FORUMITES RESPOND - HANDICAPPING DEBATE

Jack, I do NOT think that the handicappers are biased or unfair, but I do think that the system is unfair on the good, consistent ones and on the Trainers who try their best with every individual, always. To me, these horses and Trainers should be what racing needs and wants..... I know that this sounds like a long story etc, but I also know that many people in racing agree with me, probably yourself too.

The funny thing is that I come from an era where it was normal to "set horses up"..... I know exactly what needs to be done and dont need a jock to help me from on top, whilst dropping the rating. But thats not what I do or want to do. That hurts punters mostly and makes a mockery of form study.

I believe that every Trainer must be responsible in terms of the bigger picture and that responsibility is to do your damnest always and in so doing, take your beatings on the chin. Thats racing, to me. But when any Trainer does his level best and gets punished for it, whilst another might be running horses anywhere and anyhow and then gain points for this, I am unhappy. I have ALWAYS respected punters and have always done my best to assist punters, without whom we will not have racing. This is why I have elected to take a stand, unlike the multitudes moaning, whinging and crying in the backgrond.

But, if the system carries on like this, I might be tempted to swim downstream too..... but with intent, not drifting along passively and obliviously..... and that will stuff racing, punters etc. But when that time comes, it will be with my last few runners, before I move on and out.

rob faux Wrote:

---

> louisg Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Also, Jack, if the system and the handicappers
> are
> > so good, I wonder why there is a committee
> > involved in lookng into the problem and why
> nhra
> > are inviting input from members......?
>
>
> Louis , was that proposal to abolish the WFA scale
> discussed in the meeting you attended?

Louis, I PM'd you and now asked for a simple response .................I assume your choosing not to answer is a "no" or "I didn't understand it"
No problem ,will handle it in the response to the committee!

I think we've come to IT.

Like you, I understand that what will happen in handicapping is that INCONSISTENT and POOR horses will be "rewarded" in general while HONEST and CONSISTENT (or even brave) horses will be "punished". So it would be between you and TIGER WOODS on a golf course. The worse you get, the greater the handicap difference and that is the point. If handicapped perfectly, you and Tiger would dead-heat every time if you played your best.

The question really is should the handicap match and the no-handicap match have the same prize money? Or the same status? Should we even have a Gr1 handicap? How many of our winners do we want per year to have received weight from better horses?

While I think the handicappers are doing a great job, were I King for a day I would not have handicaps BELOW maiden level, I would not have Gr1 handicaps and I would have handicap races at a low stakes level to cater for poorer type athletes. I would load the prize money for fair races and for races that require good horses. I preferred racing which was structured in the order of PLATES, then HANDICAPS, then LISTED and then GRADED. I preferred a horse to win its 8th time in an A DIV rather than an MR 66. But these decisions were made by this industry. Maybe its time to unmake them.

Your problem is the operators need big fields for turnover and handicaps provide big fields, so good luck with that.

Jack Dash Wrote:

---

> I think we've come to IT.
>
> Like you, I understand that what will happen in
> handicapping is that INCONSISTENT and POOR horses
> will be "rewarded" in general while HONEST and
> CONSISTENT (or even brave) horses will be
> "punished". So it would be between you and TIGER
> WOODS on a golf course. The worse you get, the
> greater the handicap difference and that is the
> point. If handicapped perfectly, you and Tiger
> would dead-heat every time if you played your
> best.
>
> The question really is should the handicap match
> and the no-handicap match have the same prize
> money? Or the same status? Should we even have a
> Gr1 handicap? How many of our winners do we want
> per year to have received weight from better
> horses?
>
> While I think the handicappers are doing a great
> job, were I King for a day I would not have
> handicaps BELOW maiden level, I would not have Gr1
> handicaps and I would have handicap races at a low
> stakes level to cater for poorer type athletes. I
> would load the prize money for fair races and for
> races that require good horses. I preferred
> racing which was structured in the order of
> PLATES, then HANDICAPS, then LISTED and then
> GRADED. I preferred a horse to win its 8th time
> in an A DIV rather than an MR 66. But these
> decisions were made by this industry. Maybe its
> time to unmake them.
>
> Your problem is the operators need big fields for
> turnover and handicaps provide big fields, so good
> luck with that.


Plenty to like about your comments JD.

" I preferred a horse to win its 8th time in an A DIV rather than an MR 66. But these decisions were made by this industry. Maybe it's time to unmake them". Quote of the year.

The sooner the better.(tu)

" I preferred a horse to win it's 8th time in an A DIV rather than a MR 66. But these decisions were made by this industry. Maybe it's time to unmake them."


a wonderful notion but the fact is unless a horse is A DIVISION HORSE (call it what you want actually ) A Platinum div horse in CONTEXT of the rest of the racing world then its all bollocks your statement.

SA can't stand alone with 8 time winning A division horses rated 90 BUT in reality running to an international rating of 60.....

What needs to happen is horses (the majority of weaker ones) need to be catered for. The amount of wins is NOT an indication of a horses ability, therefore there has to be a barometer to gauge ability OUTSIDE of wins.

I am not saying i agree perse' with the penalties maidens seem to get in SA BUT then BY the same token TRAINERS choose to run those same horses in maidens.....so you can't have the cake and eat it.

Maybe the answer lies in the distribution of stakes (I've said this before)

Maybe a horse rated 45-55 SHOULD only be able to run in races worth R20k in Gauteng and R8k in the "weaker" centres and maybe horses rated higher can then race competitively in proper prize money handicaps or even by the saving made on the majority we could introduce more PLATE races....

