- This topic has 2 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
In the earlier thread about my ideas for changing the racing program, the proposal to replace low grade handicaps with claimers was quite reasonably seen as a potential problem, and as a disincentive for owners.
I wonder whether peope realise just how much things have already changed for low rated horses in quite a short space of time?
In the 2001 season, I part owned a 5-y-old called Democracy that I’m sure some old timers on here will remember. During that season he won an apprentice race at Brighton off a mark of 46, but his subsequent exploits that year reflected opportunities that no longer exist.
In early June, he won a 0-70 amateur race at Goodwood – he ran off a mark of 49 and there was a field of 22 runners. In the current program, the bottom weight in that race would be rated 56 and the maximum field would be 16.
Subsequently he ran at Newmarket (July course), Kempton, Epsom (in a 0-80 handicap) and in a valuable 0-70 at Beverley with over £7k to the winner. All that despite the fact that he was never rated higher than 52.
Nowadays, it would be almost impossible to get such a lowly rated horse in any race at a Grade 1 track and he certainly wouldn’t be able to run in a 0-80 or a 0-75. Beverley no longer stage the valuable 0-70 handicap, as the prize money offered then exceeds the maximum allowed for such a race in 2007.
Unless my memory is playing tricks, in 2001, there were hardly any races with a rating band lower than 0-60, but we never had any problems getting into races, even from our low mark. In contrast, this year, we had Greenwood eliminated from 0-60 races twice when he was himself rated 55.
The present program of claimers offers little opportunity for horses rated under 60, as almost all such races are dominated by older horses taking advantage of soft contests – I’ve done it myself twice this year with Salute.
So to provide for the increased number of horses kept in training despite being rated below 55, there are now handicaps scheduled with ratings such as 46 – 50, 46 – 52, 46 – 53 – I’ve seen examples of all those in recent weeks. Personally, I don’t think that’s a better option than claimers, but I acept that others may differ.
AP
In the earlier thread about my ideas for changing the racing program, the proposal to replace low grade handicaps with claimers was quite reasonably seen as a potential problem, and as a disincentive for owners.
I wonder whether peope realise just how much things have already changed for low rated horses in quite a short space of time?
In the 2001 season, I part owned a 5-y-old called Democracy that I’m sure some old timers on here will remember. During that season he won an apprentice race at Brighton off a mark of 46, but his subsequent exploits that year reflected opportunities that no longer exist.
In early June, he won a 0-70 amateur race at Goodwood – he ran off a mark of 49 and there was a field of 22 runners. In the current program, the bottom weight in that race would be rated 56 and the maximum field would be 16.
Subsequently he ran at Newmarket (July course), Kempton, Epsom (in a 0-80 handicap) and in a valuable 0-70 at Beverley with over £7k to the winner. All that despite the fact that he was never rated higher than 52.
Nowadays, it would be almost impossible to get such a lowly rated horse in any race at a Grade 1 track and he certainly wouldn’t be able to run in a 0-80 or a 0-75. Beverley no longer stage the valuable 0-70 handicap, as the prize money offered then exceeds the maximum allowed for such a race in 2007.
Unless my memory is playing tricks, in 2001, there were hardly any races with a rating band lower than 0-60, but we never had any problems getting into races, even from our low mark. In contrast, this year, we had Greenwood eliminated from 0-60 races twice when he was himself rated 55.
The present program of claimers offers little opportunity for horses rated under 60, as almost all such races are dominated by older horses taking advantage of soft contests – I’ve done it myself twice this year with Salute.
So to provide for the increased number of horses kept in training despite being rated below 55, there are now handicaps scheduled with ratings such as 46 – 50, 46 – 52, 46 – 53 – I’ve seen examples of all those in recent weeks. Personally, I don’t think that’s a better option than claimers, but I acept that others may differ.
AP
It is a fair point AP. That was surely the intention of the BHB when they narrowed handicap bands. The idea was to encourage a meritocracy with prize money related more to ratings. Connections were to be encouraged to move their horse up through the grades rather than pick off wide band handicaps. To an extent it has worked.
Having an interest in an old sprinter called Blackheath, once rated in the 90s now 11 years old and down to 50, I appreciate the difficulties of getting into some low grade handicaps and running into 80+ rated horses in Claimers. We have just been ballotted out of a 0-60 at Wolverhampton on Saturday.
Nevertheless I think that a lot of people in syndicates and racing clubs would be switched off ownership by the transience of Claimer racing, particularly when they lose their horse. There are large numbers of people from all walks of life who now have a bit of horse. They are enthusiastic and key supporters of racing, and the racing programme needs to accommodate them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.