Cracker Jack

Hey guys. I was studying my computaform for this weeks card and saw Cracker Jack running at the Vaal on Thursday.
I was shocked to that this horses merit rating has jumped from 79 to 97 for running fourth behind Irish Flame in the Clairwood/Gold Circle Derby.
Sure the horse is improving but the handicappers are trying to stop him in his tracks. He may prove above a 97 but they should first let him go through the divisions.
I'm sure Geoff Woodruff and the owners must be pulling their hair out.
Surely this type of penalties will chase potential owners out da game.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this issue?

yes if you think your horse is good enough to run in the derby at LEVEL WEIGHTS WITH HORSES THAT HAVE far higher ratings and you run close to them then you must accept the penalty given to you...if the program allows mr woodruff must find a plate race for cracker jack but remember the hcapper HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RACE PROGRAM SO DONT BLAME HIM IF NO RACE SUITABLE...if he doesnt run to his new rating the hcapper will adjust it downwards ...

So must all owners tell their trainers to avoid feature races to avoid penalties. It happened with Dynasty a few years ago in the Daily News. Nobody wanted to incur a penalty so the field cut up to 6 or 7 runners.
Surely this is not good for the game.
I'm not saying that he should'nt have been penalized a few points. But come on, 18 points. That to me is crazy. Let him show that it was'nt a fluke run and then adjust his rating. And remember, Irish Flame was being prepped for the July. Was he 100%. I think not.

so must cracker king run at his old ratings therefore putting his whole field he competes against under sufferance?is that fair on the rest of the owners who have a horse that competes against him in a handicap...LIKE I SAID IF YOU THINK YOUR HORSE IS GOOD ENOUGH TO COMPETE IN A DERBY THEN YOU ARE SAYING THAT HIS RATING SHOULD BE A LOT HIGHER IN ANY CASE..how sure are you that irish flame was the line horse?the handicapers get given a job to do and that is to rate horse on merit not to keep certain owners and trainers happy...as i said before if he fails to achieve this rating again he will tumble down the ratings...if you want the law changed about penalising horses in features then the neccesary authorities must do it but dont blame the hcaper they are only doing their jobs....service ace scenario obviously been forgotten...

Trust me, If he does'nt achieve his rating his rating won't come tumbling down. It will take an age before they drop it.
And what about his other 8 races. What rating did he achieve there? All of a sudden he miraculously improved. So why must one run take precedence over his other 8? Shame he must have been an under achiever prior to that.

The handicapper is between a rock and a hard place in this case; CJ improved to run to a perceived rating in the Derby (seemingly confirmed by Happy Valley and Service Ace who ran 4th and 5th in the July); so he does not really have a choice in giving CJ the new rating; if he does not (and increase him to only half the penalty( and he comes out and wins his next race by 5 lenghts, then everybody will say he has been incorrectly handicapped.

So let's see if he runs to his rating on Thursday before making assumptions on whether the new rating is correct or not.

this very thread is the beauty of punting on horses ...different opinions..the same trainer of crackerjack had plenty to say about mgedes chances in saturdays handicap ehere as a recent maiden winner she gave weight away to 3 time winners and guess what she shit in...

I agree Frodo. I'm not saying that his rating is wrong. In fact I think that he is quite good horse. If Cracker Jack was given a 7 or 8 point penalty and wins easily on thursday, then raise his MR. But let him show it on more than one occassion.
In my opinion no horse should ever get penalized by more than 10 points. Most horses will get stopped in their tracks. There will always be exceptions. Merit ratings are a work in progress.
I'm just using Cracker Jack as an example since its running this week.

True Pirates. Different opinions is what makes this game so beautiful.

Interesting discussion; I myself could not see Mgede run in the first 3 (and consequently went out of my PA) off her rating; just goes to show that the handicapper may also turn out to be correct (hopefully most of the time).

On CJ; the point worth noting here is whether a horse should be penalized for one good run (they certainly do not come down by 18 points after one bad run); if a horse runs to an 85 (after running to 75, 70, 65 and 72 in his previous 4 runs - just an example), should he be rated 85, or not? And this is a no-win situation for the handicapper - if he rates the horse an 80, he is in theory penalizing all the other runners in this horse's next race by 5 points and if the horse then repeats his run he will win easily; if he rates the horse an 85 and this turns out to be 'fluke', it will take another 8 to 10 (at least) 'below par' runs before the horse get back to a 75 again; so which is the lessor of the 2 evils?

And this is the type of thing we should be debating on racing forums - in a perfect world.

Cracker Jack is a classic example of a horse suddenly running a mile above his rating. The handicappers had to take the Derby form at face value, especially as it looked to be a true run race where they didn't all finish on top of each other, as happened when Winter Weather (I think it was) won the same race a couple of years ago. To not give him the full penalty would be potentially unfair to the connections of every other horse in the field when CJ next runs in a handicap. If it was a fluke, well, we will soon find out and the handicappers can take the appropriate action.

To suggest that penalties should be capped at 10 or any other abitrary figure smacks too much of the old race figure system and, as for Mgede - when will we ever learn in this country that number of races won is a poor indicator of how much aability a horse actually has? I didn't much like Mgede, but I had her in my PA (which promptly went out later - but that's the game).

I agree that CJ got the 'penalty' he deserved; the only down side to this is the number of runs it normally takes for the handicapper to re-adjust should this run turn out to be a fluke - but capping penalties is not the answer.

As for Mgede, I really did not think that a maiden win in KZN was strong enough form for her to give weight to older fillies/mares who, while not setting the world alight, have run some decent races in handicaps; I ignored the fact that the maiden win did come in season, so obviously the handicapper was right and I was wrong and that's how it goes - for the record I managed to survive all the other legs in the PA (lot of good that did me:( )