Steve Lines | 20 June 2012
Glad you've justified the rating as the media had intimated Timeform were itching to top rate the horse whatever! One of those 'I was there moments'. Couple of observations a)"operates at a level that is, at least now, several pounds below Timeform's." This would imply your ratings have risen over time - so modern day ratings would consequentially be higher b)have the older ratings, Brigadier and Sea Bird, attempted to be calculated, where possible, in the same manner has yesterday's race or are the ratings as calculated at the time? Thanks.
Jonathan da Silva | 20 June 2012
"It has the third and fourth, Side Glance and Indomito, within 2 lb of their previous form."
Is that above?
It's a real shame there may be no sectionals as the 4F to 7F given a quoted almost plodding 14.1 final furlong must be ridiculous and leads into a couple of other things:-
1) Why a Miler can likely run 7F without a change in training regime nor sending him temperamentally wild.
2) How a slow final furlong can mean nothing with regard to the ability to stay further.
Steve A | 20 June 2012
Sectionals as follows:
15.11
11.79
11.96
12.10
11.26
10.58
11.04
14.01 last furlong
Antony | 20 June 2012
Where did you get the sectionals. They are not published on TurfTrax or the BCseries website, and TurfTrax are not replying to inquiries.
Simon Rowlands | 20 June 2012
Sorry for the delay in replying, and thank you for your comments. I will deal with them each in turn.
Drew. That is a crazy non sequitur between paragraphs 1 and 2: I am not quite sure I understand the point you are trying to make. Moving on, yes, Timeform is happy to rate Black Caviar, and very many other horses (good and bad) around the world, because it has robust processes in place that reduce the degree of subjectivity that compromises other approaches. All those elements you mention are taken into account, and, where Australian racing is concerned, they are taken into account by Timeform Australia's Gary Crispe. Gary lives in Australia and is a man with decades of experience of Australian racing. Oddly enough, Black Caviar was not even mentioned in the original blog post.
Steve. The accusation that Timeform “grandstands” in any way in producing its ratings is categorically wrong and quite likely betrays a lack of understanding of the subject matter by those who make it. Timeform has robust rules and processes in place to deal with such eventualities. It does not need to make up things on the spur of the moment. And it does not need to ring round friends or hope that the “correct” answer comes to it in a dream, either. Where your points a) and b) are concerned, Timeform has taken great care to normalise its ratings from the moment it existed, so that they are comparable over time. The same could not be said of the Jockey Club/BHB/BHA. Indeed, the last-named has publicly conceded that its current ratings are lower than those from a decade or two back. The problem is theirs, not ours.
Jon. Side Glance is 2 lb below, Indomito 2 lb above. Both are below the average level of horses filling their positions in older horse Group 1s in the UK. Given the unfortunate technical difficulties TurfTrax appear to have encountered gathering sectionals at Royal Ascot, I am going to hold fire on discussing the few figures that have come out. On your other point, horses like Frankel come along once in a lifetime and are so gifted that they make fools of many of us at some point. This training regime business undoubtedly has substance with most horses. The suspicion is that Frankel could win top-class races at all manner of distances, simply through being so good.
Steve A and Antony. I, too, would like to know where you got those sectionals and whether they can be trusted. One of the problems with sectionals is that it is very difficult to validate them independently, and yet validation is needed in order to trust them in the first place.
Simon
eamon mullarkey | 20 June 2012
I think Frankel probably is the greatest flat racehorse of all time!
However,I have the following observations:
He has never run outside his home country, unlike Sea The Stars.
He has not yet run over 1 mile 2 furlongs or 1 mile 4 furlongs, unlike Nijinsky, Dancing Brave, etc.
He has not yet beaten horses like Camelot, So You Think, St Nicholas Abbey, etc.
Has Sir Henry Cecil considered the possibility of running Frankel in the Arc in Paris this coming October?
I think his sheer class would help him overcome the longer distance and he would definitely win.I am also convinced he would have won last year's Epsom Derby if he had been allowed to run.
Frankel's win in yesterday's Queen Anne Stakes was awesome!
I hope by the end of this flat race season that he will have proved beyond any doubt that Timeform were correct in giving him a rating of 147.
I hope that the great Frankel will be universally recognised as the greatest flat race horse of all time!!!
Paul | 21 June 2012
Frankel is a wonder horse. But I would maintain Brigadier Gerard is his superior. He was best at a mile, but was still able to win the KGVI over 12f.