Maidens SHOULD be the stepping stone for horses rated above average OR horses looking for a LOW handicap mark....THEY should not be persevered with sometimes for 30 runs......

IF it is ABOUT winning as Louis says (and Jack Dash eludes to) IF it really is about winning then the correct horses NEED to race against each other AND it should NOT matter what the prize money is = low rated horse=low stakes, at the moment the BASELINE stakes are still very high in my opinion.

Jack Dash has it right and there is no better way of putting it. The balance between stakes allocation, programming and handicapping needs to be found. There are far too many handicaps and far too few plate races. And this is a turnover driven decision. And it keeps stables full.
Very complex to solve, but it can be done.

louisg Wrote:

---

> Jack Dash has it right and there is no better way
> of putting it. The balance between stakes
> allocation, programming and handicapping needs to
> be found. There are far too many handicaps and far
> too few plate races. And this is a turnover driven
> decision. And it keeps stables full.
> Very complex to solve, but it can be done.

Progress!!-we seem to have consensus that the ultimate solution to balancing the issue lies in the programme!
What is left , IMO is the fact that,if a MR is designed to be an ability rating , then why do we have it moving up and down on a regular basis?
Ironically, yesterday,3 one-time winners were fighting it out for their second win and a 7x winner , trained by Louis Goosen ran them down and denied one a second win!
Well the winner had ,as an early 3yr old,been a gross 80 and now as a 5 yr old , racing off a 54???
Under the present system, if I ever choose to own again, I will buy a older horse that has proved its ability to win,and plan it's second career- beats the hell out of buying a yearling, waiting for a year and then hope it has some ability , which the system will inhibit after it's maiden win anyway!

That is correct Rob, we agree. But, to plan that second career you have to go "off form " for a few months, about 10 or 12 runs...... Miss K is a perfect example - she never teavelled well up here, very badly in fact and was a vet case. When we started racing her here, she wasnt what she is now, with us. We battled to work her out. Her bad runs were unintentional. And then she started to improve....

This is also a good example of why the handicappers are reluctant to drop a horse quickly. Overall, I believe that they are aware of the bigger picture and aware of who would maybe do the "off form" thing more often than could be excused....

Look, there is no doubt to me that Miss K is better on sand than on Turf. The ratings reflect that and so does her form. And I have placed her accordingly, as you refer to Rob, for maximum wins. Right now it gets difficult, in terms of her ratings..... and best ability.

Again, this is the bigest problem for me with MR - the young consistent ones, with more ability than Miss K get hammered early and win fewer races..... unless they go "off form" for a good few months/runs.

I can never like that situation.

Louis, remember I am talking system here-I understand your side but the horse has won way more than the average wins per horse, so you are not going to get a sympathetic view from the owners of younger one-time winners.you can understand that!
The situation from a punter's trust perspective is another big factor in the big picture-I know and you know that a lot of these handicap certainties have been helped by manipulation-the most trusted aspect of the RF system was that if a horse was fit and well it may as well run on merit.........it could not become better handicapped next month-there was no incentive for "pulling up " or "easy" runs-that becomes very important in an activity with trust issues-the only way I can see this resolved within the present system is more conservative approach to ratings but reductions handled by special application and careful analysis by a special committee?????( needs more thought)
The point is that MR only works if all runs are on merit-simple as that so without that rule ,and the consistency rule being enforced , the system cannot be trusted!
If MR can be manipulated,performance enhancing drugs would not be an issue-manipulation can't be picked up with a wee test!

My submission to the handicap committee will focus on this aspect ......on behalf of the punting fraternity.

We now seem to be getting on to the same page( except Easy ) I have said all along that to have 5/6/7/8 time winners racing off 50/60mrs and taking on younger horses trying for their 2/3 win and giving the other horses weight is not right. JD's quote that MS highlighted is exactly what I believe but probably wont get. I have said all along that maybe the solution(my opinion (and many other trainers) before I get shot down by the MR purists) is that there is a mr that each horse with that number of wins will not be able to go below. Thumbsuck a 1 time winner below say 50,2x55, 3x60, 4x64,5x68,6x72,7x76. I have not sat down a actually worked it out but that is my/our idea. Very annoying for owners who have a reasonable 3yr old one time winner that is coming through and gets beaten by a seven time winner who was possibly listed placed and is now 6 and a mr of 65 so you giving it weight as well!

2 questions are the handicapers to blame for the race program?are the handicapers to blame for trainers giving horses so called easys is that not the stipes job?this issue of handicapping was dealt on this forum before and the same conclusions as before have been drawn correctly by jack dash and easy.

Craig Eudey Wrote:

---

> We now seem to be getting on to the same page(
> except Easy ) I have said all along that to have
> 5/6/7/8 time winners racing off 50/60mrs and
> taking on younger horses trying for their 2/3 win
> and giving the other horses weight is not right.
> JD's quote that MS highlighted is exactly what I
> believe but probably wont get. I have said all
> along that maybe the solution(my opinion (and many
> other trainers) before I get shot down by the MR
> purists) is that there is a mr that each horse
> with that number of wins will not be able to go
> below. Thumbsuck a 1 time winner below say
> 50,2x55, 3x60, 4x64,5x68,6x72,7x76. I have not sat
> down a actually worked it out but that is my/our
> idea. Very annoying for owners who have a
> reasonable 3yr old one time winner that is coming
> through and gets beaten by a seven time winner who
> was possibly listed placed and is now 6 and a mr
> of 65 so you giving it weight as well!


if possible could you list the raced horses in your yard with the current merit rating they have along with the number of wins?this will give us an idea of whether the current system favours your yard or not..