With due respect I think the system has stood the test of time well. I know I disagree with the 147 but only on a calculation basis. It was pointed out to me that winning 'named' races is not necessarily the best guide but in the 70's they were the races most hotly contested. Because there are so many valuable alternatives races like the Derby have become weaker in my opinion.
I think it is too contracted and that is where the problem lies.
Phil Bull started out with a rating system and decided to set the bar for his highest rated horse at 145 for some reason. It should have been at least 10lb higher but he probably never expected the number of horses in training would grow. Hence we have horses crowded around the 135 mark that are not equal but there is no room for manoeuvre.
When Brigadier Gerard came along it was probably in Bull's mind that he couldn't put him above a Derby and Arc winner in Sea Bird 11 because they were the races to win but because BG had beaten Mill Reef his hands were tied. I'm convinced had BG not been born Mill Reef would have won the 2000 Gns and would now, still be the highest rated horse ever.

Sorry, Whitford, not Whitley.

Blanket finish 8)

always pleasing when the RP and timeform agree with each other and differ from your own ratings.

What would that rating be Fig? 132?

I think they have completely lost the plot.I know the central area is congested but sometimes they defy logic. I hope these horses race again and against each other there may be some more clarity. But with all said and done Toronado has won a single Group 1 that could have been achieved under auspicious circumstances. The fact is they have over rated horses for the last couple of years and now that error could come to pass. I can easily see horses being rated very highly without actually achieving anything like what would normally be required. They are in a mess and it is going to get worse.

I hope Toronado goes to the Breeder's Cup at the very least.

Two words Stevie. Different class (so far that is)

yes it's hard to say isn't it but some of those performances in the 80s seem to stick in the mind. Did Hussey use weight in his ratings?

No, Stevie, not wfa but he used weight carried. My scale is more compressed than the commercial ones. The only 140 performance I've ever rated from an older horse was Frankel, bang on 140. I believe when a horse starts hitting mid 130s on the clock the race often gets blown wide apart and distances get exaggerated, leading to inflated ratings.

I've noticed that particularly happens in the Derby, took me a few years to realise it, though. A strong pace often produces a wide margin winner, the horses with suspect stamina get exposed even more and the difficulties in handling the track are more pronounced. I found that usually there's not as much difference as I thought between an average Derby winning performance and a good one, just that some go on from it and some don't.

Brig, I'm talking about his Lockinge rating, his previous figures are immaterial, apart from providing substance that he didn't have too much to build on. The Lockinge was a very big performance on the clock, I have no doubt whatsoever about that, there is just too much proof on that card for doubt. Horses like Sovereign Debt can and sometimes do run out of their skin in one race run at a fast pace, maybe the run bottomed him, I don't know, but I do know he ran his best ever that day. As I've said before, if you're looking for unequivocal proof by association then I don't see how that could lead to backing anything other than favourites and underpriced horses, or horses that have proved so much they're already past their sell by date, like CDA. When Harbinger annihilated the Hardwicke field bar Duncan in a very fast time there were those who said it couldn't be that good because Duncan held the form down, Harbinger more than proved them wrong next time.

Not times on a track that was lightening fast

Brig, there is no point in discussing times with you, as you couldn't possibly have made that comment if you understood them. Stick to what works for you and I'll stick to my methods

The Queen Anne looks the likely target for Sovereign Debt after this career-best effort. Trainer Michael Bell said: "That was a terrific run. I'd have been happy being beaten four or five lengths. He hasn't won at Listed level yet, but as he likes Ascot I expect we'll go for the Queen Anne."

Declaration Of War got upset in the stalls and, after seeing him come in a well-beaten fifth, trainer Aidan O'Brien said: We'll take him home and see; obviously there must be an excuse."

The other leading fancy Cityscape was among the first beaten, eventually trailing in last of the 12 runners and trainer Roger Charlton said: "He hated the quick ground."

On the back of that how can anyone rate the race seriously? And I haven't included John Gosden's comments.

If we're talking about form, no times, then why have you conveniently ignored Aljamaaheer? He has franked my Lockinge figure for him twice since. Why look to horses that have obviously performed below par in a race to rate it around when there are others that ran to form?

I haven't conveniently missed Aljamaheer. He was Listed class last season and I suggest being beaten by Sovereign Debt, beating Gregorian narrowly and beating Mull of Killoch just about confirms that. Maybe a genuine Group 3 performer.

The Duncan point you make is not well made. The ratings were Harbinger 120, Duncan 115, Barshiba 110. Distances 3.5 lengths and 6 lengths.

Farhh rating 124, Sovereign Debt 111, Aljamaheer 110. Distances 4 lengths and a neck.

perfect read of the form by figgis for moonlight cloud. exactly how the form looked in the book. only horse i wasnt familiar
with was intello, that has only won group 1 over 11f, MC had a 2nd to black caviar/ win over farhh at 8f group 1/ unlucky
against excelebration / win over the amazing lethal force. with DA'S recent exertions and weaknesses exposed. the eventual
2nd olympic glory was a group 3/2/1 winner as a 2yo, was always going to improve with age with a profile like that.

Erm 133 actually , as I've said before though, I don't agree with the historical context of the ratings, Sea Bird's 145 and all that, so I'm not really comfortable transferring to their scale.

Aljamaaheer has won a Gp2 last time I looked, you can't use the accumulation of graded races to fit when it suits and ignore them when it doesn't.

I think it was you Fig who told me last year to ignore the name of the race and look at the contenders. It was a Group 2 in name but in name only. With so many Group races many of them are not what they say on the tin. I could give you a long list of Group 1 winners who couldn't win a proper Group 1 and sometimes not even a Group 2 or 3. Such is the state of the Pattern.

Yes I know that Stevie I was just relating how the Official Ratings compared in the two races in question.

I would give him something around 126. Just behind St Nicholas Abbey and Nathaniel and more behind So You Think. The letter two beat him comfortably and St Nicholas Abbey was more inconvenienced by the Juddmonte conditions and has won six times more Group 1 races.

And St Nic beat better horses in his Group 1 wins which included Midday, Gentildonna, Dunaden, Red Cadeaux and Sea Moon all of the better than what Farhh has beaten in his races.

And Duncan did win a Gr1 and a couple of Gr2's so I was prepared to give him the Group 2 benfit of the doubt. He wasn't Group 1.

Now compare them with Reliable Man, Twice Over, Gabrial, Sarkiyla and Sovereign Debt.

I know you will disagree but the ratings for the horses St Nic beat were 117, 122, 116, 124 and 121.
The horses Farhh beat were 116, 119, 108, 108 and 111.

How can Farhh be rated 133 ffs?