Timeform Racehorses of 2010 - Top Ratings revealed

Hamm said:
I find it frustrating that people take ratings as evidence of the overall ability of a racehorse...
Click to expand...

Ratings are of course evidence of ability it is simply that they are not conclusive or absolute unless a horse has run to its full extent.
Any horse that has genuinely run to anything near 130 is plainly a serious animal. But that is not to say they may not be capable of even better. Horses on similar ratings may not be as similar in reality.
 
SteveM said:
Ratings are of course evidence of ability it is simply that they are not conclusive or absolute unless a horse has run to its full extent.
Any horse that has genuinely run to anything near 130 is plainly a serious animal. But that is not to say they may not be capable of even better. Horses on similar ratings may not be as similar in reality.
Click to expand...

What's the point so Steve???
 
GOLDIKOVA and ZENYATTA only joint 11th?? What the ferk do the girls have to do? Wear high heels and mini-skirts?
 
I was being flippant Hamm! No need to take it as a jibe or a dig..

I understand your point completely and you're right. By the definition of these ratings their performances are equal - fair enough. I have a couple of issues though and these aren't directed at you;

1) They should not be called the world thoroughbred rankings - Its a misnoma in my opinion - they should call it performance rankings. I cannot think of any other sport where there rankings reflect one performance in a year. Snooker, Tennis, Darts, Golf, do not work that way so i think its misleading.

2) Why can't we have a standardised ranking/rating based on the consolidation of a horses performances in a year. Pru has shown that race standardisation is possible and surely through the use of an approach like that coupled with a weighted average taken across their performances for the year we could arrive at an overall "rating" which reflects the ability displayed in all of their performances throughout the year.

It just winds me up as it's not representative and in my professional life I would throw that kind of analysis back at someone if they presented it to me.

To give an example from another sport, Oosthuzen won the Open by a distance (Was it 8 strokes? Can't remember) and it was a hell of a performance, possibly one of the best of the year - Does that make him the best golfer in the world? No... Not even close.

In essence that's why I think its nonsense!
 
Last edited:
Well Goldikova would never race against Paco Boy off level weights in a Group 1.

She would receive 3lb off him, as that is what mares and fillies receive off he-horses to make 1m contests fairer. So in order to compare their respective ratings, you need to add 3lb to Goldi's rating.
 
Bar the Bull said:
Well Goldikova would never race against Paco Boy off level weights in a Group 1.

She would receive 3lb off him, as that is what mares and fillies receive off he-horses to make 1m contests fairer. So in order to compare their respective ratings, you need to add 3lb to Goldi's rating.
Click to expand...

Yes add in to one, or strip out of the other (however you want to phrase it) so you are comparing like-with-like. The consequent 'absolute' rating allows you to compare colts with fillies.
 
On The Bridle said:
What's the point so Steve???
Click to expand...

What's the point of what?

Ratings give you a handle on what a horse has achieved. It is up to you to decide how much more an individual may have in the locker. Ratings normally shouldn't build extra stuff in (certainly absolute or historical reference ratings shouldn't), but rather be a reference of what a horse has actually run to on the universal scale.
 
Ah, okay, chaps, gotcha (not gotcher) now! Ta.

Shouldn't that be t'Internet, not t'internet, Bar? :whistle:

Couldn't resist!
 
SteveM said:
What's the point of what?

Ratings give you a handle on what a horse has achieved. It is up to you to decide how much more an individual may have in the locker. Ratings normally shouldn't build extra stuff in (certainly absolute or historical reference ratings shouldn't), but rather be a reference of what a horse has actually run to on the universal scale.
Click to expand...

Every horse that runs more than 3 three times or wins gets an OR. What's the point in another rating system. Seems a bit of a waste of time to me!!
 
i think when one horse wins in hock deep ground by an abnormal,,by good ground standards..amount..we have to be wary of it..the conditions exaggerate the true superiority..unless we have different ratings on different surfaces

basically..when a horse relishes hock deep ground..and the oppo hate it..its clear the winner will get overrated

i am always wary of horses who record very good times on slow ground...it never seems as worthy as one that does it on good ground..

i might be wrong..but unless DA meets that type of ground as a 3yo i doubt he will record such a figure again..so yes he may be as good as Frankel...but will need a bog to show it..which classic is he likely to get that in?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top