Blowing up the latest world rankings that place Winx in third

you are starting to get scary aransan but enjoying it immensely.

hi JNL, i know how timeform do their ratings. remember i said in the original forum that timeform usually rate 3/5 points higher than the IFHA and that's how it turned out. this is because they start from a higher mark. IMHO i've honestly never did an indepth of the racing post but it does look like a rehash mirroring the OHR give or take a point or two ... the handicapping point of contention is Hartnell and what he really rated. Greg Carpenter (AU's IFHA rep) said, not long after the Cox, Hartnell rated 121 - i had him on the same level as this turnbull win of 123 and said here directly after the Cox. but i have the utmost respect for carpenter and i can live with his number because i know how he got there. the math is straight forward - no dodgie stuff. let's have some satirical fun and see if we can find some logical workout strategy to how they landed on their mark of 130. we'll be using their official scale published under sammyT's post, memory serves me it's from the BHA.. at 2040m the scale says 1 length equals 1.75 points so 8 lengths = 14pts ... heavens no, that means 121 + 14 = 135 ... too high ... far too high ... that puts her within 3 lens of Frankel ... sacrilegious aussies. let's take another tack - Winx has beaten Hartnell 4 times by an average of 6.5 lengths. he never finished further back then 5th, running 2nd twice. so 6.5L (x 1.75) = 11 pts ... 11 + 121 = 133 ... no, no, no too high. ok-ok-ok let's try again ... what if we say Hartnell only rates 119, down 4 pts off his proven turnbull rating but thats 2 pts higher than he rated in europe (117) - Greg won't mind us backing off his rating by a couple of points, he's a good bloke. it still is better than his euro rating. aussie racegoers are clueless they be just happy to have one good enough for the northern hemisphere. ok off 119 with the lower mark of 11 we get to 130 - perfect - don't have to release it until after the breeder's cup ... cool. now lets see if we can justify it under our 5th/6th starting point we should be using ... ok 5th/6th both have a start mark of 115 and were beaten 10.5L = 10.5 x 1.75pts = 18pts ... oh no, oh no ... save us lord we are back at 133 again ... so let's drop these also rans 3pts to a 112 ... neither horses had any influence on the race but ... they have no wet form so we can justify dropping them an extra point over Hartnell's 2 pts.. ok eveything is real pretty now and her rate is officially 130 ... tell carpenter 130 is her IFHA mark and for him to be happy - spin it as the world's best ... turf ... horse. gee we are the best handicappers ever and they lived happily ever after. well, that's great until Awesome Rock (Cox-5th) wins the emirates 14 days later and rates at least 115. i can tell you i had a smile of the dial a mile wide and reckon the VRC hcp team did too. you see, when the ratings were published with acceptances for the emirates ... awesome rock 116 ... happy clapper 115 ... hang-on did Team-Vic lifted AweRock 1 pt for beating home Happy Clapper 0.5L in the cox ---- is G.Carpenter telling the faithful, very quitely that winx, in his/team's opinion did rate 133 in the cox ... maybe ... i could understand him leaving all 4 cox runners on their cox mark but to lift ARock a point ... what would i know? But he did win :-) . i suppose some handicappers know what they are doing and others are just making up the ... whatever. bottom-line ------- if any of the ratings people you have mentioned JNL can show me the math that arrives at 130 and is consistent with their methodology tested through other ratings; that is math and not invention like my above musing ... then contact them - point them to this thread and we'll see how they go. also, don't you think the 'p' attached to the timeform rating actually means - 'i don't know, i'm guessing'. BTW - my turn for some smugness - remember how i said my mark for hartnell's cox was 123 in my first article --- funny how of the 4 horses backing up from the Cox Plate in the Emirates 14 days later managed to fill 3 of the first 4 over the line ... nice little divvie that ... just coincidence i guess.

the early U.S. pace handicappers from the 70's and 80's -- howard sartin's gang used metres/second as a speed description and it was popularised in Tom Brohamer's famous handicapping textbook, Modern Pace Handicapping. too long to describe the methodology here but was able to re-find a los-angles times article written by andrew beyer (legendary Beyer Speed figures) in January, 1986 when both Sartin and Beyer methodologies were making an impact. a good read. http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-05/sports/sp-24765_1_race-track samT, i said speed and pace were sides of the same coin. race pressure can't exist without both. be good for you to learn a little about them from the three gentleman mentioned in the previous paragraph as i did a couple or so decades ago.

awe matty you and your spoiler alerts. yes Red was beaten at saratoga in the whitney by the aptly named Onion - tears to the punters eyes ... but as we both know pace and speed profile two sides of the one coin. Beyer figures are excellent but can only tell you how fast a horse goes. Pace tells you what happens when fast horses are dragged out of their comfort zone. then you see what class is.

SamT, forgot to answer your question about the ranking points. below is the sliding scale still in use officially and elsewhere. The table below details that one length equals the 'Ranking Points' at the nominated distance range. These numbers are modified (slightly) if the overall racetime / racing incidents warrant but generally, using these numbers will keep you in the game. Of course, one point = one pound race-weight (not quite 0.5 kilos but close enough - except if you live in queensland). 1000m = 3pts 1200m = 2.5pts 1400-1600m = 2pts 1800-2000m = 1.75pts 2200-2600m = 1.5pts 2800m = 1.25pts 3000m+ = 1pt

aransan, a really competent observation but there is a touch more. BC's TJ is a most excellent example. the section between 600-200m tells an awesome story - both horses were accelerating at G1 speed - GSchofield wound the wick up on Hay List and BC closed on him from a margin very determinately showing how she could reel-off a 10s. he didn't come back to her - she chased him down over extended ground he eventually broke but the rest were broken a long way out.

well sammy T, she has possibly 8 starts penciled in for next year and with the racing gods blessing she with be able to compete safely and fairly in them. if she were to win all 8 that would make 21 wins on the trot and 15 G1s? stretching over 3 seasons, in both G1 Hcps and WFA, distances from 1300m to 2200m in a victory run of G2s or better ... they won't be able to ignore that --- who could?

you absolutely correct with your definition aransan. required would be access to racetime splits similar to those supplied freely to punters by racing.com / ATC and in particular the HKJC - also need a full-form database like Risa. maybe there is another way to simply show an example ... let me have think.

US middle distance is from 1600-1900m due to their track design. CC is at his flying best in this range or at lest to 1800m and winx from then on. at 1600-1900m i'm on the fence and for me they stay on the same proven number. actually i'd probably back CC upto 1650m with confidence. the acceleration comment simplifies how quickly a horse chases/creates highly pressured pace. not to be confused as just speed or a fast time or his quickest race time splits. this factor underpins class. i could show you in simple numbers how this factor manifests itself - it's real, measurable and predictive towards future performance. I repeat, splits / sectionals are useful but far from the final story. you need to do a little more work to understand their lasting benefit.