Quote:
|
Originally Posted by King Glorious
Are these rankings for grass only? Also, I'm not informed on Australian racing at all but it's always been my opinion that the racing there is highly provincial. I compare it to saying a horse beat the best in Canada. Doesn't mean a lot outside of that region. Her win in England was a good one but it was also in a grade two race. If she had beaten the best in Europe, that would be a different story. I would have no issue with calling a world class level horse. But the world champion seems a bit of a stretch.
|
This helps to explain the point structure.....
From the South China Morning post.....
Kingdom still not quite in Witness' league ... yet
ON THE RAILS, with ALAN AITKEN
Any comparison between the world ratings of the great Silent Witness (above) in his heyday and Sacred Kingdom now is nonsense. Photo: David Wong
It was difficult not to be a devoted fan of Silent Witness, and if Sacred Kingdom keeps doing what he's doing without faltering for another two years he will deservedly hold the same pride of place in Hong Kong's heart and in racing lore.
We aren't saying he won't do it but that's how far Sacred Kingdom has to go to be Silent Witness - and two years is a very long time in a racehorse's life.
And yet, this column unreservedly supports the world's handicappers in their decision last week to rate Sacred Kingdom on the same international figure as they did the "Spirit of Hong Kong" at his peak.
Had the panel gone the whole nine yards and put Sacred Kingdom on 124, above their peak for Silent Witness and on par with Miss Andretti - more about that shortly - then we would have just as readily supported them.
Not because Sacred Kingdom is a better horse than was Silent Witness, but because the international handicappers distinguished themselves by collectively never getting Silent Witness right.
Even when Cape Of Good Hope had done the hard yards for them as a ready comparison and won Group Ones in Australia and at Royal Ascot, there was still no hurry to regard Silent Witness as dominant or even as good as some of the European sprinters immediately preceding him.
The bizarre 125 for Oasis Dream in 2003 was always one that stuck in the craw, for example. A clear case of a lie to support a lie.
In raptures with Choisir, the handicappers over-boosted his rating after his wins at Ascot and were then forced to kick Oasis Dream onto the roof when he beat Choisir in the July Cup.
And as worthy as his achievements were, Choisir was never any better than the usual standard of top sprinter every year in Australia. He didn't magically improve in England, any more than Cape Of Good Hope magically improved when he left Hong Kong - they just met different opposition.
So any comparison between the world ratings of Silent Witness then and Sacred Kingdom now is nonsense.
All that can be said about the horse getting 123 is that the handicappers are getting more practice at rating horses from outside Europe and probably moving towards the truth - though 120 for Benbaun beating up a bunch of Class Two horses in Paris stands out as silly.
Of course, 123 does not make Sacred Kingdom the world's best but at least connections know how to shortcut the rise to the top position.
Miss Andretti remains the world's "top rated" sprinter by virtue of the invisible four points she gets for being female.
So her 120 has to be read as 124. Why we can't just publish ratings in black and white and call her 124 remains yet another mystery of the classifications.
She got an automatic three-point raise to 120 after travelling to Ascot to win the King's Stand, beating UK local Dandy Man and her compatriots, Magnus and Takeover Target. We wonder how many points she would have got for beating Magnus and Takeover Target in a race in Australia. Probably none.
Thus the lesson is simple.
Sacred Kingdom can easily become much higher rated than Silent Witness by turning up to win second-rate prize money at Ascot against lesser opposition than he will regularly face here.