International Classifications?

Sea The Stars earns best rating for 12 years


By Racing Post Staff 11:33AM 12JAN 2010
SEA THE STARS has been crowned the best horse of 2009 in the World Thorougbred Rankings, as the John Oxx-trained superstar was awarded a mark of 136 during a remarkable season that culminated in victory in the Qatar Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe.
Christopher Tsui's three-year-old was unbeaten from May to October with six Group 1 victories, and his mark of 136 is the highest for 12 years, since Peintre Celebre in 1997.
Breeders' Cup heroine Goldikova was next best with a mark of 130, and the dual Mile winner was also the highest ranked older horse at the age of five.

The Aidan O'Brien-trained pair of Rip Van Winkle and Fame And Glory had to play second fiddle to Sea The Stars on more than one occasion last season, and they were only separated by a point in the rankings.
Rip Van Winkle managed to land two Group 1 sucesses in an injury-hit campaign, and was rated the third best horse overall with a mark of 129, while Fame And Glory, who scored in the Dubai Duty Free Irish Derby, was awarded a mark of 128 - the same as American superstar Zenyatta.
WORLD THOROUGHBRED RANKINGS

TOP HORSES OVERALL
RankHorseRatingTrained
1Sea The Stars136IRE
2Goldikova130FR
3Rip Van Winkle129IRE
4Fame And Glory128IRE
4Zenyatta128USA
6Rachel Alexandra127USA
7Cavalryman125FR
7Conduit125GB
7Gio Ponti125USA
7Gladiatorus125UAE
7Youmzain125GB
 
That article from the Rankings Committee is very clear about the difference between international ratings for championship horses, which are an assessment of achievement alone, and handicap marks, which are an assessment not only of what a horse has achieved but also of what extra ability it might hold in reserve.

I'd have liked a bit more explanation, though, about why ratings from the 80s and early 90s are relatively inflated compared with now.
 
Would have been fascinating to see Peintre Celebre's son Skanky Biscuit run in the same season as Sea The Stars as we sit here now looking back on last year.
 
Grey said:
That article from the Rankings Committee is very clear about the difference between international ratings for championship horses, which are an assessment of achievement alone, and handicap marks, which are an assessment not only of what a horse has achieved but also of what extra ability it might hold in reserve.

I'd have liked a bit more explanation, though, about why ratings from the 80s and early 90s are relatively inflated compared with now.
Click to expand...

Precisely Grey - it was interesting but without an explanation it comes across as a cover for any criticism for not rating STS closer to the greatest.
 
From the RP

Dominic Gardiner-Hill, who is responsible for the miling category, said: "It was a scintillating display in the Jacques le Marois, where she beat probably the best field of milers put together all year. It just shows how a horse can progress if kept in training. It's all about staying in training and taking on the colts."

Was the Jacques le Marois the best field of milers all year? I would instinctively say no but can anyone think of a better all age mile field? Having thought about it I can't.
 
Rip Van Winkle, Paco Boy and the 1000 Guineas winner (mind gone blank on that one!) were missing. But it did not matter as she hammered them so far and with little effort it justifies her rating - that day I think she would have beaten STS over a mile or indeed any other recent top miler.
 
Galileo said:
Rip Van Winkle, Paco Boy and the 1000 Guineas winner (mind gone blank on that one!) were missing. But it did not matter as she hammered them so far and with little effort it justifies her rating - that day I think she would have beaten STS over a mile or indeed any other recent top miler.
Click to expand...

Ghanaati :p

I'd agree with that, it probably was the best field of milers assembled all year. The Queen Anne, Moulin and QE2 weren't as strong anyway.

She absolutely battered some very decent animals.
 
I don't think the 1000 Guineas is as strong as you're making out, stylish performance and excellent at the time but looking back we can see she didn't excel against stronger opposition and those from the Guineas didnt go on to do much.

To say she would have beaten STS on that day is ridiculous, the time of both races indicates she couldnt have.
 
Times of different races on the same day shouldn't be used to draw that kind of conclusion. Nevertheless, without reading the entire thread I can't imagine anyone seriously suggesting Ghanaati would have been anywhere near STS had they met.

