Depends on the context they are used in, but for example saying workforce is the best derby winner ever because he broke the track record is absolute rubbish

Cape Blanco went on to win in America - I believe Debussy did as well, which shows the standard required to win a g1 over there!

Harbinger at his best vs STS at his best is like Muhammed Ali fighting Frank Bruno - both world champions but a highly noticeable gulf in class. Also the winning the Hardwicke argument is a bit silly considering how average the race is! Harbinger is one the luckiest horses going really as he ran an eyecatching race in a weak g1 (because of workforce's blowout) and then got injured so that he was never put into the situation where he had to prove that the run was not a one off. STS won 6 top quality group 1s in one 3yo campaign. Harbinger's career in comparison to this is, to be quite honest, a joke!His major career wins are:

The Gordon Stakes - WOW
The John Porter Stakes - LOOKOUT
The Ormonde Stakes - NO WAY!!
The Hardwicke - BEST RACE IN THE WORLD
King George - Oh wait, the only class race in this list

Enough on that

The Denman vs Kauto both at their best over Gold Cup distance - its a shame we never saw this as they raced each other twice when in their primes but unfortunately there was a cloud over one of them each time! I would agree that the C & D was better suited to Denman but this, for me, makes Kauto's performances in the Gold Cup even better - he never appeared to be as comfortable going left-handed, his jumping was slightly more suspect around a tough course and the trip was more stretching of his stamina. As a comparison between the two as racehorses, Kauto Star is far superior.

I actually agree with Keith about Big Bucks, in a way - the problem with him is that we do not really know how good he is and i don't think we ever will - but that is largely because he is so superior to the other horses in his division. so he must be a freak?! People agree with Frankel continuously running over 8f because he is so lethal at it, well why shouldnt Big Bucks continue to brush aside all 3 mile hurdlers with similar disdain. The parallel is exact!

The reason big bucks appears so good is because three mile hurdlers are so poor is that people see no point in sticking around or even bothering with the three mile hurdles as the more lucrative prizes are over fences. Chasing us Luther so the best chasers are always better than the best hurdlers.

Yeah them 3m hurdlers are so poor. Grand Crus was useless.


Nicholls has said more than once that Big Bucks is the best he has ever trained. If he took to fences properly he wouldn've won multiple Gold Cups

Consistency is the only fair way to compare ability. Some days it all comes together, or the opponents have an off day but the more often the results are repeated the less likely it is that fortune was involved and ability becomes apparent.

Ratings for single performances a relatively pointless. That Harbinger performance for one, is he 11L better than Cape Blanco or 4L better than Duncan? Is Duncan 7L better than Cape Blanco? Same again for Kauto’s phenomenal King George performance, for me, it’s not the fact he won by a mile once it’s that he kept winning it that should mean he has a high rating.

If prize money was determined on how far a horse won by ratings might be relevant but in reality 1st is 1st whether they win by a nose or 10 lengths.

For me, you could make STS carry a stone more in his Arc and he’d still win by 2 lengths. Same for Big Bucks, apart from you could add 2/3 stone and he still wins easily.

I don't think anyone is doubting this but the point is rating are what they are, a one off performance. I agree that STS is a much better horse than Harbinger but I can see why Harbinger got the mark he did and accept it.



This is a joke surely, Sea The Stars was a magnificent horse, maybe the best ever but you honestly believe that he could give 6lbs and a 2length beating to some top class older horses, this would mean that he should be rated 145 if you use the line through Conduit although he was different gravy to Conduit no way was he 20lbs superior

Sorry that is ridiculous. There is no way STS would have won the arc with an extra stone to carry. And to say big bucks could win carrying 2 or 3 stone more than everyone else- grands crus ran 3 seconds faster for the feltham than kauto did in the king george and he was carrying 3lb less. There are 14 lb in a stone, so 2 stone would be 28 lb, by the grands crus comparison that could be as much as 28 seconds, well over a furlong in distance.

You don't think STS could give 6lbs and a 2 length beating to Conduit? I think he could give at least that much and still win by 2 lengths.

You can't compare the Feltham time and the King George time, they set a very quick pace in the Feltham and were 3 seconds up by the 3rd fence and you certainly can't draw weight for time conclusions from it. I think attaching your logic to Denman may have made that obvious, he gave What A Friend 22lbs and a 3 length beating.

But I definitely think Big Bucks could carry more weight and still win. Horses are not humans, it's not their natural instinct to steam dozens of lengths off. If you did time trials of a horse by itself do you think the highest rated horses would set the fastest times? I really hope not! Too much Starters Orders if you think that.

Denman is irrelevant as he is much better than what a friend. The way the weights works is based on lengths amongst other factors. In a 2 mile flat race 1lb=1 length, so you would imagine it would be more over 3 miles, probably 2lb=3 lengths. 2 stone = 28lb. So for 2 stone over 3 miles this equates to 42 lengths. So you're telling me big bucks would be able to make up a 42 length deficit on his rivals such as voler la vedette and that he would have still won the world hurdle carrying 2 stone more than anyone else?

I don't think he could beat VlV by 42 lengths ever because that's not what horses do but I do think he has enough of an engine to carry a lot more weight, more than their difference in rating, and I definitely think he is good enough to shoulder 2 stone more at his very best.

Once again vital factors are ignored. Denman was not called the tank for nothing. He could carry more weight with ease, compared to a smaller horse who would struggle to carry 12 stone in a Grade1. You dont think that happens? If horses were made to carry 14 stone then horses like Denman would have been at an advantage.


Big Bucks has won numerous races with over a stone in hand. Two might be a bit extreme, but definitely one(14 lbs)

I am not saying he would have to beat her by 42 lengths, but make up 42 lengths on her which the weight would equate to.
How am I ignoring vital factors? I acknowledged denman is better, and therefore able to carry more weight.

Unfortunately we have no way of knowing but on official ratings Big Bucks is a stone and a half better than VlV but I think that he's even better than that.

I said Denman is able to carry more weight because of his strength and size, regardless of his ability. Just like Arnie could carry more than De Vito. Ya get me?

Yes, and by saying he is better would only he is able to carry that weight more successfully.