tlinetrader - welcome!
Again, I believe the best answer is 'Par Gaps', per my post above. Relative 3rd fraction deceleration ratios from different distances appear to be a accurate as they can be (since about the days of Synthesis in the late 1990s).
However, I think it's also axiomatic that the longer distance you are trying to equalize to day's distance (and related segmental running times and velocities) the more error you introduce. If you have the luxury to rate a horse today off a distance close to today's (half or even whole furlong difference) go for it IF it represents a good effort for a horse. But beware, for example, a slower pace near-distance race and accepting that's the best a horse can do when fit and well matched, when perhaps a good effort against a faster pace at a longer distance (not excessively longer) shows the horse at its best comparative ability.
Comparative velocities and resulting ratings are all a matrix of possibilities/probabilities, best viewed with an eye to current form and dis/advantages in energy disbursement or running style compared to others in the field.
Also what Ranchwest wisely mentions - just because we CAN adjust horse's efforts from different distances doesn't imply the horse can run that distance - until it does.
If interested, there are several articles in Follow Ups from the later 1990's about the concept of Par Gaps (Dan Boals? - any recent recollections on issue #s). I also think I have discussed that idea on several occasions (can search using the
site Google Search tool). The Par Table in RDSS is visible in the Configure screen and is editable (at user risk
). However, the concept is also one of the few still in the 'not-so-public/secret-sauce' list of RDSS' Sartin Methodology tools.
Ted