Timeform: A language of love, Royalty and squiggles

Since Phil Bull – a man described to me recently by a local custodian as ‘notorious in these parts’ – founded Timeform in the late 1940s, the company has had its own unique relationship with the English language. Anyone who is familiar with our race reports may recognise and appreciate the economy of words used to describe the well-named Three Wishes (by Straight Deal out of Fairy Queen) in Racehorses of 1962:

'Attractive horse: very useful handicapper as a 4-y-o: made only one appearance in 1962, wearing bandages when well beaten in John Kennedy Cup at Ayr in July: stays really well: needs a sound surface, and acts well on hard going: game and genuine: presumably difficult to train. W. A. Stephenson'

Fast-forward several decades, and, whilst many things have changed at Timeform since (including the new, but, by all accounts, regally unused toilet installed for the visit of Princess Anne in 2007), the method and language used to describe each of the many thousands of horses in training has remained constant.

Though the exact numerical parameters may have fluctuated from decade to decade, Timeform has always divided horses up into interchangeable categories. Below are the current ratings bands.

Any of the terms listed above can be used as an adverb to describe a horse’s performance, as well as an adjective to describe a horse; i.e. top-class performance and top-class performer.

The benefits of such a grading system are two-fold.

1. Horses can quickly be put into a bracket with other similarly-rated (numerically) runners, providing a useful overview of a race and the different tier of horses taking part.
2. Readers, assuming they are familiar with the terms involved, can quickly ascertain how good a horse is from one adjective. If a Flat horse is described as ‘Very Smart’, the reader instantly knows that the horse is rated 120-124.

Each tier of the scale is logically titled. Much like remembering whether a flush beats a run in poker, the only tricky bits to recall are that ‘Smart’ is better than ‘Useful’ and that ‘Fair’ is better than ‘Modest’, which in turn is better than ‘Poor’.

Question: What is ‘decent’?

The answer: Nothing. Not at Timeform, at least.

That isn’t a critique of our ratings, tips or dress-sense, but a statement of intent which is enforced by chief correspondent Jamie Lynch with a rarely-seen forcefulness. In his own words:

“We hear it a lot in racing, decent ground, decent performance, decent horse, decent gallop etc, but what does it actually mean? It's so vague as to be worthless, hence you rarely see it at Timeform, and if you do you can be assured that somebody is down the job centre. We deal in accuracy, enabled by our pinpoint ratings.” [18/08/2016 12:11 PM]

A decent summation that needs no further comment. I’ll get my P45 on the way.

As well as using language in a purposeful manner, Timeform has also – when required - painted a picture with prose.

Each horse in the UK/Ireland has a rating, however a significant percentage also have an extra symbol alongside. Dipping back into Racehorses of 1962, the interpretations of the rating symbols were as follows:

• §§ an arrant rogue or a thorough jade; so temperamentally unsatisfactory as to be not worth a rating.
• § a horse who is somewhat ungenerous, faint-hearted or a bit of a coward; one who may give his running on occasions, but cannot be relied upon to do so.
• p the horse is likely to make more than normal progress and to improve on his rating.
• P there is convincing evidence, or, to say the least, a very strong presumption that the horse is capable of form much better than he has so far displayed.
• + the horse may be rather better than we have rated him.
• ? if used in conjunction with a rating this symbol implies that the rating is based upon inadequate or unsatisfactory data, upon form which it is impossible to assess with confidence. The use of a query without a rating implies that although the horse has form, its merit cannot be assessed on the data at present available.

The beauty of the images conjured up by the interpretations above is matched not only by the clarity of picture they produce, but the resulting lack of need for further description. A horse with a ‘P’ is capable of much better, a horse with a ‘§’ cannot be relied on. Fifty-four years later, that still remains as true now as it did then.