We could envisage a horse having a vector of ratings over different distances, and take an average over those to elucidate the "true" all-time great. I'd imagine the Brigadier would come out ahead on that score.
Simon Rowlands | 21 June 2012
Thank you both. I think you both make good points.
Some of this comes back to the age-old argument of “what defines greatness in a horse?” At Timeform, we have long been at pains to point out that a horse’s master rating is just one element of answering that question, albeit a very important element. A master rating defines the best form a horse is considered to be capable of at present or in a defined period of time. It does not specifically allow for consistency, durability or versatility. Such things may better be gauged by reference to a horse’s individual performance ratings through its career.
For instance, the number of times some of the best horses of recent years have run to 130 or more on Timeform ratings are as follows: Harbinger 1; Dubai Millennium 3; Sea The Stars 4; Frankel 7; Black Caviar 8. The range of distances at which those horses recorded those 130+ efforts is as follows: Harbinger 12f; Dubai Millennium 8f-10f; Sea The Stars 10f-12f; Frankel 7f-8f; Black Caviar 5f-7f. The number of years in which those horses have posted 130+ ratings are as follows: Harbinger 1; Dubai Millennium 2; Sea The Stars 1; Frankel 3; Black Caviar 2.
Timeform could try to define what “greatness” means by reference to such criteria, but we have so far preferred to leave that to the others. Greatness is, to a large extent, in the eye of the beholder.
What Timeform does feel very justified in commenting on is the level of performance by which individual efforts are measured.
Simon
Chris | 21 June 2012
Are you able to make any comment on what Secretariat's peak rating would be? His Belmont win is rightly put forward (mainly by Americans) as the best track performance ever. And Phar Lap too?
Simon Rowlands | 21 June 2012
Hi Chris.
Not in terms of an official Timeform rating, but my own brief research suggested that Secretariat could well have been rated in the low-150s.
That would be no more than a rough guideline, though, as I would need to look at the horse's performances in more detail to be definite.
Sorry to say that Phar Lap was well before Timeform's time, let alone mine, and that fact would make it all but impossible to come up with a meaningful rating for the horse.
Simon
Michael Arter | 23 June 2012
What a joke the 147 rating was - now revised to 140. Any please explains?? So looking forward to the worlds best Black Caviar running today!!!
Steve A | 23 June 2012
The sectionals were broadcast by BBC TV during their live coverage. I have no clue as to where they came from originally.
Simon Rowlands | 23 June 2012
Michael. You are misinformed, both on here and on Twitter. Timeform rate Frankel 147. There is not any question of that. Thank you for your invaluable contributions.
Simon
Bryanm | 23 June 2012
Simon,
I have been following racing for a very long time, and I think that Frankel is certainly one of the best horses I have ever seen. However, I find your reasoning for a 147 rating unconvincing in several respects.
Whilst I can buy the 11 lengths / 12 lengths argument, the fact that the time was fast can scarcely be relevant in suggesting a greater figure to convert seconds to lengths, since in that context the difference between a 'fast' and a 'slow' time is a couple of percentage points, i.e. 6.1 lengths per second rather than six. Furthermore, in a fast run race the horses are more likely to finish further apart than in a slow run one, from pure exhaustion, so I am not convinced that any such allowance for varying the calculated winning distance with the time of the race is valid.
The more fundamental point is the one you make about Timeform's methodology. You say that one part of this is to rate races around previous ratings of other runners. This sounds very like looking at some of these for benchmarks, a practice you condemn. I am not clear of the difference betwen the two.
You then state that you look at ratings of previous runnings of the same race. Surely this implies that you are rating a winner of a race against horses from previous years that didn't even run in the race. How is this more accurate than considering the ones that did? Races must vary in competitiveness from year to year, especially when one contestant might tend to frighten others away?
Finally, a supporting claim for Frankel's rating is that you rated Excelebration several pounds below his best. Of course you did, because at his best Excelebration woould have beaten Side Glance easily, not just hung on for second place. Like others who have taken on Frankel 'head to head' he was 'burst' by the effort, a testament to Frankel's greatness but not evidence of a 'super-high' rating.
I presume that in rating any race you are looking for a 'best fit' to all of the available information. This must include winning distances, apparent ease of victory, the way the race was run, ratings of other horses in the race (and the likelihood that some have improved or run below their ratings)as well as previous levels for the race.
