How a Handicap Victory Put Bacio Above Two Group 1 Winners

Yes—Timeform rated Bacio 120p after his Palace of Holyroodhouse Handicap victory at Royal Ascot, above the reported figures for Group 1 winners Mission Central on 119 and Venetian Sun on 113. This was a comparison of ratings reported in connection with specified performances at the meeting, not a head-to-head result or a whole-career ranking. Thoroughbred Daily News reported the figures and comparison.

The direct answer: Bacio received a higher Timeform figure

Timeform assigned Bacio 120p following his Palace of Holyroodhouse Handicap win. That assessment placed him above Mission Central and Venetian Sun in the reported Royal Ascot comparison.

Timeform also described Bacio’s run as the best performance produced in a handicap during that Royal Ascot meeting. The qualification matters: it identifies the strength of his handicap run without suggesting that he received a higher rating than every Group 1 winner or performer there. Timeform’s Royal Ascot ratings update gave Bacio 120p and highlighted his handicap performance.

Bacio’s rating compared with the named horses

The relevant figures show both sides of the claim: Bacio was above two named Group 1 winners but level numerically with the first two horses in another Group 1 race.

Horse	Royal Ascot context	Reported Timeform figure
Bacio	Palace of Holyroodhouse Handicap winner	120p
Mission Central	Group 1 winner	119
Venetian Sun	Group 1 winner	113
Almeraq	First in the Group 1 Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Stakes	120
Satono Reve	Second in the Group 1 Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Stakes	120

Bacio’s figure was therefore one point above Mission Central’s and seven above Venetian Sun’s. Its numerical component matched the figures reported for Almeraq and Satono Reve; the lowercase p attached to Bacio’s rating did not make his 120 numerically higher than their 120s. The reported comparison includes all five figures and explains the improvement marker.

What the 120p rating means

The number in Bacio’s Timeform assessment was 120. The lowercase p indicated that Timeform expected him to improve.

A precise reading is:

• 120: the numerical rating assigned after the Royal Ascot win.
• p: a marker expressing an expectation of improvement.
• 120p: a rating of 120 accompanied by that projection.

The suffix is not an additional points award. It does not turn the figure into 121, 125 or another number. In the comparison with Almeraq and Satono Reve, each horse had a reported numerical figure of 120, although only Bacio carried the stated improvement marker.

The p should not be treated as proof that improvement subsequently occurred. It records an expectation at the time the assessment was made.

Why 120p was not Bacio’s official handicap mark

Bacio contested the Palace of Holyroodhouse Handicap from a reported BHA mark of 100. Timeform’s 120p was a separate assessment assigned after the performance, not a replacement official mark.

Figure	What it describes
BHA mark: 100	Bacio’s reported official handicap mark before the race
Timeform: 120p	Timeform’s assessment following the performance, with improvement expected

The figures belong to different rating contexts. 120p should not be entered in place of the pre-race BHA mark on a racecard or described as Bacio’s official BHA rating.

It would also be misleading to subtract 100 from 120 and present the result as a precisely measured 20-point improvement. That arithmetic does not establish that the BHA and Timeform figures are interchangeable units on a single scale. The supported conclusion is narrower: Bacio raced from an official mark of 100 and then received a separate Timeform assessment of 120p following his win.

What the Group 1 comparison does—and does not—prove

Race grade and rating are related pieces of racing information, but they do not answer the same question. A rating reported after a result is an assessment associated with what a horse achieved at that time. The race label alone does not require every Group 1 winner to receive a higher figure than every handicap winner.

That is why Bacio could remain the winner of a handicap while receiving a higher Timeform assessment than the figures reported for Mission Central and Venetian Sun. Conversely, those two horses remained Group 1 winners despite being below Bacio in this particular comparison.

Bacio did not defeat either horse in the Palace of Holyroodhouse. The ratings were associated with results from separate Royal Ascot races, so they should not be converted into a direct finishing order. They also do not establish that Bacio was superior across different distances, conditions or entire careers.

The figure did not make Bacio a Group 1 winner, change the grade of the race he won or establish that he was above every Group 1 horse at the meeting. Almeraq and Satono Reve, for example, matched the numerical component of his rating.

The safest reading is exact: Timeform’s assessment following Bacio’s Royal Ascot handicap victory placed him above two named Group 1 winners in the reported ratings and level numerically with the Jubilee Stakes first and second. It was a notably high assessment after a handicap win—not a direct victory over those horses, a new official BHA mark or proof of overall superiority.