Yozman I read in your other thread that you're a uni student/pizzaboy. I am going to assume that you don't therefore have any experience with ratings. You just s**tcanned them in this thread, but you may not know anything about them. I'll quickly tell you why they're not the rubbish you seem to think they are:

Ratings are a means of quantifying how good or bad a horse is. Each run receives a figure which represents how good or bad it is. So on one day one 3yo in Melbourne may win impressively etc etc and one may win impressively in Sydney. We of course want to know which was better when they line up next time. The rating tells you that. When I say "it rated 122, wa wa wa", and the other horse "rated 120, wa wa wa", then the 122 is a length better. They line up at level weights next time, I'm on the 122 horse, all else being equal.

Ratings aren't something you should pour vitriol upon like you did earlier in the thread. I have no idea why you'd need to do that - all they are is a tool to do the form, to attempt to quantify a horse's ability. You said in your other thread that El Segundo was a good thing last Friday night because it was coming back from carrying WFA 57.5 kgs behind Lad of the Manor et al to carrying 52.5 against those listed horses, and it duly won. I agreed that it was a good thing because in that race behind Lad et al it had rated 117. The best rating by any horse in the JRA outside of El Segundo was 113 (on memory) and they all had to give him weight. We came to the same conclusion, just two different ways.

I hope you don't harbour some grudge towards rating methods, because it really is a good way to do the form.

Cheers.

Oh and keep backing El Segundo.