Because we never have enough information to determine this best fit by statistical analysis, a degree of judgement is inevitable in determining the most likely fit.
My judgement is that beating Side Glance by 12 lengths cannot be a superior performance to beating Diatome by 11 lengths, as Sea-Bird did in the 1965 Arc. I would rate Frankel's performance as being at best 142, as the Racing Post did.
Maybe later Frankel will turn out to be as good as your 147 rating (I actually hope so, for one always lives in hope of seeing equine perfection), but the 2012 Queen Anne S can surely not represent a better performance than was seen in the 1965 Arc.
Simon Rowlands | 24 June 2012
Bryanm.
Many thanks for your intelligent and clear remarks. One problem of writing a blog like this is that it is not possible, without writing reams, to refer to all the relevant material. In this instance, that material has been covered in these pages several times previously. I would refer you to past articles on race standardisation, time analysis (which, necessarily, includes discussion of pounds/second and pounds/length) and others.
Regarding specific poundage allowances, a horse running at, say, 12 sec per furlong is running at a speed 13/12 of a horse that is running at 13 sec per furlong. It follows that it is covering a physical distance 13/12 of that of its slower rival for the same time unit, over and above other the considerations referred to above. A "length" in such circumstances is greater, in physical terms, at the faster speed than the slower.
Slowly run races give rise to results in which not only the margins between the horses may be unrepresentative but the actual positions of those horses may be "false". Any poundage allowance that is inflated for slowly run races will magnify the flaws in the result of that race and not just the rating of the winner. That is one of a number of reasons why we promote the form of truly run races over falsely run races.
Past discussions of race standards on these pages mention that race standards not only give a figure for a race - after times, margins, field sizes etc have been allowed for - but give an indication of the degree of variance likely. Some races vary greatly from year to year, so that confidence levels are low based on race standards. Some races vary much less. Most Group races, including this one, fall into the latter category.
Assessment by prior-rating standards uses the form achievements of ALL the principals in coming up with a figure that may (as in this instance) have none of the runners performing to precisely the figure they had on them going into the race. This is, scientifically, a far better approach than assuming one horse has run to form and basing the entire assessment of a race around this dubious premise. The latter suffers from what is known as "extrapolation error" and its subjectivity and wildly varying possible results are easily illustrated.
Apologies, but I am away from my computer at present (having been at Royal Ascot on Saturday) so must leave it there. I will try to return to this later, as I feel you have raised some very pertinent points in the above.
Simon
Roger Bardoville | 30 June 2012
The commentators voice cracked as he cried ' Brilliant Performance'.
Queen Anne Stakes Royal Ascot Tues 19th June 12
I knew he, Frankel, was running but I was working and I dare not lose focus at work, I had planned to go home and go online and pay 25p for replays on Racing Post. At about 2:35 I decided to have my lunch, I wondered if they were under way, I was at work and my work load was about to increase by 40% tomorrow and so I had to prepare. An hour went pass and I was going through different scenarios in my mind, I couldn't contemplate defeat so impressive was he in the lockinge; take a look at that race, I have many, many times and it is evident why Sir Henry is reticent about stepping him up; Frankel is still not as settled in his races as Sir Henry would like, he was also a bit too keen for my liking in that Newmarket Guineas day gallop behind Bullet Train and Jet Away, but at a mile he appeared invincible. I could wait no longer; opening the browser on my computer I punched Frankel Queen Anne into Google and up came a number of pre race headlines, a little frustrated I punched in Frankel wins Queen Anne and would you believe up popped Canford Cliff, but there it was, there it was; the result , he had won. I clicked on the 1st of a few links but didn't get the info I wanted the most; how did he win? I was thinking big lengths, at least 7-8 between him and poor Excelebration. Early reports say he wins by 11 lengths................... on the bridle. What? my pulse quickened. Wow !!!!!!!!!! I was content to wait till I got home to watch the video, couldn't watch on line; racing blocked at my job. Got home late evening and straight on the PC. It was strange because I had butterflies even though I knew the result, I was disappointed with the BBC coverage; throughout most of the early part of the race we couldn't see that magnificent stride as a combination of poor camera angle and Frankel tracking in a pocket behind the pace making Bullet Train and sandwiched between the Australian import Helmet and arch rival Excelebration. Entering the final 3 furlongs Frankel is angled out of the sandwich, by literally muscling Excelebration out the way and