JUST HOW GOOD IS THIS HORSE ???

Jack Dash Wrote:

---

>
> To keep some perspective, while Royal Zulu Warrior
> beat National Chant (66 and 78 at best) by 9L
> yesterday, Cupid's Prey beat National Chant by 8L
> and Never Forever beat him by 15L the start
> before. I guess we will see RZW against some real
> talent in about 3 races from now when he emerges
> from the MR shelter program.
>

On the other hand Take Over Target, who has now won seven races, recorded a time of 72,33 seconds while RZW did it in 70,80 seconds easing up!

Tipster, here in SA we also see horses winning by a lot less than they should, and quite frequently. Whether this is always intended to fool the handicappers or to leave something in the horse's tank for next time, the fact remains that there are many instances where the margins on paper don't tell the story. Fortunately, in this era of televised racing we can see for ourselves!

magiclips Wrote:

---

> Tipster, here in SA we also see horses winning by
> a lot less than they should, and quite frequently.
> Whether this is always intended to fool the
> handicappers or to leave something in the horse's
> tank for next time, the fact remains that there
> are many instances where the margins on paper
> don't tell the story. Fortunately, in this era of
> televised racing we can see for ourselves!

True, but over here if I'm not mistaken the handicapper doesn't have the capacity to add merit to the run (he has to stick to the line horse system plus computer analysis). Or does he?

magiclips Wrote:

---

> Running every race on equal terms will kill racing
> faster than anything else you can dream of. An
> uneven playing field keeps countless horses
> competitive that would otherwise be useless and
> allows so many races to be staged.

Ah, but I think that those problems can be accounted for as well. There is nothing stopping anyone from scheduling level weights races for those countless horses that are equally useless. Going purely by number of wins isn't the only way to do it. As an example, how about a race restricted to 0 or 1 time winners that haven't placed in the last 12 months? All equally useless and get an equally fair shot at the pot.

As for the big field issue and turnover, if there were no handicaps, the horses would have to run somewhere, wouldn't they?

I'm just saying that I believe there are ways to do this without subjective weights and penalties for being faster/older/male, without killing off racing.

Anyway, it's not like it's ever going to happen, so nothing for handicap fans to worry about. (tu)

MAGIC, please call me on 083 630 4391


Cheers
Anthony G

IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO THE RACING PROGRAM for horses ,handicaps for so called battlers and plate races for the better horses...this is not the handicapers problem ...i noticed an announcement on sahorseracing.com that the programming is going to be done on a national basis from now on but i HAVE ZERO DOUBT THAT WE WILL HAVE MAJOR INTERFERENCE FROM OWNERS AND TRAINERS JUST LIKE WE HAVE WITH THE HANDICAPING SYSTEM...probably the same cry babies..

magiclips Wrote:

---

> Running every race on equal terms will kill racing
> faster than anything else you can dream of. An
> uneven playing field keeps countless horses
> competitive that would otherwise be useless and
> allows so many races to be staged.


The problem I have with handicapping is that in its purest form it supposed to give all horses in a handicap race an equal WINNING chance. It does not in most instances, hence the comments above of leaving a couple in the tank and trainers manipulating to preserve winning chances.

Jack Dash Wrote:

---

BUT the rules say max rating for 4yo
> Maiden winner is 70. You can only laugh!

Thanks Jack.

I was just wondering why the two 3 year olds (debut maiden winners by 0.05 and 1.00) were rated 80 (nett 72) and the 4 year old that won his debut by 9.75 lengths was rated 70. That explains it.

Sabre Wrote:

---

> Jack Dash Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> BUT the rules say max rating for 4yo
> > Maiden winner is 70. You can only laugh!
>
> Thanks Jack.
>
> I was just wondering why the two 3 year olds
> (debut maiden winners by 0.05 and 1.00) were rated
> 80 (nett 72) and the 4 year old that won his debut
> by 9.75 lengths was rated 70. That explains it.

This is also due to the WFA system. In maidens 3yos are given less weight than they would in a WFA race and therefore always end up with a higher rating. i.e. the lengths of victory must be added to the difference between their actual weight and what their WFA weight would've been. e.g. Yesterday Ampere ran at level weights with the 4yos but in WFA would've been getting 4kg. So if a 4yo was made the line horse he gets raised for the number of lengths he beat it by + another 8 points. Making maidens WFA is apparently not an option as it would lead to lesser 4yos and older never getting out of the maiden ranks plus scarcity of lightweight jockeys must be taken into account.

Tipster Wrote:

---

> Jack Dash Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> >
> > To keep some perspective, while Royal Zulu
> Warrior
> > beat National Chant (66 and 78 at best) by 9L
> > yesterday, Cupid's Prey beat National Chant by
> 8L
> > and Never Forever beat him by 15L the start
> > before. I guess we will see RZW against some
> real
> > talent in about 3 races from now when he
> emerges
> > from the MR shelter program.
> >
>
> On the other hand Take Over Target, who has now
> won seven races, recorded a time of 72,33 seconds
> while RZW did it in 70,80 seconds easing up!


I would just like to add to you observation . Romantic moon clocked 71.96 .How good is this warrior .!??

I dont believe that times are relevant - the Zulu Warior was never under pressure whilkst the others were challenged and racing. TR also mentioned that the horse was not fully wound up.

I expect big things from this horse and hopefully KZN will finally have a champ to be proud of.

I doubt we'll know for a while how good this horse, because being so severely underrated, his next two handicap appearances rate to be formalities.
Will go 78 - 86 then 86 - 94. Things will get interesting after that.