Relative importances

[gunny72]

I have been working on ratings for consistency, class and fitness and was wondering what your thoughts are on the relative importance of each of these factors. So far I am using consistency 33%, class 33 and fitness 33%.

[Barny]

OK, I'll have a crack at this one. Bear in mind that I'm no e x p e r t !!

Fitness 50%
I rate fitness top of the tree by a fair way if you're rating each race, and not "following a stable of your own". My logic is that I'll leave it up to the trainer to place the horse correctly in the right class when it's ready to produce it's best. How you determine fitness is beyond me unless you study trials etc, etc or races leading up to say a 1400m or 1600m race.

Consistency 20%
This is a sub-set of fitness. A horse isn't going to perform consistently if it's not fit. The key is to find when it's at it's peak.

Class 20%
Most often I find out the class of the horse after it's beaten a good class field comparitive to the races it's been running in. I'd love to know the class of a horse in advance ????!!!! Many times I've seen the experts comments including "massive class rise" etc, etc only to see a horse salute at decent odds. These horses have usually shown some decent form but were considered not to be up to the task. I suppose investigating prizemony won / raced for is a way of filtering the class in the field.

Luck in running 10%