he quickly takes command, the camera angle is now better and head on giving a lovely panoramic view of the Ascot straight and of the rest of the field rowing away, everything else off the bridal bar the big two. At the two marker O'brien's elbows are at right angles pumping for all he's worth and then Queally presses the detonator; at first mainly because of the now head to side camera view, its not clear if he responded in the same fashion he did in the Sussex it was only as he approached and the camera zoomed in did we see Frankel quicken and really lengthen away from Excelebration, it was all so effortless I remember a great phrase I read from Alistair Down saying Frankel almost lazily hit top gear in the Sussex; its the way he quickens. He's different than any other horse. Comparing Frankel with the likes of Dancing Brave are pointless. When Sir Henry told Prince Khaled Abdullah that Frankel was the best horse the Prince had ever had before the horse had stepped a foot on a racetrack, he surely couldn't mean Dancing Brave, not to mention Zafonic and Warning, all who had proved their greatness on a racetrack and in Dancing Brave the highest rated horse since the British Handicapping system was brought in; he did. What Sir Henry saw in this horse was potential, unlimited potential an absolute gem, a raw diamond indeed. Frankel is a very deceptive horse, this maybe why, strangely, many needed convincing, we have yet to see Frankel cruise in, head in chest, with the rider looking sideways, between the legs. Can you imagine Richard Hughes or in the past Pat Eddery on Frankel, winning on Frankel with cups of tea in their hands. In the Queen Anne I would have liked Queally to just sit there not moving and let Frankel do it on the bridle, let Excelebration just weaken, win 2 lengths; hard held. So much pressure is on Queally and it shows in his riding of Frankel, nerves personified, too frightened to win 2 lengths now. What I think became clear in Frankel winning the Queen Anne is that we may have a horse that could win at any distance and I mean any distance. In the development of super cars like the Bugatti Veyron, the normal testing track is inadequate, racing tracks are required so that the full potential of the car can be measured, are we coming to the point where the mile is simply not enough distance to see Frankels very best, it is now becoming common place to see Frankel, after the over zealous pushing of Queally, hit the line full off running and then gallop another 2-3 furlongs to wind down and then appear as fresh as a daisy in the winners enclosure after the race; truly astonishing. Frankel is described as a deep bodied horse, I wouldn't know about that but one thing that appeared to stand out to me, especially in the Sussex, with that beautiful side view camera, was that his hind legs are bigger than his front legs relative to other horses, add to that he is quiet a lengthy horse giving him that amazing reach when in full stride, but it is those hind legs that are the key, they give him tremendous forward propulsion and having (just my theory), shorter front legs relative to hind legs means that they are actually travelling longer in the air as his hind legs push him further forward than other horses giving him the appearance of almost travelling in slow motion when at high speed and deceptive acceleration when asked to win his race, by this I mean he doesn't appear to change his action even when accelerating; in the Queen Anne he is shaken up soon after Excelebration yet as soon as you think he's in a battle, he's 3 lengths clear and still quickening up, after drifting and being straightened up Frankel quickens again at the line Queally has him hard held 11 lengths clear and he then gallops on another 2-3 furlongs before pulling up and being paraded. Having viewed his sensational Guineas win many times, I am of the opinion that Frankel begins to run on about 50 yards from the line, and is going away again from the second and third Dubawi Gold and Native Khan and also the Queen Anne told me, what I now suspect would have been the case; if Queally could have ridden Frankel in the Guineas like he did in the Queen Anne he could have won by 10-15 lengths!!! but he didn't settle back then.
Glenn Alcoe | 03 July 2012
Hi Simon,
I'm a bit late to the party on this one, but didn't want to let a 'provisional 147 rating' go without comment.
I want to talk ratings inflation. How high do you think, say, Brigadier Gerard would be rated by 2012 examination standards? Would he be in the 150s or even break the 160 mark if all his winning margins were upped 25% and every time he ran he could send his papers back for remarking by those with access to sectional times?
By historic standards Frankel beat Excelebration by eight lengths. That's what the eyes of the commentator saw as he passed the line, it's what my eyes saw, it's what the tape measure on my video still says. Even if you say eight or nine, it would be officially eight as the nine length designation is a recent phenomenon.
However the official form book says 11 lengths as he won by 1.92 seconds and this is multiplied by 5.5 giving 10.56 and this is then rounded up to the new designation of 11 lengths. Even as recently as five years ago a horse would have had to win by 2.2 seconds on rock hard ground to be officially rated an 11 length winner.
