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.
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 a
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.
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.