ratings are nothing but opinion. and here is mine.

​The latest hoo-ha to hit the Racing Post headlines is the vexed topic of the difference in handicap marks given to horses by the English and Irish handicappers. Now, as I have stated many times, my belief is that the rating given to any individual horse is only the opinion of one man and may differ to another’s viewpoint. Actually, I usually use the phrase ‘ratings are bollocks’ as I believe computerised handicapping is where it all started to go wrong!
The rating or handicap mark given to a horse is supposed to represent its ability based on previous performances. Unfortunately, some might say sadly, on many occasions the handicap mark is based on one race (the horse is being murdered by the handicapper, many a trainer will claim) and the horse in question may languish on that hyper-inflated mark for several seasons before the handicapper applies leniency of common-sense. Cyrname was once one the highest rated horses in Britain and Ireland, a rating acquired in winning what to all effect was a two-horse race in heavy ground against a horse with no previous form over either the distance or the ground conditions.
One of the saddest and unfair sights in the sport is to see an honest and durable handicapper running off the same high mark for season after season constantly gallantly failing to give large amounts of weight away to younger (thrown-in at the weights, as they say) rivals. As I have suggested in the past, if handicaps can be framed for horses rated between 90-100 or 85-95 or whatever, surely it should be possible to have conditions races confined to horses rated between 110-130 or whatever? But I digress.
The argument why universal ratings cannot be introduced, something Gordon Elliott has called for, is led by Ireland’s senior jumps handicapper, Andrew Shaw. “It’s unlikely there will ever be parity between Irish and British ratings because of the system,” he told the Racing Post. “The system in each country is different.”
His defence of the disparity is based on the incontrovertible fact that jumps racing in Ireland tends to be far more competitive than in Britain with twenty-runner handicaps commonplace, whereas over here six, seven and eight-runner handicaps are more the norm. Because of the big fields in Ireland, the Irish handicapper will, as a matter of course, raise the rating of many horses from one race and lower an equal number, something that the British handicapper would rarely have need to do.
He also pointed out that in Britain horses can go straight into handicaps off their hurdle rating, whereas in Ireland a horse had to have run at least twice or win once over fences to qualify for a chase mark. The latter being far more sensible, I would think.
Mr. Shaw’s defence is fair comment. I still remain drawn to Gordon Elliott’s point of view, though. Horse racing in Ireland and Britain, especially over jumps, is interlinked, intertwined, their histories throughout the centuries running parallel. I would go as far to suggest that the sport in this country could not exist without the Irish and vice-versa. The two countries are not enemies, though the sheer number of times 23-5 has appeared in the Racing Post over the past part of twelve-months gives the impression to any impartial or ignorant observer that the opposite is true and that at some time past a state of sporting war had been declared by one against the other.
To my mind, the two friendly countries should operate as close to one as possible. The racing calendars of both countries should be harmonised to the mutual benefit of both, as should the system of handicapping. The two departments of handicapping should, at their earliest convenience get together to discuss the best method of harmonising the way horses are assessed in both countries. It is ridiculous that a horse from Ireland can be 5Ibs lower in Britain than in Ireland or 5Ib lower.
The B.H.A.’s head of handicapping, Dominic Gardiner-Hill spoke with the authority of a politician rather than a sportsman when he said. “Although the work the handicappers have done so far has been well received, there is still more to do. The next stage will be to conduct end-of-season analyses which will be even more informative than these interim figures, allowing us to compare entire season statistics.”
Which, again, is fair comment. But will the path the two authorities are travelling ever get as far as addressing the real-life problem or will their interaction only consist of statistics and theoretical aims? Afterall, Andrew Shaw is of the opinion that there will always be disparity between the two handicapping systems, while Dominic Gardiner-Hill seems only concerned with using statistics to get to wherever his goal might lie, with neither, seemingly, at all interested in discussing the matter with a racehorse trainer or anyone who actually works at the coal-face.