World Thoroughbred Ratings

corny

This was discussed a bit on the racing channels this afternoon, got me thinking. Officially New Approach was the highest rated horse in the world last year (along with Curlin) on 130. The unbeaten and brilliant Zarkava was given a rating of 128. Now in my opinion over a mile 2 or a mile 4 Zarkava would win pulling up on the line. I think the majority would agree. Add to that, asked how they would price up a direct match up a representative from William Hill said 4/6 Zarkava 11/10 New Approach! My point is how can you take these ratings seriously if the only thing they take into account are official winning distances. Of course i'm assuming thats how they came up with these numbers. New Approach beating Twice Over by 6 lengths in the Champion Stakes at Newmarket is impressive in its own right but surely Zarkava winning all 7 of her races in extremely decisive fashion, winning the Prix Vermeille (after walking out of the stalls losing 15 lengths) in a race record time and winning the most coveted flat race in Europe (the first 3 year old filly to win since 1982) should put her ahead on any official rating?

Shan75

I'd agree with you here.I'd also like to say that the International Classifications are not the be all and end all.It's my opinion that winners of the Epsom Derby are sometimes over-rated.A lot of the time this seems to be depending on who owns them etc.Motivator is the best example for me.He won a poor Derby and got a rating of 133 whereas Sinndar beat no less than Sakhee and only got a rating of 130.Both Sinndar and Sakhee went on to become European Champions when both won the Arc.Another one that always got me was High Chaparral.He easily beat his Derby field much more impressively than Motivator and went on to beat Falbrav in the Irish Champion Stakes when the conditions should have favoured Falbrav and then beat him again in the Breeders Cup for good measure.Yet Falbrav and Hawk Wing ended up with higher official ratings.Ridiculous and stupid if you ask me and I have fairly well made up my mind that there are interested parties involved in these decisions.

Back to the original point I would take Zarkava to brush aside New Approach over any distance from 8f to 12f on anything from good to soft or better at level weights.The collateral form with Henrythenavigator and Goldikova is there for all to see.

gscully

I started a thread on the flat horse of the season a while back and for me it was always about Zarkava. She is/was one in a million. Most people agreed that she was the best horse of the season...especially as Curlin couldn't follow up in the Breeders Cup.

How on earth is Ravens Pass ranked higher than Zarkava??? As was mentioned, she won her first race over 1m4f after losing serious ground at the start and then came flying around the outside to win in a record time. She then destroyed a high-class Arc field after struggling to get out of the pack with 2f to go. When I watch her races on youtube, I still get goosebumps!

It's like the football World Player of the Year...a joke!

corny

Shan75 wrote: »

I'd agree with you here.I'd also like to say that the International Classifications are not the be all and end all.It's my opinion that winners of the Epsom Derby are sometimes over-rated.A lot of the time this seems to be depending on who owns them etc.Motivator is the best example for me.He won a poor Derby and got a rating of 133 whereas Sinndar beat no less than Sakhee and only got a rating of 130.Both Sinndar and Sakhee went on to become European Champions when both won the Arc.Another one that always got me was High Chaparral.He easily beat his Derby field much more impressively than Motivator and went on to beat Falbrav in the Irish Champion Stakes when the conditions should have favoured Falbrav and then beat him again in the Breeders Cup for good measure.Yet Falbrav and Hawk Wing ended up with higher official ratings.Ridiculous and stupid if you ask me and I have fairly well made up my mind that there are interested parties involved in these decisions.

Back to the original point I would take Zarkava to brush aside New Approach over any distance from 8f to 12f on anything from good to soft or better at level weights.The collateral form with Henrythenavigator and Goldikova is there for all to see.

To be fair New Approach's mark was given to him for his run in the Champion Stakes not the Derby and Motivator was given a mark of 125 in 2005 by the same people. It does seem that its strictly a numbers game with them though and i'm convinced they're a bunch of Americans sifting through form and winning distances rather than seeing the logic of your above examples.

Diggy78

I'm not at all sure if this is valid, but would she be rated lower because she's a filly, and hence always getting a weight allowance of a few pounds against the colts? Would seem to balance out the ratings a little, maybe I'm talking crap there though.

Shan75

Diggy78 wrote: »

I'm not at all sure if this is valid, but would she be rated lower because she's a filly, and hence always getting a weight allowance of a few pounds against the colts? Would seem to balance out the ratings a little, maybe I'm talking crap there though.

Not crap at all.They do take, and you have to, the fillies allowance into account but in this case it still makes no sense as Zarkava was still under-rated because of the ease with which she won pretty much all her races and particularly in the Vermeilles, losing 15 lengths and winning on the bridle and again in the Arc where she fluffed the start, ran into trouble and still won with a nice bit in hand over decent if not brilliant Group 1 performers.

Corny wrote:It does seem that its strictly a numbers game with them though and i'm convinced they're a bunch of Americans sifting through form and winning distances rather than seeing the logic of your above examples.
15-01-2009 10:57

Absolutely.You can just imagine them putting times and distances into some computer formula and out pops the ratings.What a horrible way to spend your time this would be.