It loathes me to defend a handicapper but I don't see how else you are supposed to rate horses than through collateral form, not a view that Denman is better or worse than Best Mate or Arkle or that the old coca-cola was nicer than the new stuff. The handicapper has got to figure out which horses ran to form and anchor the ratings around those horses. He will never get it right all the time as two horses used as anchors could both have disappointed but give the man a break, how else is he supposed to do it.
Similar to the Best Mate post, on another forum there is disgust that VPU is rated the same as Moscow. Yet VPU beat Dempsey who was rated 165 before winning at Sandown subsequently and Schindlers Hunt in his two champion chases. Moscow beat Le Roi Miguel twice in one season, both times by 15 lengths and that horse was rated 155. He beat Native Upmanship seven lengths and NU was rated 167 at best which would put Moscow on 175-177. It's not about who was a legend and who isn't, it's about numbers and coming up with a reasonable assessment.
Similar to the Best Mate post, on another forum there is disgust that VPU is rated the same as Moscow. Yet VPU beat Dempsey who was rated 165 before winning at Sandown subsequently and Schindlers Hunt in his two champion chases. Moscow beat Le Roi Miguel twice in one season, both times by 15 lengths and that horse was rated 155. He beat Native Upmanship seven lengths and NU was rated 167 at best which would put Moscow on 175-177. It's not about who was a legend and who isn't, it's about numbers and coming up with a reasonable assessment.