OK I don't think I am getting my point across properly. This is not a real race I am talking about, this is theoretical. And I am therefore assuming that all things were exactly the same and things like time etc. are irrelevant because the question merely is a matter of theory - which is the better run, when a horse runs 6th beaten 4 lengths or 2nd beaten 5 lengths. It's a question of theory. For what it's worth my method would assume that the 2nd was 1.5 kgs or 1 length superior to the sixth, I am just interested to hear what others think of this theoretical situation, basically do people look at lengths beaten as the be all and end all, or at finishing positions, or both.

So for the sake of argument say it was over a mile at the same track with exactly the same track speed, but the times ran were irrelevant because the first week was slowly run (hence the small margins!) and they ran 99 seconds when the next week was quick run and they ran 96. They CRAWLED first week though, so their time doesn't matter. The class was the same, the horses the same level with the same API, just looking at this one theoretical horse who one week ran 6th beaten 4 and the next second beaten 5. I reckon the second week is the better run even with the bigger margin.

Any other thoughts?

Duritz.