International Classifications?

Gal, don't quite know where else to stick this, but a site which many members might find useful, particularly in answering technical questions about race-framing, is http://www.britishracecourses.org (the Racecourse Association, aka the RCA). It also advertises jobs within its organisation, so worth checking now and then for those interested in such a career.
 
The IC is at the beginning of the year. The Post will run the Classifications on its web page with a supplement in the paper as usual.
 
1 sea the stars 136
2 goldikova 130
3 rip van winkle 129
4 fame and glory 128
4 zenyatta 128
6 rachel alexandra 127
7 cavalryman 125
7 conduit 125
7 gio ponti 125
7 gladiatorus 125
7 youmzain 125
 
Dancing Brave was 141, Generous and Peintre Celebre were 137, Daylami was 136 and Montjeu was 135. That's not exhaustive; I'm sure the RP will have a more complete list today or tomorrow.
 
How much extra credit is Zenyatta getting for her BC win? Bearing in mind she only just covered her fillies' allowance over Twice Over.
 
Galileo said:
Gladiatorous rated higher than Mastercraftsman...
Click to expand...

That Duty Free was full of high teens rated animals, the individual performance was sensational regardless of your opinions on the standard of Dubai racing or how he may have achieved that rating. ;)
 
WORLD RANKINGS SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE ​




STATEMENT OF HANDICAPPING PRACTICE​



BACKGROUND:

The racing world has been blessed by a number of exceptional performers competing worldwide in 2009 who, in the view of many race fans and media commentators alike, invite comparison with some of the racing greats from yesteryear. In this context , the official ratings issued by Handicappers have been used in these discussions to compare the current crop of horses with horses from different eras. Arising from this comparison , there has been some adverse comment passed on the accuracy of current ratings insofar as the ratings accorded to the current crop of champions, most notably, the exceptional Irish colt Sea the Stars, do not accord with the view frequently expressed that “we have never seen a better racehorse’’ but these comparative ratings do not seem to confirm this strong impression of many racefans.

HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL HANDICAPPING:

The first foray into international handicapping officially was the establishment of the International Classifications back in 1977 wherein three European countries namely GB, France and Ireland agreed to compile an annual Classification primarily for the purpose of exercising quality control over their Pattern races. Since then, and at different stages, an increasing number of countries eventually joined this forum culminating in the evolution of the World Thoroughbred Racehorse Rankings in 2004 under the auspices of the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA) which is compiled by a comprehensive and genuinely global Handicapping Committee composed of 14 official handicappers with observers from other jurisdictions also present.

There is no doubt now, viewed in hindsight and in this evolving context , that the level of ratings that operated in the first fifteen years of the International Classification is not consistent with the level of ratings that has operated since the early 1990’s to the present time and this occurred for a number of reasons . In the context of the current discussion comparing racehorses from different eras, this point needs to be emphasised and borne in mind. This disparity in level of ratings was particularly pronounced in the first decade of ratings after 1977 so , in the circumstances , one would have to seriously question whether the likes of Dancing Brave (141)(1986) , Alleged (140) (1978), Shergar (140)(1981), and El Gran Senor (138)(1984), ‘inter alia’ , would have achieved that level of rating were they racing today.

ACHIEVING A HIGH RATING :

There are essentially two ways in which a racehorse can show how good he/she is at the highest level : firstly, he can completely dominate a race and win it by a wide margin in which case a Handicapper can verify the merit of the racehorse : secondly, he can achieve a high rating by defeating a stellar cast of contemporaries of proven merit. The aforementioned Shergar would illustrate the first example – he won his major races by wide margins while Dancing Brave would illustrate the second maxim – he defeated an exceptional bunch of racehorses in the Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe in breathtaking fashion .

There is however a type of racehorse (which has been especially prevalent of late ) who may not be fortunate enough to be part of a vintage crop of horses ( as Dancing Brave undoubtedly was ) or who , because of their minimalist nature, will not win in extravagant fashion as Shergar did but rather will do no more than necessary to win the horserace they are involved in. We are especially lucky to have seen and marvelled at a number of exceptional horses recently who fall within this category . The French filly Zarkava, the Irish colt Sea the Stars and the American mare Zenyatta were all unbeaten in their main racing seasons winning their races in the same trademark fashion, regardless of the class of opposition ,in the process clearly demonstrating their superiority in each race they ran in but equally never appearing to be ‘all out ‘ in victory with their true extent of their superiority not reflected in the winning margin but rather remaining a matter of speculation .

Handicappers can quantify the ability of an extravagant winner who ‘ shows his hand’ and equally a horse who is “all out” in victory but the winner who keeps something in reserve is far more problematic. In domestic handicaps, a handicapper is obliged to give each horse in a handicap an equal chance of winning and therefore is obliged to estimate the true margin of superiority of the snug winner in order to achieve the purpose of a handicap . Were he to perform the same estimate in relation to the superiority shown in championship races , he could justifiably be accused of arbitrariness and subjectivity and his opinion impugned or disrespected on that basis so Handicappers are understandably intent ,within reason, on rating a champion racehorse on what he has actually achieved not on what he could , should or would have done if the opposition had been better , if he had chosen to extend himself and show his full ability etc ,etc.

