REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

It’s not that I’m criticising your method of rating horses, I’m not (indeed quite the contrary, I look forward to seeing your ratings). But they are only of any real value when comparing to your own ratings on other horses. While your method clearly uses the same basis of calculation, different rating organisations will have different sets of filters attached. Most of your ratings are very high compared with ORs for example (half a stone or more on top sometimes). There is nothing wrong with this until people start to compare one set of ratings with other – like comparing apples with oranges – and applying them randomly to ill effect.

If we are taking the IC as a standard, there is no way STS is a 138 colt (at least not yet) and certainly no way RVW is a 136 colt.

As for Nashwan… you must have seen his Eclipse. The field contained the champions from the two previous season and a subsequent BC winner and he hung them out to dry.

A reminder of what a good colt he was: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL33IF-3vP8

<blockquote data-quote="SteveM" data-source="post: 2206326" data-attributes="member: 64943">It’s not that I’m criticising your method of rating horses, I’m not (indeed quite the contrary, I look forward to seeing your ratings). But they are only of any real value when comparing to your own ratings on other horses. While your method clearly uses the same basis of calculation, different rating organisations will have different sets of filters attached. Most of your ratings are very high compared with ORs for example (half a stone or more on top sometimes). There is nothing wrong with this until people start to compare one set of ratings with other – like comparing apples with oranges – and applying them randomly to ill effect.&nbsp;If we are taking the IC as a standard, there is no way STS is a 138 colt (at least not yet) and certainly no way RVW is a 136 colt.As for Nashwan… you must have seen his Eclipse. The field contained the champions from the two previous season and a subsequent BC winner and he hung them out to dry.&nbsp;A reminder of what a good colt he was: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL33IF-3vP8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL33IF-3vP8</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="SteveM, post: 2206326, member: 64943"] [FONT=Arial]It’s not that I’m criticising your method of rating horses, I’m not (indeed quite the contrary, I look forward to seeing your ratings). But they are only of any real value when comparing to your own ratings on other horses. While your method clearly uses the same basis of calculation, different rating organisations will have different sets of filters attached. Most of your ratings are very high compared with ORs for example (half a stone or more on top sometimes). There is nothing wrong with this until people start to compare one set of ratings with other – like comparing apples with oranges – and applying them randomly to ill effect.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]If we are taking the IC as a standard, there is no way STS is a 138 colt (at least not yet) and certainly no way RVW is a 136 colt.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]As for Nashwan… you must have seen his Eclipse. The field contained the champions from the two previous season and a subsequent BC winner and he hung them out to dry.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial][/FONT] [FONT=Arial]A reminder of what a good colt he was: [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL33IF-3vP8[/URL][/FONT] [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?