- This topic has 26 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote: from Nor1 on 8:04 pm on Oct. 17, 2006[br]This is why I do not like the present system used for handicapping horses as it is illogical, unfair, and could encourage cheating.<br>
So a better system would be ……..
Quote: from thedarkknight on 1:06 pm on Oct. 18, 2006[br]
He has subsequently been raised just 4 pounds for that, depsite the fact that beat what looks a potential Group 2 + horse in Al Qasi.<br>
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, Al Qasi has shown substantial improvement in two races since Gold Express beat him a short head in a nursery. Whatever handicappers may be I don’t think any of them are psychic.
<br>He can raise a rating based on subsequent form and he does – a hurdler in the same yard as Salute was raised when the mare she beat came out and won again.
I understand Gold Express has been sold for export, and if that’s right then the issue doesn’t arise with him.
No evidence of AW improvement from Salute on ratings from the RP – his last three AW runs rate 75, 72, 75.
But I’m not really trying to argue about his individual treatment, but about the overall approach to handicapping now prevalent. As anybody on here that has been involved on the flat will know, changes to turf ratings for AW runs and vice versa seem to be totally random. Sometimes the change is the same, sometimes it’s less, sometimes there isn’t one.
It would be an improvement if the method used to decide thses things was made public to help owners and trainers to plan a program – it’s difficult to plan properly when you don’t know if the handicap mark is going to change, especially when the change takes you across a race rating boundary.
The position on the flat regarding turf and AW ratings seems totally opposite to that adopted for NH racing. Horses that have shown very obvious physical improvement over fences are able to go back to hurdles and take advantage of much lower marks that relate to earlier novice form. Harris Bay, Presenting Express and Take the Stand have all benefited from this in recent weeks at prices that indicate punters felt they were leniently handicapped.
Yeats,
Yes there is a 0-90 over 2M at Newmarket next week – but I like to watch my horses run and sending him off into Suffolk while I stand in Cambridgeshire lacks much appeal! But he’ll probably get an entry – and so will Esprit de Corps who will have a small penalty for his easy win at Pontefract this week. We’ll all know his new mark by then, but it won’t be applied, another aspect of the current system that is long overdue for reform.
AP
dj <br>A very difficult question to answer as I’m not very keen on the handicap system but here are some perhaps foolish suggestions.
No handicap mark until 6 runs or 3 if placed. This would perhaps discourage the three "easy" introductions discussed by tdk.
No reduction if the horse is running over a new distance or ground. This would prevent a consistent 5f winner repeatedly ‘trying’ 6-7f until a suitable drop in ratings had been achieved. The same principle applies to say a firm ground specialist running on soft.
no reduction if ‘traffic problems’ occurred, or a very slow start, or a ‘quiet’ ride, or running on too late after being held up etc.
An overall assessment of not just the horse/s in front, but also those behind, and not just for the last race run.
more handicaps could be restricted eg. 50-60 should mean exactly that. A 48 would not be eligible. If too many eliminations then why not 40-45, 45-50 etc.
yeats,
Salute won from a mark of 77 as recently as June at Sandown on turf, but he appears to be a fair bit below that level on the AW. Probably no reason why he couldn’t run up to the Sandown mark again in the future granted his conditions. If you go back a few seasons, he was a fair handicapper, but he’ll never repeat those ratings IMO.
<br>Just to complete the story – we ran Salute at Nmkt last week (going there for the sales anyway) and he finished well beaten paying the price for disputing the pace with the eventual winner Dr Sharp.
As a result of that single run on turf, his rating has now been returned to exactly what it was before the Wolverhampton race, both for turf and AW.
So three weeks ago the official handicapper concluded that the horse had earned a 3lb rise for his run on Polytrack. Now he’s decided that’s totally wrong on the basis of a run on turf – it makes no sense to me.
This is a seriously flawed system overdue for some reform and modernisation.
AP
IMO it would seem logical to maintain separate AW and Turf handicaps as is the case with Hurdles and Chases, particularly as I believe the proponents of AW are keen for it to be seen as a distinct ‘third code’.
Though some may argue: in that case why not have separate ‘soft’ and ‘firm’ turf handicaps, or fibresand and polytrack AW handicaps, or LH and RH handicaps.
Is there sufficient evidence that enough horses do show markedly different levels of form – on a par with that (generally) between hurdles and fences – when switched between AW and turf to warrant distinct handicaps, or indeed sufficient evidence of a greater ‘liking’ for one over the other compared to that between soft and firm turf?
After all trainers are always banging on about turf going preferences and withdrawing horses as ‘he doesn’t act on soft/good/firm.
<br>TDK,
I would, but I don’t want to risk him having a change of heart and putting him up again!
Drone,
I’ve argued on here before that the advent of Polytrack removes the need for separate turf and AW ratings. I certainly feel it’s one of the things that the BHB should investigate to take into account the changed circumstances produced by Polytrack.
AP
It certainly seems pretty ridiculous that you can get a horses fibresand mark down by running it on polytrack.
Hurdles and Chases are entirely different forms of racing  because of the different obstacles encountered, hence probably the need for different ratings
The only difference between Flat Turf and Flat AW racing  being surface and track configuration .
Same difference as racing on turf at Chester, Goodwood, Epsom etc  on Good to Firm ,Good,Good to Soft , Soft and Heavy
Therefore no need for different ratings being applied, just a need to account for different surfaces/track configurations encountered.
Adjustment to the poundage allowance scale for these variables should be enough in  my amatuer handicapping opinion ;)
(Edited by empty wallet at 6:20 am on Nov. 1, 2006)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.