- This topic has 20 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Len Lungo may be good at some things, but he sure ain’t got a clue about handicapping, as he has demonstrated time and time again.
In today’s Racing Post, talking about his horse Freetown, he says: "Win or lose, I think the handicapper has acted ridiculously and he should put the others behind him down, rather than put him up for his last run."
Freetown finished a neck second, 8 lengths clear, in a 15-finisher £12,500 handicap at Cheltenham, and Lungo’s suggestion is that his horse and the winner should stay as they were and everything else in the race should be downgraded.
I wonder if he applied for that recent official handicapping vacancy.
And while we are on the subject of the Post allowing its pages to be used by numbskulls sounding off about whatever takes their fancy, can anyone explain to me the meaning of Rob Kennedy’s "calculations" in his letter on page 14?
Whilst Lenny many be talking b*****ks
, at least he does it in the finest accent you will ever hear. Lenny’s dialect closely followed by Terry Mills are the best 2 in racingIt would be nice for trainers like Lavelle, Lungo, SMP and Guest if they could have their whole stable rated 52. Fortunately, the handicapper is there to stop them winning all and sundry with underrated horses.
And to you Clivex
Very much so, made all the wose for being in the office at 8.45 this morning also.
Never mind what I think it should be. The standard raise in an instance like this (field size, value of race, time of year, margins between horses etc) would be 5.2lb for the runner-up.
The quibble is not over whether 5lb, 7lb, or whatever, is right, it is over the ludicrous notion that the whole handicap should be trashed just so that Lungo’s horse can stay on its original mark despite having beaten 14 of its 15 rivals easily.
(Edited by Prufrock at 1:16 pm on Jan. 1, 2007)
I would say that the plan was to win the race, and it fell by the wayside. In other words, sour grapes.
On the Rob Kennedy letter, and for those who (understandably) do not buy the Racing Post every day, the man may have an overall point, but can anyone explain his specific reasoning in the following?
While the official going for Kempton on Boxing Day given out by the track officials and the national papers was good to soft, the times strongly indicate soft to heavy going, and on the soft side of soft to heavy.
As an example, Kicking King won in a time of 5min 54sec in 2004, giving him a rating of 177 in good to soft. Kauto Star won in a time of 6min 05sec, giving him a rating of 173.
That is a difference of 11 seconds for the same race, which corresponds to a rating that would, in 2004, have given Kauto Star a rating of 157. This makes the official stated going a mockery.
As for Jazz Messenger’s race, he won in a time of 3min 59sec. In 2004, the race was won in a time of 3min 47sec, a difference of 12 seconds. The winner in 2004 was rated 167, yet Jazz Messenger was rated 163 for the race this year, when, if he had run in 2004, he would have produced a rating of 152.
When will they stop giving the wrong going out? This has occurred several times this year.
:o :o :o
HAPPY NEW YEAR, clivex.
Managed just two drinks last night. Perhaps that was the problem!
PMSL at post 1.16
Mr Kennedys letter has a point regarding official descriptions, but his chosen example makes little sense to me tbh
I don’t undersatand why presenters keep on interviewing these trainers who do not want to say anything of value to viewers. A very select group of trainers are worth listening to like Alan King, Paul Nicholls and a few others.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.