Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb
that's interesting, was their any conflict in methodolgy between the two of you?
i have no idea of how good timeform(we have one in aust as you would know) is, because i have always done everything for myself, but weight is a fair whack of what they do isn't it?
i had always thought that in america they don't have as much emphasis on it.
EDIT: there not their!!! hiccup.
|
Conflict, not really, but certainly plenty of discussion. At the outset we still had the scale slanted too far towards Euros. I think there was some bias towards the UK horses on the other side of the pond.
It actually worked great as shippers kept coming over and would have 10+ point edges. The good news was they kept winning, the bad news was it was obviously too much of a spread. They weren't that much better. We adjusted a few times over that first year and got it where it should be. It is something we monitor constantly. I've found as turf racing has grown in importance here the gap has narrowed.
The two sticking points are the weight for age part of the ratings and Lasix in my opinion. We take the weight for age out of the Timeform ratings so as to be similar to our scale. Lasix is the wild card. I rarely ever use horses shipping in that don't get Lasix. Get burned every once in a while, but it has paid dividends with shorter priced horses over the years.
