The problem with ratings [name you fancy] is everyone has access to them and like pp odds they mostly point to favourites that lose most of their races anyway, and do so at punishingly small odds.

Handicapping is the only way to come up with winners that pay well [Western Embrace $18.90w from Purser last Sat. in Brisb. and the Socialist from him the week before were particularly fine handicapping efforts]. Personally and like probably a lot of handicappers, I have no use for ratings at all. They are no more use than Newspaper tips, 'e*****' opinion, pp odds or any other opinion, except for use in messing with systems I guess or at most, a good starting point for handicapping.

Handicappers are looking at class of horse and race, form, trainer, jockey, running style of the horse and will the barrier suit it? Other very important things like gear changes, win cycles [not much point backing a last start winner with a 10% or less WSR] are just a few of the many things that rating producers don't take into account and make it impossible for the word 'accurate' to have anything more than a general at best association with the word 'ratings'.