I went high for Ghanaati's Guineas and I stand by it. I think it was a decent race and she won it well. She showed even better form at Ascot, though, where she smashed a better field. When RVW beat her she was running against R Hills's advice as he wasn't happy with her in the days before the race. Maybe Ascot took more out of her than the ease of victory would have suggested (which happens more often than people would think). She was a few pounds short of her best but I don't believe her best would have been good enough to beat RVW's.

I don't think the Jacques Le Marois was the best field of milers assembled all year (RVW's Ascot race might have been). But Goldikova slaughtered some very reliable yardsticks to the other top milers.
 
I don't think anyone has suggested Ghanaati would have beaten Sea The Stars on her Guineas form; I think the suggestion was that Goldikova at her best might have given Sea The Stars a race over a mile.

I theeeeennnkkkkk.
 
Galileo said:
Rip Van Winkle, Paco Boy and the 1000 Guineas winner (mind gone blank on that one!) were missing. But it did not matter as she hammered them so far and with little effort it justifies her rating - that day I think she would have beaten STS over a mile or indeed any other recent top miler.
Click to expand...

Mastercraftsman, Delegator, Zacinto and most importantly Sea The Stars...

If Aqlaam and Virtual are the benchmark on which she is rated they are surely not better than 120 horses, 122 at a push, in which case how does a 6 length victory receiving weight get her 130? Don't get me wrong I think Goldikova was the best miler last year, bar maybe Sea the Stars but thats a moot point, but I thought the Marois was a very average race.
 
Simplistically:

If Aqlaam is 120, then Goldikova = 120 + 6*2 - 3 = 129

If Virtual is 120, then Goldikova = 120 + 11*2 - 3 = 139

So to get less than 130, you have to say that everything else in the race ran below form bar Aqlaam, and then you ignore Aqlaam and Virtual running to within a length of that form when finishing 1st and 3rd in the Moulin a few weeks later. For me, 130 is low on the conservative end of the realistic range for that performance.
 
Hi Gareth,

I don't compile ratings so pardon my ignorance but do you always multiply the number of lengths by 2? And if so why?

Nick
 
2 lbs per length is a common poundage used over a mile. Different handicappers will use different poundages, but most would probably fit somewhere close to that, give or take a quarter of a pound or so.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Simplistically:

If Aqlaam is 120, then Goldikova = 120 + 6*2 - 3 = 129

If Virtual is 120, then Goldikova = 120 + 11*2 - 3 = 139

So to get less than 130, you have to say that everything else in the race ran below form bar Aqlaam, and then you ignore Aqlaam and Virtual running to within a length of that form when finishing 1st and 3rd in the Moulin a few weeks later. For me, 130 is low on the conservative end of the realistic range for that performance.
Click to expand...

Exactly....it's not that she beat great horses....its that she beat solid horses who ran to form by huge margins.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Simplistically:

If Aqlaam is 120, then Goldikova = 120 + 6*2 - 3 = 129

If Virtual is 120, then Goldikova = 120 + 11*2 - 3 = 139

So to get less than 130, you have to say that everything else in the race ran below form bar Aqlaam, and then you ignore Aqlaam and Virtual running to within a length of that form when finishing 1st and 3rd in the Moulin a few weeks later. For me, 130 is low on the conservative end of the realistic range for that performance.
Click to expand...

I agree with that - for me, her performance is much closer to 135.

I think i asked this some time back but how far back would you have to go to find a better miler? (Whether this be by ORs, RPRs, Timeform or International Classifications)
 
She also smashed Silver Frost who was rated 119 for his French Guineas win (which seemed a couple of pounds low in my book too).

I have no doubts that she would have beat Sea The Stars over a mile at her peak in July/August.
 
Aqlaam was better than 120

Sea the Stars was easy to rate. There are form lines via Cima de Triomphe and the horse that was fourth in the King George that suggest that Conduit ran to only two or three pounds below his best tops in the Eclipse. In which case it's easy to justify 140
 
Back
Top