Handicapping

I'm busy watching the replay of Inside Racing where Robin Bruss is discussing handicapping with Vee and Roger.

They're doing a fair job of explaining the 'benefits' of the merit rating handicap system and weight-for-age, and the need for it.
My personal view though is 'out there', and would probably get me branded as an heretic but it is what it is. I think the whole concept of handicaps is idiotic.

I get it: people want to see competitive races; handicaps allow 'weaker' horses to earn stake money , turnover is apparently higher on handicaps (that's probably a big factor). I just think that there are other ways to achieve the same goal without disadvantaging superior racehorses. Imagine getting Usain Bolt to carrying ankle weights to slow him down, or telling Nadal he'll have to play with a smaller racket because he's better than Djokovic. In any one race, the best competitor should win, or at the very least compete on as level a playing field as possible.

Are we using handicaps just because that's how it has always been done? If the first ever horse race was to be staged tomorrow, would we really suggest a system where better horses would be forced to carry more weight? I think it makes more sense to get rid of weight advantages completely - no sex allowance, no weight-for-age allowance, no weight-for-being-slow allowance. There wouldn't be any controversy anymore about horses being rated too highly after one win and wrecking their careers, no more running horses in a manner which attempts to reduce their rating or at least ensure it doesn't rise, generally no need to manipulate the system by anyone.

The old pre-merit rating system wasn't ideal, we know that. Horses would get to a level that they could no longer compete at, be it because of age or simply ability, and have no way out. My idea is that we could be far more creative with race conditions. If we really want to cater for weaker horses, we could have races for 1 time winners that haven't placed in the last 12 months, assuming we had the entries to cater for it.

Vee mentioned that handicaps are really for the weaker horses, not the better ones. The better ones should be competing in Group races. He used Pierre Jourdan and Irish Flame as examples of horses that raced the whole season without being in a handicap. I see a couple of problems though. The obvious one is that those examples are of exceptional horses, Gr1 winning standard. What about those horses that might be fringe Group 3 horses? The other thing is that our major race, the July, is a handicap (of sorts)! The better a horse does during the season the less chance he'll have of winning the big prize? Ouch.

Getting rid of handicaps is not going to happen in my lifetime, or ever. Still, it's worth discussing, isn't it?

Nice post Sabre ,looking forward to some replys

If there was no handicapping every race would follow the "hear the drums" story.3 doz.horses would win every race in the country,there would be no betting(whos going to bet when the result is a foregone conclusion......to win, someone has to lose!)
However,handicaps that can be manipulated downwards is just open to abuse and is contrary to the well used cliche "form is temporary,ability is forever"
Why let MR be used to help unfit/unsound horses,nor IMO should it be used to give 7/8 yr olds a new lease of life.Their ability has been tested and they have achieved accordingly .......now move on and make way for new generations.

Using Sabre's example,should Bolt be handicapped so Paul Nash can still be competitive?

Sabre and Rob - The above are excellent posts.

Recently I had the task to explain to my daughter (who is a novice in the game), as to why her filly ( who had just turned 3) was rated a 95 and had to carry 60kg in her last run. Her response to me was as follows:- "whose fault is it, if her horse was smarter and why should the filly be penalised for being smarter".

eastexpo Wrote:

---

> Sabre and Rob - The above are excellent posts.
>
> Recently I had the task to explain to my daughter
> (who is a novice in the game), as to why her filly
> ( who had just turned 3) was rated a 95 and had to
> carry 60kg in her last run. Her response to me was
> as follows:- "whose fault is it, if her horse was
> smarter and why should the filly be penalised for
> being smarter".


answer run her in plate races

Thanks Pirate
That is the plan. Aiming for Greyville 26th September.

I don't see anything wrong with the concept of handicapping in racing (it is also used at club level in golf); in theory it alllows for every horse in a race to have an equal chance of winning the race, thereby influencing the number of varied opinions of the outcome and hopefully boosting betting pools - which is needed to keep racong afloat.

Do the handicappers ever get it wrong? Definitely - they are only human and have to work with certain unknown factors and within specific constraints. Do they get it right MOST times - imo they do.

There is always room for improvement though; imo the horses that suffer from this are the one just below top division, they are not good enough to win plated races, but they struggle to win in handicaps as well. Also young 3yr olds are often handicapped too high and struggle for a year or more to get ot their 'correct' mark; difficult to correct this, but perhaps the more experienced 'we' get at handicapping the better 'we' will be - to repeat that famous old chestnut again 'the more you practice, the luckier you get'. Also 'placing' horses better can help.

Just my opinion.

well said frodo,the biggest problem is getting the racing program right to cater for the horse population

Yip, the racing program (and I'm speaking Gauteng here) has always been 'less than perfect' (to say the least) imo. And the other problem is getting 'them' to admit it.

I have tried to organise my thoughts re "old race figure system" vs "new merit rating system"
The old system was not a true h'cap system,but a penalty system but its benefits were:
a) better horses won more races...can't fault that conceptually
b) contributed better to the integrity of tha game? race figure could not reduce so if a horse was fit and well there was absolutely no point in "pulling it up".Made most sense to take all wins and stakes while available.

The new system was inevitable due to globalisation,as systems would need to be universal,but the downside is that for "coup" purposes,manipulation of MR,if possible, is inevitable...........so can the integrity still be maintained?
a) surely yes,by making reductions in rating rare and exceptional(where did the horses ability go anyway),BUT
b) maidens need to be rated more leniently as a group IMO as an overrated maiden,as line horse,obviously causes overrated novices,which is a common complaint.My feeling is,err on the side of conservative,so the need to correct downward is reduced.
c) Setting up a manipulated "hcp certainty"should be discouraged by the length of time (and therefore cost) it would take to do so!

The biggest concern that I have about the new system is why programmers believe that so many races need to be handicaps.Surely we need more plate races so better horses,but not quite classic winners, get their deserved more wins.

rob faux Wrote:

---

> If there was no handicapping every race would
> follow the "hear the drums" story.3 doz.horses
> would win every race in the country,


Question: without handicap these "3doz" horses would run against each other, wouldn't they?

Why not organize "leagues" for horses, like in soccer?

Saldiani,they already do....they called races lol.

The point is that if you raced the "3 doz" horses ,without weight adjustments,you would get pretty much the same result each time,so would soon be pointless.