The essential function of a Classification and the limitations of a rating ‘per se’ in certain circumstances was well summarised by former International Classification Committee Chairman Geoffrey Gibbs who wrote in a foreword to the publication of the 1996 edition as follows : -

“ There is some confusion as to what a rating now represents and as to the purpose of the Classifications. Many people believe a rating to represent the absolute inherent ability of a particular thoroughbred and therefore, the Classifications to represent the qualitative assessment of the breed in any one year or as between one year and another. This view is no longer sustainable , as a rating is now primarily a measurement of relative performance and only in particular circumstances will it demonstrate the ultimate inherent ability of a particular thoroughbred. This being the case, Classifications are now a retrospective measurement of performances, not necessarily the inherent abilities of those thoroughbreds included. True inherent ability can only be gauged when horses compete directly with one another at the highest level and when they race up to their full maturity …’’


OBSERVATIONS :

It should be apparent from the foregoing that horses such as Sea the Stars , Zarkava and Zenyatta will never be flattered by their rating by virtue of their aforementioned ‘modus operandi’ in consistently beating all comers but doing no more than necessary to do so . While one can measure the level of their performances one can only surmise what their ‘ true inherent ability’ was as they were never obliged to show us that . It is a matter of regret that their paths never crossed as the implications for their ratings in that scenario should be obvious . It is impossible to know just how good these horses were and the true relative pecking order ‘inter se ‘ and yet these champions are of the same generation ! If it is difficult to separate champions of the same era ( as the intense current debate in North America concerning whether Zenyatta or Rachel Alexandra should be Horse of the Year illustrates ), how much more difficult is it to separate champions from different eras ?

It is clear that in assessing true greatness in a thoroughbred , that the ratings playing field is not a level one as it clearly favours one type of individual over another . Therefore , the rating a horse receives is not definitive as to relative greatness as it is not ,in some cases, a finite expression of a horse’s ability and clearly a more panoramic perspective must be taken ,with the rating an important aspect but nonetheless only one of a number of factors to be taken into account . A number of examples may illustrate this point : - doubtless there will be some eyebrows raised over the rating of Goldikova ( 130) in 2009 relative to that of her contemporary compatriot Zarkava (128) in 2008 . When they raced against each other, Zarkava was demonstrably superior and definitely more versatile going over different distances. Goldikova has kept improving since she last met Zarkava and has improved again in 2009 with her wide margin success in the Jacques Le Marois enabling her to bypass Zarkava in terms of ratings . Would it have been fair to artificially downgrade Goldikova’s performance in that race on the basis that she should not appear above Zarkava in ratings terms for posterity ? But do the respective ratings accorded to these great fillies reflect their ‘true inherent ability’ or the measurement of their performances ? And would the Handicappers , if pressed to answer who history should record as the better filly of the two , agree with the ostensible answer their ratings indicate ?



Equally, Zenyatta (128) is the highest rated North American racemare since Inside Information (129) romped home by thirteen lengths in the 1995 Breeders Cup Distaff. Inside Information ,like Zenyatta, won 14 races but, unlike Zenyatta, she lost 3 races also . Inside Information never raced against the colts and may have been flattered by her wide margin success in the Distaff the quality of which it is hard to disprove. But will Zenyatta’s unbeaten record , her historical win in the BC Classic against the colts and her ‘modus operandi’ in winning her races (whereby one can only guess as to how much she truly had in hand) stand to her applying a panoramic perspective ( as opposed to one exclusively driven by ratings ) as to who was the better filly/mare ?

One further point of clarification needs to be stressed : in rating fillies and mares as against colts , Handicappers reflect the sex allowance given to the females in their ratings so that if a filly wins a big race by a short head receiving 3lbs from a colt , her rating will be two pounds inferior to the colt even though she won the race . One could argue that handicappers should ignore this sex allowance in their ratings in the same way that they ignore the weight for age (wfa) allowance in assessing championship races (e.g the 3yo Sea the Stars was treated for ratings purposes as running off level weights with older horses like Youmzain even though he actually received an 8 lbs wfa allowance ) . But in the context of the publication of the 2008 World Thoroughbred Rankings, the acclaim of Curlin (130) and New Approach (130) as ‘world champions ‘ for the year could, in the circumstances , be regarded as questionable given that Zarkava (128) in a hypothetical race against the former duo , in receipt of the sex allowance which is normally 3lbs , would come out in front and therefore could be regarded as the ‘de facto’ champion horse of the year on that basis. This point is made lest there be any confusion about what the ratings in the World Thoroughbred Rankings represent .
 
You can see the problems the handicappers would have with horses like STS and Zenyetta. Nightmare to get a proper mark on them.
 
Informative piece - especially the admission that ratings from the 80s are inflated relative to more modern ones.
 
I'm glad they recognise the Zarkava/Goldikova issue as well.. Still frustrates me!

Sea the Stars is the best horse I have ever seen on the flat but i've only been watching it since around 2004 so I don't concern myself too much with past champions and their ratings. I must find a video of peintre celebre's Arc win if it is that good...
 
Back
Top