Nellsman
Thanks to
G
Garry, first in his posts on the Lesley Ann thread and now in relation to Park Express, we find we are on less solid ground than we probably supposed re ability ratings. In principle they are objective but in practice only if they can be calculated from all the necessary data and we can no longer rely on the Form Books for that.
Anyway, I am currently working on the assumption that, using the standard ability rating, Park Express is fifth in the rank order.
In my view, VDW worked in the way he showed in his 1988 Mackeson article which, cutting out the irrelevances, was first, putting the field into rank order, then working down identifying the form horses and then checking that those still in contention had no clear disqualifying "other factors" issues of the kind that led him to by-pass Jim Thorpe.
Applying this to the 1986 Lancashire Oaks, top ability-rated was Mill On The Floss. Was she a form horse? Without a shadow of doubt. Was her fomr consistent? Again yes. Did she have any "other factor" issues? I think the evidence of earlier runs in 1986 strongly suggest no. So, if he only used the standard ability rating Mill On The Floss would be the class/form horse, well ahead of the rest on ability.
But in his 1981 2000 Guineas example VDW recommended using the standard ability rating and time/merit as a "further guide" and it seems likely that then he gave them equal weight. I see two possibilities. Either by 1986 VDW's experiences had led him to the conclusion that one of the ratings was better than the other with 3yo only races, or he still used both as in the 1981 example. If he has decided that the time/merit rating was clearly the better, I don't currently have the data to compile a ranking though posts suggest that Park Express would top it at 80. if so, she would have been the class/form horse as she was a form horse, consistent enough and with as far as I can see no disqualifying "other factors" issue. If he was still using both forms of ability rating, he would have been considering Park Express and Mill On The Floss. The phrasing of the last paragraph on page 26 of "Systematic Betting" (continued on page 27) suggests he selected Park Express rather than a book. If so, when comparing the two he clearly took your view that Park Express's form was (considerably) superior to Mill On The Floss's.
re Erin numbers, I have my own version as to how they were calculated. But I don't think my version,
T
Tufnel's or any other was significant in VDW's decisions. All versions are crude abridgements of complex data and, like tissue-compilers' ratings, I simply don't believe VDW would have regarded them as of any weight compared to his meticulous class/consistent form/"other factors" analysis.