Racing and Sports now moderates the Talkback forum to ensure posting guidelines are adhered to.
The views expressed on Talkback are those of the writer and not necessarily those of Racing and Sports. You must be a registered user to write postings or send messages to other users. Click here to register.
Message: Sunline, she was a champion 2000m horse (two Cox Plates attest to that)... only she got beaten by an even better 2000m horse twice... and fair and square at that. Why are we still discussing this anyway???
The par times i had last year were not as accurate as the figures I have now. The whole ratings process is an evolving one and I am always looking to make them better and more accurate.
At the time I said that I was having more success using track records. Since that time I have built a parallel time chart with accurate par times. Hence I now use par times as the basis for speed ratings, but still refer to track records as a reality check.
It's a shame that this forum has people like u that only want to criticise and complain.
How about u direct your energies into posting something positive and contructive rather than a negative post which offers nothing about negativity.
Message: I hate to spoil your new ratings party, Speeds, but I?ve been having fun with the marvellous R&S search function. It?s great how many contradictions you can pick up. I?ve already picked up two. Anyone else used it yet ?
On 4/12/02 1.33pm you said; ?I have par times for the metro tracks and they don't help as much as track records?
Then on 5/12/02 at 12.49pm you said; "I have used both Track record times and par times and I have found track record times to be more successful."
It sounded back then, that you were an advocate for ?track records? and you didn't like par times. But then you say in this thread on 19/7/03 at 12.45pm; that your ?ratings are based on par times? !!!
Sounds like you haven?t got your act together, Speeds. Also sounds like those ratings have only just been done. No wonder you're pouring them out! What will you be saying in another 6 months, Speeds ?! I highly doubt that you were backing those winners you claimed, based on those ratings.
Message: Considering al lot of you don't consider Sunline to be a top 2000m horse (Speedy, Bell Flight and Northerly Fan), how can you justify a 3-0 statistic as conclusive proof between her and Northerly when two of those starts were over 2000m?
Is she a great 2000m horse or was Northerly lucky to meet her outside of her distance range?
Message: ratings are based on par times. some of the current track records are weak, while others are strong. if a horse breaks a track record u may think it should rate higher but if it was a weak record and the par time is not far away from the track record then the rating may not be all that high.
also if conditions were favourable on a particular day - ie most horses are running fast times then times are adjusted backwards.
m&p's time for example was adjusted backwards in the cox plate by over a sec due to favourable track conditions.
u might remember secret land running 68.8 secs at kembla before the slipper - that day several class, track and race records were broken so a time like that would have been downgraded.
Sometimes the offical track ratings are grossly inaccurate. For example in recent weeks tracks have been rated slow yet I have the track variant as 0.5 secs (which should be dead). While other times when the track is rated slow, I have a track variant of 2.5 secs - that's a 2 sec difference for tracks which have the same official rating.
Message: I can understand what you mean about Veandercross-I was going off his NZ runs at 1600 which from memory were huge as a three year old. It can be very hard to rate between the two countries, especially with the number of wet tracks in NZ.
Another thing that interests me is it looks like you feel comfortable enough combining 2000 and 2040 metre ratings, maybe you could consider doing the same for 2400-2500 ratings since that would encompass all the Derbies in Aus and provide a larger base rather than seperate 2400 and 2500 figures which are the result of only 1-2 runs at each distance.
having worked these figures out i know what they mean and how they were achieved - unfortunately u dont so u dont understand them.
In about 90% of the cases the figures are reliable and accurate.
I know the other 10% can throw up misleading figures but that's where experience comes into play here when assessing the value of each figure.
M&P only had a few runs at 2400m and was winning by big margins. Had he more competition and more attempts at 2400m no doubt he may have run a figure around the 123-124 mark.
Veandercross had all of 2 starts over 1600m in aust and so didn't have much of an opportunity to run a higher figure, looking at his other figures and knowing the horse tells one that he probably could run a 111 or higher.
Also when using ratings u cant just take a figure and assume that a high number is the only thing that matters - u have to look at HOW THE FIGURE WAS EARNED!
Could the horse have done better? If yes how much? 1 pt, 2 pts, 5pts?
Is the figure an accurate account of the horse's ability?
Was it a peak performance that is unlikely to be repeated again? (freemason for example)
No ratings are perfect and some common sense has to be used to overcome the anomolies to get the best out of the figures.
One thing is for sure though, these ratings combined with some common sense are more reliable than just using subjective emotional opinions.
With an attitude like yours carrot, man still would not have invented the wheel! u would have complained that it was not round enough or something!
Surely you aren't agreeing with them in having M&P only third best 2400 horse in the past 15 years? He was no 1. And to have him with a higher figure at 2000 than 2400 shows how silly these sorts of numbers can be.
I mean Veandercross at 100 for 1600 metres yet 119 for 2000? Doesn't that indicate how flawed these methods are?
This site is maintained by Racing and Sports (®) Pty Ltd (ABN 093 360 108) ("R&S").
Copyright in all R&S materials is owned by Racing and Sports Pty Ltd (R&S).
Racing and Sports is a Registered Trademark.
R&S takes all care in the preparation of information appearing on the site, but accepts no responsibility nor warrants the accuracy of the information displayed.
This information is provided for entertainment purposes only. All information including race fields and TAB numbers should be checked with an official source.