Actually, it would do the opposite. I mean “not counting” the 5yo season in the number of races for averaging purposes.
So your horse is meh at 2, wins stakes at 3, 4, and 5. Say his total points (for all races) is 100, and he ran 30 times, 5 of which are at age 5.
Without counting the 5yo year, he would count as 100 points and 25 races for his parents’ breed rankings (average 4.0).
With counting the 5yo year, he would count as 100 points and 30 races for his parents’ breed rankings (average 3.3).
All the races would be counted for gathering points (so he’d get points for 5yo season), but then when counting the number of races to divide by, it would only count those from age 2-4. So the 5yo year would just increase the average value because the points would count but the number of races wouldn’t.
If people want the 5yo year to count for number of races, that’s fine too, but more horses are likely to be hasbeen at 5 than immature at 2 (I think).
Okay, that makes sense. My misunderstanding.
Do you think the mare cut-offs need to be tweaked? There are a lot of platinum/gold mares now.
Probably. I’m happy to keep tweaking numbers (but am getting a bit math’d out at the moment).
Edit: I’ve tweaked the mare requirements a bit more, which puts them more in line with the current breakdown of mares in each breed ranking.
I think I like the new system, particularly that mares with only one runner now have a rank.
They always could, but with counting average points per race, mares with only one raced foal are more likely to get to at least Bronze ranking.
I’ll leave the tentative new system up for a while and see if anyone else has comments/suggestions/objections. If not, though, we’ll probably switch over. 
Will you split the list of ranked horses into Mares and Stallions? Might make it easier to read and note the best stallions if they’re all together/
If you click on the link the third line of text is a series of filter links (just above the first table) and you can select mares/stallions/BM stallions only there
You can also sort by various fields as well as filter. So you could see currently available stallions (Active Only link) sorted in descending order of points, or rank, or foals, etc.
It was my mistake for not noticing it to start with.
It all seems to look good and work well in my opinion
FYI, I’ve made the swap. Rankings should be displayed from new data/calculations now.
Just so I have my head around the numbers, why would Prince of Wonder be higher rated than Strike It Rich?
Prince: finalfurlong.org/viewhorse.php?horse=1730
Strike: finalfurlong.org/viewhorse.php?horse=1536
To me, it is obvious who the better stallion is it just appears Prince’s score is skewed because he has one outstanding foal (Bay of Biscay).
Shanthi - I tried to click on this link but keep getting a message that it “cannot be found on this server”. I don’t know if it is just my laptop (sometimes I get similar messages on other websites but if I keep trying or come back later, it finds the website) or are other people having the same problem?
Can you please post the Breed Ranking ranges here and I’ll keep trying the website in the meantime.
It’s swappped over. So you can find them here: finalfurlong.org/breedrankings.php
I would honestly recommend that mares not be ranked until they have 2 or 3 foals raced and/or a certain number of races run by their foals. I have a mare who has one foal to race with one start, which she won. This mare is gold-ranked.
(finalfurlong.org/viewhorse.php?horse=1774)
While this makes me feel super awesome, it devalues the ranking system. She doesn’t deserve to be gold-ranked because she hasn’t proven herself yet. One foal, one race, one win does not mean she’s of the same caliber of producer as a mare who has produced multiple stakes producers. Let a mare’s foals prove that she is awesome first by running well and then rate her. Otherwise, the rankings are going to be useless for at-a-glance value judgements.
Does this make sense?
Candidate is rated at 6.4 silver now… the cutoff for Gold is 5.1 - Why would he not be gold ranked?
His foals need to run a minimum of 300 races to qualify for Gold-ranking. He’ll need 500 races to qualify for platinum status.
Ahh ok. The only way to check on that is to manually count, correct?
Just checked - 237 - looong way to go!
Well, considering he’s a new-ish stud, I’m not too surprised. The fact that older studs are being ranked as gold and above lead me to believe that it is counting the # of races properly. Just keep on running his foals! (I know I’m looking forward to running mine by him. Unfortunately, it’ll be a couple years.)
I actually dont have any of his running yet either - bought him two years ago so I am still waiting too I had to buy one to race this year, so I am excited about her starting.