royal zulu warrior

magiclips Wrote:

---

> Wonbyamile, I never said your info was wrong.
> However, you would surely have had to subract the
> WFA factor for 2yo ver that distance at that time
> of year to arrive at Perana's nett MR. With a
> 4yo, the difference between nett and gross MR is
> zero.


agreed magic... so what would the respective MR's have been at that time if the year for both horses... im not good at maths hehehe(tu)

Merit ratings are "transparent" of WFA.

So if a hypothetical horse was absolutely consistent, he would always run the same rating each year (or each race), while the WFA scale is applied invisibly on it's sliding scale which changes every month and tapers of once the horse is fully matured.

We of course in SA, have invented a nett and gross MR concept, which the handicappers did to not frighten the trainers. So if a 2yo runs a MR 90, the handicapper tells the irate trainer, don't worry buddy...if you take off the 14 lbs WFA your horse is a nett 76.

But we are just rephrasing the same thing backwards and in every handicap the WFA is always allowed so if a young horse and a older horse dead-heat, the difference in rating will only be the difference in the actual weight carried.

If the older and younger horse dead-heat in a WFA race, they will have exactly the same rating and the WFA difference remains invisible.

From what I have heard he is not running in the Kings Cup.

Yes from a purists point the caps on the penalties are not on .

If i was a owner at least i could earn one or two stake cheques more before the handicapper stops my horse completely .

really how many times have horses been penalized heavily and their ratings don't get adjusted for them to be competitive for months .

a recent example is american man in pe he beat Snaiths horse a while back achieving a rating of approximately 105.
He was only given a 6 point penalty due to the "caps". His trainer then ran him in the cape where he was fairly competitive .

If he had got the full penalty of the merit of his winning run he would be a +- 105 . he could never be competitive off that mark and who knows how long it would take for the handicapper to drop him.

These constraints really benifit the owners who are vastly diminishing in this industry !!

I have to agree with Jack Magic and Karel this rule is ridiculous and needs to be rectified urgently one wonders why after watching RZW the powers that be dont make some kind of statement as to what should and will happen. But dont hold your breath our administrators of thi sport leave a lot to be desired. Lets not take anything away fromRZW i think he may be special. I see a post from Craig Eudey it would be nice to get his and Tonys views on this situation.

antsinner Wrote:

---

> These constraints really benifit the owners who
> are vastly diminishing in this industry !!

Unfortunately, Antsinner cannot see that when you benefit one owner, it has to be at the expense of another owner (or owners).

Lets say only one horse can win a race, if you 'make' a particular runner a winner, how did you benefit the rest of the owners who possibly should have won?

It has nothing to do with RZW particularly, but we must ask if the rules ensure a great game. I would argue what benefits any endeavor, and especially sporting events and competitions, is excellence and visible fair play. Where is the excellence or the fair play in these rules?

Yes i agree with you Jack Dash but all horses have those rules applying to them not just RZW one should not see it from RZW perspective he looks to be a group horse and the trainer has taken advantage of the system .When he contests group races the handicapper will adjust him accordingly .

Imo these rules help most horses as they apply to all horses . Rzw is an exception .

Swan neck some weeks back ran to a very much higher rating against Headstrong she did not recieve the full penalty , next time out she won and the following time she ran a place . Had she received the full penalty behind headstrong , she may not have won.
My point is that horses dont always run to their highest rating and these little rules help .

I would change my view completely if the handicappers where swifter in the reassesment of adjusting merit ratings downwards.

I contacted NHRA on this matter:

Hi Dave

Not sure that I can comment other than to say that ROYAL ZULU WARRIOR has been handicapped in terms of the amended Handicapping Guidelines which were effective from 1 April 2010 and are published on the NHA website.

Hi Dave

Your e-mail of yesterday refers.

We don’t believe there is any need to change the guidelines. However, should anyone wish to motivate a change, in writing, which might improve the guidelines, we would be happy to consider it. Nothing is cast in stone.

Regards

Rob de Kock

So guys if anyone feels the rules should be changed? post your thoughts

Dave

Another typical arrogant explanation; anybody that knows anything about handicapping can clearly see that there is a problem here as motivated by the various postings on this thead

At the time of the amendment, the rule was debated quite strongly. I think it would be fair to say it came down to two camps in the end.

One group felt the way I do, that IF a race must be a handicap then it should be run as fairly as possible and that the weights must be framed to really give every horse the same chance to win and as close as we can possibly make it with no excuses. The other group felt that "good" horses needed some extra protection and that even though they are protected in plated and classic races, that they needed protection from the handicapper too.

(although this rule of course only protects a horse improving by more than 8 lbs per run, or a horse that ran much more than a 70 in a mdn as a 4yo... not the type you would think needs tlc)

Jack hits the nail on the head. The current rules favour a small minority of horses who don't need the help to start off with, at the expense of the much larger pool of horses that would benefit from handicaps being handicaps and not lopsided nonsense like we see every time RZW runs. We are getting dangerously close to reverting to the rubbish race figure system we had before.

c'mon all the horses are racing under the same rules therefore all horses can benefit from the rules.


In previous posts i have sited American man and swan neck, Belmonte has just come to mind .
These are three horses that come to mind that should they have been penalized on 100% handicap basis imo they would not be competitive .

If i was an owner i would see these rules as some sort of relief.How many times do owners bitch and moan about merit rating hikes .

Imvo there is a positive side to these rules and at the end of the day all owners benefit . Rzw is an exception how many Rzw cases have we had ?