For this eight lengths on good to soft ground he has been given value for 29lb+ by Timeform. Not sure of the exact figures but I read that the second ran 'over a stone' below 133.
Can you think of any historic champions that were given 29lb+, or anything like it, for beating their rival a length for every furlong of the race?
It seems to me that Frankel has got an 8-12lb boost over what he'd have been given with the same handicapping methodology applied to an official result from an earlier era.
Simon Rowlands | 03 July 2012
Hi Glenn.
You raise some valid points. However, I think your conclusions are simplistic.
Firstly, it does not follow that an increase in margin returned will translate strictly into the same increase in poundage allowance. That assumes that the pounds-per-length “before” and “after” were the same.
Without travelling back in time, I cannot be sure of the precise situation at every point in Timeform’s history, but it can be inferred, for instance, that Timeform’s handicapper at the time of the aforementioned Dancing Brave was using a greater pounds-per-length – to something like the magnitude to which you refer – in the Arc than would be the case now.
While pounds-per-length have altered, as an inevitable consequence of the Jockey Club/BHB/BHA several alterations in returning margins, Timeform’s pounds-per-time have altered little over the decades. The two are as inextricably linked as Time and Form.
Also, and very much to the point, a 10 lb margin being returned as a 13 lb margin, say, would increase the master rating of the superior horse by 3 lb only if the second horse was regarded as somehow “fixed”, or a “benchmark”. That is a false assumption: it is more likely that the “extra” 3 lb would be deducted from the losing horse or that it would be shared between the two in some proportion.
It may seem to you that “Frankel has got an 8-12 lb boost”, but, even if that were true, that would not necessarily mean that his master rating got a commensurate boost or any boost at all.
I repeat, Timeform does not start from an assumption that a given horse will have run to its rating – neither more nor less – so as to enable us to assess the entire race through such false convenience. Timeform favours using wider information from a race's and the horses' history, precisely so that errors from extrapolation are limited.
An alternative argument, though one that I would refute, might be that Timeform is UNDER-rating BEATEN horses by not always having them “running to their figure”, even though it can be demonstrated more widely that horses run below their prior ratings far more often than they run to them.
Simon
mogos | 08 July 2012
While I am new to horse racing I have raced personally at international level as a swimmer.
All I can say about these timeform and other discussion about horse graetness is that the competition should not really matter as long as a horse is doing the fastest track times.
For some reason horse racing fans seem to think that who you beat is just as important as the time to complete a track.
This shows absolute lack of knowledge about racing, having better competitors in a race actually improves performance be it horse, hound or humans racing.
Who is the greater sportsman/woman someone who managed to get 7-8 gold medals in the Olympics and broke some world records or someone who beat some of the "greats" but never came even close to the fastest times?
If timeform and horse racing in general want to correctly rate horses they should focus more on actual measurable performance like track records to establish ratings.
For Frankel or Black Caviar to rate as high as they do I would need to see them run times never done before.
A horse winning 50 races in a row but always seconds off each race track only means a generation of weak horses.
Simon Rowlands | 12 July 2012
Thanks, mogos. You have given me an opportunity to address a few important issues.
There are some clear differences between swimming and horseracing, and they are crucial in this particular respect of simple times signifying ability. Forgive me if I make any false assumptions about your former sport.
One obvious difference is that horse races take place under a wide variety of conditions, not least on different surfaces. I can imagine there may be certain circumstances which facilitate faster times in swimming, but swimming always takes place in water, which is flat and has a roughly uniform resistance, while racing takes place on ground of widely varying resistances, in wind, up hill and down dale etc.
Another difference is that fast times are seen as one of the objects of swimming, as I understand it. You cannot compete at certain levels without having achieved a qualifying time. There is a huge amount of kudos attached to being a record holder. There is, to all intents and
purposes, none in horseracing, largely on account of the above point.
Furthermore, a swimmer is entirely in control of his or her own performance and aware of what is required from it, but that cannot be said independently of either a horse or a jockey.
Taking each of these in turn, measuring a fast time in horseracing involves a complicated sequence of adjustments to the overall time in order to contextualise it for: ground and wind (which must be inferred to a large degree from the available information); age; weight carried;
putative ability; distance; course topography; and maybe more. Even then, you are hampered by the fact that there are a limited number of races to compare on any given day and certain assumptions need to be made unless even more sophisticated sectional analysis (frequently not
possible) is available.
