- This topic has 23 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Personally, I can’t see any.
There wouldn’t be the need for the slap-up lunch, Phil Smith wouldn’t become a ‘celebrity’ for a few days and racing would lose a talking point although that talking point would not stretch beyond the sport’s own little bubble. National newspapers are only concerned with the 40 runners, not their order. Surely the sport could/should live with those ‘disappointments’ and move towards a fairer playing field?
In terms of handicapping why should this race be treated any differently to any other? Why should the ‘better’ horses get a helping hand, particularly as they should in theory have a better chance of winning a big pot elsewhere?
A look through the history books will show plenty of high class horses who faced up to a much more severe challenge without the need for any additional help from the handicapper.
I agree – the leniency given to higher weighted horses is purely to encourage them to run IMO. And why handicap this race differently – you could argue that you need to adjust to take into account course form, distance form, etc, but you could surely apply the same argument to any handicap, anywhere.
I disagree with you guys and I reckon events have provided plenty of justification for treating this one race differently.
In terms of pure distance, it’s maybe now the second-longest race in the calendar but the nature of the fences, big field and value, mean it is run a lot more fiercely than an ‘ordinary’ race, which means the weights tells more in the later stages. In attempting to address this issue, the handicapper lets the better horses in just a tad lower than they would otherwise be. The reason connections weren’t running them was because they were actually disadvantaged with the way things were. The handicapper is merely addressing that issue and in so doing is tempting connections to run their better horses in the race. This cannot possibly be a bad thing and the ultimate justification was provided yesterday when the second-top weight prevailed (but might not have done anyway if TDN had stayed up).
I thik Smith is to be congratulated on his foresight and innovation rather than criticised.
Absolutely no “justification”, if anything Many Clouds proves there’s no justification.
Top weights are not disadvantaged by the Grand National. Although you could argue a lb is worth more in lengths than it would over shorter distances, but that is equally relevent for form of lesser weighted individuals. The true reason for favouring top weights is to get more horses in to the handicap proper. It does not only favour top weights, those at the bottom get away with running off their proper handicap mark instead of carrying more than their mark. Had Many Clouds run off his proper February mark (5 lbs higher) all those from numbers 28 to 40 would have been out of the handicap. Royale Knight, Ely Brown and Soll would have needed to race off an effective mark of 142 not 139, Numbers 33 to 37 (Alvorado) 142 not 140. So the Handicapper’s fiddling cost Saint Are the win and cost Shutthefrontdoor 4th.
It’s also done to encourage better horses to run, the quality of horse running dipped at one stage. Next year it may well encourage more good horses to run. Although Many Clouds weight carried will only be 1 lb more (11-09 to 11-10), his mark will need to be put up significantly and the difference in weight much greater. Will be interesting to see if Phil Smith can get away with putting Saint Are up more than Many Clouds!
How silly! How can that be justified Maurice? Ironically, if more good horses do not take him on we are likely to see horses like Alvorado (140) out of the handicap and bunched on 10-00.Value Is EverythingUltimate justification? Did Many Clouds run because of Phil Smith’s tinkering or because his owner has a love affair with the race?
£1m in prize money is enough to attract the big names.
If the GN had not existed and someone proposed the race as a new event, then asked the BHA to look favourably on certain horses, they’d be shown the door before you could say Captain Becher.
It’s a nonsense, they should run off their official rating. Good horses don’t need any encouragement weight wise. certainly to the disadvantage of those lower in the weights. The encouragement is in the prize money.
If good horses need less weight in just the one race then why aren’t all the horses treated the same and receive exactly the same allowance or the same allowance relative to their weight? At what weight do they receive no allowance and why? What is the cut off point?
Top weight should be 12 stone anyway, it didn’t do Red Rum or Suny Bay any harm.
Too much of Phil Smith playing God and I don’t like it.
I think there is definite justification. Many Clouds is an openly campaigned horse who hasn’t had any secrets from anyone. He goes from race to race trying his best with none of this pipe-opener or half the season over hurdles stuff.
The compression of the weights to help class horses is a riposte against the ‘plot’ horses and levels the playing field. The only losers are your honest middle ground horses not classy enough to get a reduction and not snide enough to have anything up their sleeves. The current system not a perfect solution but certainly has its merits.
What “plot” horses have run in the race in recent years? It doesn’t happen, don’t think even Phil Smith would claim that. They would most unlikely to get a run in the first place.
I don’t think there is any justification for having a “special” handicap for just one race.
It’s a nonsense, they should run off their official rating. Good horses don’t need any encouragement weight wise. certainly to the disadvantage of those lower in the weights. The encouragement is in the prize money.
