The very thing that was wrong with the race figure system is, ironically, the aspect that JackD yearns for the most. i.e. That number of races won was the yardstick by which a horse's ability is measured. South Africa must be about the only major racing country in the world where this thoroughly discredited measure is still considered relevant to assessing a horse.
Ability (or merit) has nothing to do with how many races a horse wins. Race figures were performance-based, and didn't how half as much as they should to how good a horse actually is. Otherwise you must take the view that, e.g. all three time winners are essentially equal in ability, irrespective of how many times they have raced, what opposition they have encountered, how far they won by, etc. This is so palpably absurd as to require no further comment, except to say that in the civilised racing world you will be laughed out of school if you dare to embrace such thinking.
Advocating maiden handicaps is not to advocate a bad horse advancing further than a superior animal. Maiden handicaps would be an alternative to, not a replacement for, maiden plates. It is advocating an additional earning opportunity in an era when the sport is losing owners, smaller trainers are going to the wall on a regular basis, and many breeders are faced with no alternative to either cull their stock or bail out altogether. There has never been a worse time than now, since the advent of merit rated handicapping, to advocate a system which makes it harder to earn money. The 36% drop in the average at the Equimark sale the other day is evidence enough of this.
The so-called sanctity of catalogues and the stud book are minor considerations, if they are indeed considerations at all. The UK is the home of the original stud book and (low stakes notwithstanding) is amongst the most prestigious racing and breeding jurisdictions in the world. They have maiden handicaps, and selling plates, and classified stakes, all of which are designed solely as earning opportunities for mediocre animals. This doesn't stop some of the biggest players in the world from breeding and racing in the UK, and it doesn't stop British bloodstock from being much sought after (e.g. as shuttle stallions) the world over. If it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for us. Similarly, those rock bottom $2000 claiming races at obscure tracks in Montana or Kansas don't do a thing to impact negatively on the American thoroughbred. What they do, though, is play an essential function in keeping the show on the road.
Furthermore, the introduction of merit ratings has done nothing to dilute the quality of out bloodstock. Indeed, we would not be able to export most of those horses which carry our flag overseas if there were no MRs to act as some sort of a benchmark, for many jurisdictions set a minimum rating that a horse must have achieved before they will allow its importation. Race figures may have worked all right when SA was cut off from the rest of the world, but they have no more role to play in today's SA than would apartheid.
The only minimum requirement that a horse should achieve in order to enter the system as a winner is that it runs fast enough to win a race. Nobody is ever going to put on a maiden handicap for horses aged six years and older that have never run a place, so there was always be a minimum standard of some sort. Is it not possible that the one we have at present is a bit too high?
Good horses can still progress through the ranks, under our current system. A balanced programme will allow good horses to do so, without having to contest a handicap along the way. This is where it is important to realize that a lack of suitable alternatives to handicaps is a programming issue which is in the hands of our two racing operators. It is not the handicapping division's fault if, say, Gold Circle don't offer enough progress or advance plates in Kwazulu-Natal. The MR system will work well, if the racing operators don't abuse it. Here, we have room for improvement. However, big fields are perceived to equal higher turnover, and handicaps attract bigger fields than plate races (generally), so the operators are loath to stray too far from theit current path.
Nevertheless, this heavy emphasis on handicaps has not prevented good horses from coming through the ranks every year. Bass, Laird, De Kock, Kannemeyer, Woodruff etc. are all still capable of following the Millard example that JackD used. Only in KZN did the operator go overboard in programming handicaps at the expense of plate races, a subject I have written about many times before and which I still feel was partially responsible for the depressing deterioration in the quality of KZN-trained animals. To an extent, this scenario has improved in the last couple of years, but perhaps not quite enough as yet.
However, rather than maiden handicaps or anything else, what I would advocate above all else is the introduction of 2yo handicaps, or "nureseries" as they are called in the UK. Winning an early juvenile race with a precocious type is almost a double-edged sword because it becomes impossible as the season advances for the horse to win against superior rivals at set weights. At a time when every incentive needs to be found to persuade people to own horses, this would make for a very sizeable carrot. If the stakes can't keep up with the rising costs, let us at least find alternative ways of earning a slice of the existing cake. A certain young son of Danehill is siring a herd of precocious types that would be much nicer to own if we had juvenile handicaps, for instance. I'll leave him nameless, but that's no bull...