Still, by this measure, Frankel has, by Timeform's calculations, recorded the best RELATIVE timefigure of the century in the UK. There are many record holders who were manifestly far inferior to Frankel but who recorded fast times (in absolute but NOT in relative terms) due to
conducive conditions. Record times, in isolation, are neither a good measure of ability nor the purpose of the exercise.
The purpose of a horserace is not to run the fastest possible time but to win (which is achieved by running faster than your rivals). The two may seem similar but are in fact crucially distinct.
Winning may be achieved in a number of ways, but for a jockey simply to try to get his or her horse to run as fast as it can from A to B is a pretty good way of failing in the all-important goal. Horses cannot readily communicate that they are going too fast or too slow to their
rider, their rider cannot easily judge whether the pace the pair are going under uncertain conditions is even near optimum, horses frequently have requirements of needing to be covered up (the majority are pack creatures) and racing is highly tactical as a consequence.
A further consequence of all this, and of the undeniable fact that it is easier to run a slow time than it is to run a fast one, is that overall race times, even when properly adjusted, do not necessarily tell us how good a horse is but how bad a horse isn't (thanks go to Phil Bull for that insight originally).
A study of the winners of all Flat races in the UK in 2012 to the end of June shows that 12.8% of those winners ran adjusted times that appeared to be in line with or above their ability. That is a fraction over 1 out of 8. Winners. Losers will run times slower than they "can"
even more often.
It does not take a genius to deduce from this that a horse is likely to need to run several times at the least, while at or near its best, to record a time commensurate with its apparent peak ability. That is a tall order.
We at Timeform use ANALYSIS of overall times (and not just overall times in isolation) to identify instances where this seems to have happened and to act accordingly. But the fact remains that "good" times happen occasionally rather than frequently for a multitude of reasons.
Fortunately, an alternative exists - sectional-timing analysis - which synthesises performance with times that take into account how those times were arrived at and not just what they were. Less fortunately, British racing has sectional timing only sparingly and the task of
gathering them by hand is immense.
Simon
charles | 04 October 2012
I measured greatness by the tough races a thoroughbred gets in and his overall career. Always wondered why Frankel skipped his 3 year old derby and missed the Arc twice. In that sense he is not comparable to other greats that has won the "triple" or combination of great prestigious races regardless of how high BHA, RPR, Timeform subjectively rate Frankel. Of course, when the honorable Prince divulged that Frankel cannot get 12 furlongs my question has been answered. Camelot was a better challenged thoroughbred regardless of his competition. That is a big part of being great, not just running a glorified 7 furlongs races.
Chris Palmer | 30 December 2012
I have followed horse racing since the early 60's and have had the privilige to have seen such greats as SeaBird 2 Millreef Dancing Brave Brigadier Gerrard Sea the Stars Shergar Arkle Burroughill Lad Desert Orchid Red rum and Kauto Star I have never seen a horse completely and utterly devastae his opposition in the way that Frankel has done. When i saw Seabird win the Arc I thought then that this was the greatest horse ever i was wrong Frankel is unique the best we will ever see.
AUSI | 19 March 2013
People - please stop being parochial and so BS academic.
Greatness has a chemistry about it - you see it and react WOW.
This memeory assessment can handle long periods of time if you know what you are looking at.
Frankel - yes a top horse - but what did he really beat?
Brigadier Gerard and Mill Reef - 2 of of the tops in the same year.
Most importantly - "cherry picking" races is understandable in this day and age because of the enormous stallion value of these colts.
The greats of the past were COMPETITORS - Brigadier ran in the derby - beyond his best distance as a 3yo.
There is a similar problem at the moment with Black Caviar - they are avoiding some races with her. She is unbeaten BUT...
To my mind the absolutely unequalled horse of all time is SECRETARIAT - WOW PLUS.
Debating on times, distances and surfaces is splitting hairs between approximate equals.
When you see true greatness it screams at you.
A parallel example - Yusain BOLT is DIFFERENT - a CLASS ABOVE.
Similarly Michael Phelps.
The real champions (the greatest) make their rivals look inferior.
Therefore you can lump most TOP horses into 1 group - "top horses" and argue until you are blue in the face.
True greatness is something you will and should see only once in a lifetime.