If good horses need less weight in just the one race then why aren’t all the horses treated the same and receive exactly the same allowance or the same allowance relative to their weight? At what weight do they receive no allowance and why? What is the cut off point?
Top weight should be 12 stone anyway, it didn’t do Red Rum or Suny Bay any harm.
Too much of Phil Smith playing God and I don’t like it.
I think a fair number of ‘oldies’ would probably agree. I suspect Smith thinks he has brought the race into the 21st century. Matt Chapman was clearly teasing him this morning in referring to the race as the Phil Smith Grand National.
“Although Many Clouds weight carried will only be 1 lb more (11-09 to 11-10), his mark will need to be put up significantly and the difference in weight much greater. Will be interesting to see if Phil Smith can get away with putting Saint Are up more than Many Clouds!
How silly! How can that be justified Maurice? “ [Gingertipster]Brilliant question.
Many Clouds can’t be asked to carry any more than 11-10 as that’s the ceiling. If he’s still rated 167 next year he’ll probably get into the race off something like 164 to tempt him to run. If he was raised 7lbs for Saturday, I imagine Saint Are will be raised 4lbs so the question is entirely pertinent and is one which no doubt Mr Smith will spend some time debating with himself. I don’t imagine there’s any way Saint Are will be worse off with Many Clouds next year but there’s a lot of racing to be done in the meantime. What if Saint Are comes out and maintains its curve to the point that it’s already rated a stone higher than now at the time the weights are to be announced. Saturday’s race will then be irrelevant. Then again, suppose MC improves and SA doesn’t? What if MC comes out and wins the Hennessy off top weight? That would put him in the 175+ bracket. That would most certainly make the National handicap interesting as he’d probably have to let him in off 170, which would send many out of the handicap and would probably work in MC’s favour again. That would make the 25/1 more attractive (to me) than it is at the moment.
But given that there are so many imponderables in the meantime, a policy of wait and see is probably the prudent one.
The revised official ratings are 167 for Many Clouds and 148 for Saint Are. That’s a 5lb rise for the latter.
It’s also a 5lb rise for the winner as his official mark last week was 162, dropped 3lbs from 165 at the time the National weights were published after his Gold Cup run.
On the overall question, my view is that Smith has zero justification for his tinkering. And if you disagree, ask yourself how you’d feel if you owned the runner-up, knowing that you’d been denied a Grand National winner by the subjective whims of the handicapper
Ask the owners of Suny Bay how they feel having lost out under top weight when they’d get in nowadays off 5lbs lower.
Ask the owners of Wayward Lad how they feel about the mare’s allowance that allowed Dawn Run to beat the best 3m chaser of his generation. (And nowadays it’s 2lbs more.)
Ask any loser of any big handicap how they feel if they’re beaten by a horse ridden by a brilliant claimer worth more than his allowance.
I disagree that it’s “the subjective whims of the handicapper” at play. As I said earlier, the nature of this one race historically disadvantaged the higher weights because the weight has a greater impact the further they go. Try holding a can of beans straight out at arm’s length. For the first wee while it won’t be a problem. See how long you can keep it there before the pain gets too much to bear. It’s physics. The handicapper is trying to address the issue this phenomenon creates, which makes it fair.
I disagree that it’s “the subjective whims of the handicapper” at play. As I said earlier, the nature of this one race historically disadvantaged the higher weights because the weight has a greater impact the further they go. Try holding a can of beans straight out at arm’s length. For the first wee while it won’t be a problem. See how long you can keep it there before the pain gets too much to bear. It’s physics. The handicapper is trying to address the issue this phenomenon creates, which makes it fair.
If that were the case, why doesn’t the handicapper make similar allowances in races such as the Scottish and Welsh Nationals, Eider Chase etc.?
It seems crazy that he is allowed to effectively ‘play God’ for this one race every year.
It’s all part of the theatre, and rightly or wrongly, racing is probably benefited more than it is disadvantaged by the National being treated as special.
It’s all part of the theatre, and rightly or wrongly, racing is probably benefited more than it is disadvantaged by the National being treated as special.
You can treat the National as special without doctoring the weights in favour of a select few. How would racing be disadvantaged by horses racing off their correct marks?
If you owned Many Clouds all your birthdays have come at once (twice). Winning the National and a meagre 5lbs rise in the handicap after a 5lb allowance this year, it’s appalling.
Yet Saint Are also gets a 5lb rise after a 14lb rise for a micky mouse race at Catterick and Rocky Creek still has to run off a 9lb higher mark after the National.
This obsession with getting all the horses in the handicap with a top weight of only 11st 10lbs is ridiculous.
How silly! How can that be justified Maurice? Ironically, if more good horses do not take him on we are likely to see horses like Alvorado (140) out of the handicap and bunched on 10-00.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.