Yosman I did say who I thought would win, right at the start of this thread. In fact, that was the POINT of this thread. It was a thread for - pay attention now - who I thought would win the Cups and the Cox plate using the ********** ratings. Didn't you see that bit at the start?

Since then, Accumulate has broken down. (How many Cummings stayers break down???). So, keener on Dizelle now.

Duritz, Time ratings have a distinctive edge for future performances.
Beyer had US experience but not Oz experience.
Your Tamworth example opens up the murky sub-heading in time ratings called sectionals.
Your Rewaaya example is spot on. The same logic applies to El Segundo's win in a maiden at Cranbourne on the 20th March. Always nice to know an up and comer so early in the peace.
The even money on offer about El Segundo was a little too short for a percentage player like me. However the 40's on offer at his WFA run previous to that was very tasteful for First Four standout players. Must say that Makybe's run in that race was a bottler.

Patezza I've done as much work on secs as I have on times, and I agree, it is a murky subheading underneath times. Too murky for mine. I have so, so much I could say on this subject but I don't have the time to write it all down right now, but sectionals too are a flawed method when used on their own. (that's part of the key, none of these methods are any good ON THEIR OWN). Things can effect a sectional, from when they take off (sometimes still crawling past the 400m pole), to rain during the day etc etc. When they pulled the stand down at Caulfied everything changed because a wind hitherto unfelt blew through the gap.

I have tried to come up with the perfect way of rating using times and secs. Part of me still believes it can be done. That's the part of me that's purely logical and believes in maths over horses. That part of me doesn't know a thing nor care a damn abuot missing stands and rain during the day. That part wants to be able to get a horse's time, his lead, his final, and know what he has done. That part of me thinks there is a perfect way of rating them based on this, but that part of me is wrong.

Couple of years ago, in the Yalumba I think it was, 1800 Caulfield, Mummify led, Lonhro sat on his back. They walked in front, and Lonhro cruised past Mummify like he was not there. Kicked his brains in. Mummify looked ordinary - 1 paced and slow.

Week later, Mummify breaks MIGHT AND POWER's track record (the best horse in the last 15 years AT LEAST) Caulfield track record, leading in a fast pace. Had Lonhro sat on Mummify's back that day, he'd have been burn't off. Mummify is a strong 1 pacer, Lonhro was a sit and accelrate horse. They are two examples of the two different types. A more distinct example of a 1 pacer is Plastered. He has not got an accelerating particle (one for the physicists) in his body. Between Lonhro and Plastered on the scale of accleration - 1 pacedness fall all other horses. This alone renders sectionals used purely useless, because certain horse's like it run certain ways. Mummify was left flat footed in a sit and sprint by Lonhro, however he would burn Lonhro off in a strong pace.

Anyway, when all's said and done, and trust me I've been to both sides of this, CLASS and WEIGHT are the two most important factors there are.

Patezza I've done as much work on secs as I have on times, and I agree, it is a murky subheading underneath times. Too murky for mine. I have so, so much I could say on this subject but I don't have the time to write it all down right now, but sectionals too are a flawed method when used on their own. (that's part of the key, none of these methods are any good ON THEIR OWN). Things can effect a sectional, from when they take off (sometimes still crawling past the 400m pole), to rain during the day etc etc. When they pulled the stand down at Caulfied everything changed because a wind hitherto unfelt blew through the gap.

I have tried to come up with the perfect way of rating using times and secs. Part of me still believes it can be done. That's the part of me that's purely logical and believes in maths over horses. That part of me doesn't know a thing nor care a damn abuot missing stands and rain during the day. That part wants to be able to get a horse's time, his lead, his final, and know what he has done. That part of me thinks there is a perfect way of rating them based on this, but that part of me is wrong.

Couple of years ago, in the Yalumba I think it was, 1800 Caulfield, Mummify led, Lonhro sat on his back. They walked in front, and Lonhro cruised past Mummify like he was not there. Kicked his brains in. Mummify looked ordinary - 1 paced and slow.

Week later, Mummify breaks MIGHT AND POWER's track record (the best horse in the last 15 years AT LEAST) Caulfield track record, leading in a fast pace. Had Lonhro sat on Mummify's back that day, he'd have been burn't off. Mummify is a strong 1 pacer, Lonhro was a sit and accelrate horse. They are two examples of the two different types. A more distinct example of a 1 pacer is Plastered. He has not got an accelerating particle (one for the physicists) in his body. Between Lonhro and Plastered on the scale of accleration - 1 pacedness fall all other horses. This alone renders sectionals used purely useless, because certain horse's like it run certain ways. Mummify was left flat footed in a sit and sprint by Lonhro, however he would burn Lonhro off in a strong pace.

Anyway, when all's said and done, and trust me I've been to both sides of this, CLASS and WEIGHT are the two most important factors there are. What a horse did, in what class, against who, with what weight. That's what counts. The rest is looking for certainty in clouds of smoke, and, again, trust me, I know this.