Hmmm, very grey area crash.
Ratings versus handicapping versus systems.
I think each has a touch of the other
For example one of my systems uses ratings very successfully.
Another of my systems uses handicapping.
Where does it stop being one or the other?
I have successfully used statistics to identify a little known and "poo pooed" concept which is logically sound.
Add this to the ratings and vrooom - we have an outstanding result.
I'll leave you with this:
Entires and Geldings are more consistent, resiliant and stronger than Colts, Fillies and Mares. All things being equal a colt will beat a filly. An Entire or a Gelding will beat a Mare more often than not. When things are not equal in the male favour, they will beat the others remarkably more often than not.
Proven fact.
I do not mean that a superior Mare will get beaten by an average Male.
I do not mean that males have higher or better strike rates in general.
There is a "bounce back", "live up to", final 200m inner strength that is there, when other factors are taken into consideration, that the females and younger horses just don't have. Erratic preparations, eratic form etc. all play a part in what I've researched.
Finally, the handicapper penalises colts over fillies, Entires and Geldings over Mares - all things being equal- yet nobody believes this basic fact.
The weight impost is not enough to even level what I've discovered to an even playing field, so the statement is even stronger.
The role and impact of weight....well that's a whole other story...
Gee I'm having fun today