There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
04 Jun 15
22:32
Joined:
Date Joined:
04 Jun 12
1. Frankel
2. Sea The Stars
3. Zarkava
4. Treve
5. Manduro
6. New Approach
7. Goldikova
8. Kingman
9. Ravens Pass
10. Henrythenavigator
Its indisputable but post your top 10 if you have the audacity to disagree, or if their is any shocking emissions
2. Sea The Stars
3. Zarkava
4. Treve
5. Manduro
6. New Approach
7. Goldikova
8. Kingman
9. Ravens Pass
10. Henrythenavigator
Its indisputable but post your top 10 if you have the audacity to disagree, or if their is any shocking emissions
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 6
|
By:
Denman.
Big bucks |
|
By:
the entire post is a shocking emission
|
|
By:
How do you compare a top 5f sprinter with a top 2m stayer ?
|
|
By:
How do you compare a top 5f sprinter with a top 2m stayer ?
That is the whole point of free handicap ratings. |
|
By:
The relative handicap ratings by distance is flawed in the sense that horses rated 100 over 1m cannot be equated to 100 over 6f. I suspect part of the reason for this is that the breeding industry has a bias in favour of certain classical distances and consequently the best is bred to be a miler or 10f, there is less breeding emphasis on sprinters in this country which is why we get slated by southern hemisphere sprinters. Lets take an extreme example. If a dozen blackpool donkeys were the only 6f horses in the UK and Gleneagles and company were the milers the handicapper would still handicap the donkeys that are dominating the sprints at a very high mark comparable with Gleneagles. The tendancy is to handicap relative to the horses at the distance and not relative to the whole cohort of animals which would be difficult.
|
|
By:
That may be true, and assuming stability and correcting for slippage doesn't help. However, it is still easier in racing to compare across distances and between eras than in many other sports.
|