Ratings.

Always useful to have new perspectives.

All these years later, the brother and I still argue about Roberto's defeat of the Brigadier. He argues that BG shouldn't be rated the better since the only time they met Roberto was a convincing winner.

It always makes me wonder if Seabiscuit was genuinely better than War Admiral.
 
Colin Phillips said:
Interesting piece from James Willoughby here:

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/...e-rankings-new-way-assessing-best-racehorses/
Click to expand...
Typical pseudo-scientific eyewash from Willo', where common sense is the first thing out the window.
This all-embracing, all-seeing algorithm (seemingly RP sponsored) is based on RPR ratings which are endemically biased toward UK/Irish horses anyway.
At the end of the day, ratings are opinions and will vary geographically, and JW's attempt to blind the world with science will most likely end up on the same scrapheap as many of his other ventures.
Think my signature sums it up, real well.:lol:
 
I know you're closed book on this kind of stuff Reet, but in this instance I completely agree with you.

A racehorse should surely be rated on it's best performance over a given trip in a defined season, and the the hierarchy of ratings takes over for a World Ranking. Why it would ever be any more complicated than that is beyond me.

Cutting through all the clutter, all they're doing is adding more subjectivity, but hiding it by using a mathematical calculation that's the figment of someone's imagination. What have other races got to do with it, when horses didn't perform to the same level as their best performance. How is that remotely relevant? It's complete and utter bollox.

What Willoughby asserts here in terms of the way people think and come to a rating is just plain nonsense. Last time I looked every horse I know was rated at its highest based on its best performance. Why make the claim in the first place unless you have a vested interest in trying to 'sell' something. It totally smacks of someone trying to make some money somewhere, and some gullible fool(s) have bought in to it. Either that, or they're not fools at all, and they have their own vested interest!!!
 
Last edited:
I largely agree, Maruco. However, every now and again we do get ratings that obviously need treating with caution. Willoughby appears to take this premise and run with it unnecessarily far using unnecessarily complicated language.
 
There is some sense in what he’s saying. If Bottas beats Hamilton in the next race you wouldn’t say he was the better driver when you know that Hamilton beats Bottas 8 times out of 10. The most you could say is that Bottas put in a better performance on the day than Hamilton. If you had Hamilton rated at 100 before the race then you have to judge whether he raced at that level and Bottas had “improved” so was now 101 and legitimately the better driver, or whether Hamilton had only performed at 98 leaving Bottas at 99 for the race and thus still the inferior driver. You can fiddle about til the cows come home but it comes down to judgement (opinion) in the end.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I largely agree, Maruco. However, every now and again we do get ratings that obviously need treating with caution. Willoughby appears to take this premise and run with it unnecessarily far using unnecessarily complicated language.
Click to expand...
That I certainly agree with Maurice, but the rating should be challenged not the system, which is already far better than what's proposed.
 
barjon said:
There is some sense in what he’s saying. If Bottas beats Hamilton in the next race you wouldn’t say he was the better driver when you know that Hamilton beats Bottas 8 times out of 10. The most you could say is that Bottas put in a better performance on the day than Hamilton. If you had Hamilton rated at 100 before the race then you have to judge whether he raced at that level and Bottas had “improved” so was now 101 and legitimately the better driver, or whether Hamilton had only performed at 98 leaving Bottas at 99 for the race and thus still the inferior driver. You can fiddle about til the cows come home but it comes down to judgement (opinion) in the end.
Click to expand...

The difference is that there are 20 races and a points system in Formula 1 Jon. In horse racing we have a handicap system because horses will run in entirely different races and may never race against each other. The comparison doesn't stand up in my opinion.

Ironically, a points system would be better than what's proposed, but still completely misses the point. What Willoughby fails to recognise is that horse are often peaked for one race. Essentially the proposal is a joke.
 
Last edited:
Maruco said:
The difference is that there are 20 races and a points system in Formula 1 Jon. In horse racing we have a handicap system because horses will run in entirely different races and may never race against each other. The comparison doesn't stand up in my opinion.

Ironically, a points system would be better than what's proposed, but still completely misses the point. What Willoughby fails to recognise is that horse are often peaked for one race. Essentially the proposal is a joke.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough. So if a horse is peaked for a race and wins against a better rated horse that hasn’t been peaked for the race where does that leave the winner?
 
Rated on its actual performance irrespective of whether another horse has under-performed, as it is now. In terms of what's being discussed here, a horse's rating for the year is based on it's best performance in the season, wherever and which race that may be, whatever distance it's over, and whichever horses it may or may not have raced against.
 
Maruco said:
Rated on its actual performance irrespective of whether another horse has under-performed, as it is now. In terms of what's being discussed here, a horse's rating for the year is based on it's best performance in the season, wherever and which race that may be, whatever distance it's over, and whichever horses it may or may not have raced against.
Click to expand...

I don’t really disagree with you , Maruco. I just think it’s not entirely clear cut and that there’s room for argument.
 
Back
Top