- This topic has 55 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
I understood 60 fine ginge, it was a precise answer and the best of most according to the question but as per the question there was no rating for the jumps.
Okay you’ve explained why but I would ask again, what rating for the jumps would you consider below which is dross?
There has to be one if one is being balanced as both codes have ratings for the same reason which is to quantify an animal’s ability.
It’s not that difficult is it?
Yes it is more difficult with jumps. For one thing don’t want to prevent horses of a certain quality running in hunter chases. I’ve always considered it a different type of chasing. So if a rating of say around 87 or
90
was introduced for
handicaps
over jumps; would it be to the detrement of Hunter chasing? May be Jeremy could answer that?
Value Is EverythingIt’s all a matter of perception. The lowqest horses in any group might be perceived as ‘dross’. Is it me is does that sound a horrible term?
If you take out those below 60 then 60 to 75 becomes ‘dross’ because they are the slowest.
Alternatively just jack up all ratings by 20 thus instantly ‘undrossing’ a significant percentage of the horse population. The majority of those taking an interest in racing couldn’t tell the difference between a group of horses rated 50 and a group rated 90.
Rob
For one thing don’t want to prevent horses of a certain quality running in hunter chases. I’ve always considered it a different type of chasing. So if a rating of say around 87 or
90
was introduced for
handicaps
over jumps; would it be to the detrement of Hunter chasing? May be Jeremy could answer that?
Oh gosh, that’s a minefield! I’d suggest that around half of all horses to run in hunters’ chases are unlikely to be worthy of a triple figure rating anymore, but I wonder if some still masquerade under a higher Official Rating that flatters them massively on most recent exploits in the sphere.
I may be horribly wrong on this, but I don’t think ORs of hunter chasers are adjusted until they are next entered for a race in which their mark needs to be reassessed, e.g. when they’re entered in a summer handicap chase at the end of the hunters’ season, or else when they get a declaration for one of the pair of handicap hunters’ chases at Newton Abbot and Aintree.
It might require a TRFfer like Marcus Weedon or Happy Jack to come on and give the definitive answer. However, I think that would explain why, for example, Amicelli has basically stayed on the same mark as when last seen in handicap chases in spring 2007, despite running to RPRs of 136, 131, 142 and 134 (and not dissimilar Timeform ratings), inclusive of a Cheltenham Foxhunters’ Chase win, in four of his last five hunters’ chase outings since then.
The problem of this ad hoc adjustment of ratings, if true, would be fairly obvious – (often older) 100+ horses who decay in hunters’ chases still appear better than they are, whilst badly rated horses brought to life in the sphere still appear bad.
Confirmation sought on all counts!
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Jeremy,
Sorry did not express myself well (again).I don’t want to stop lowly rated (less than 90) running in hunter chases. Just wondered, if under 90’s were prevented from running in handicaps; would hunter chasing be overwhelmed by these poor quality horses? And would that be a good or bad thing for hunter chasing? And, if hunting is infiltrated, is there any point in stopping them running in handicaps?
Value Is EverythingIt’s all a matter of perception. The lowqest horses in any group might be perceived as ‘dross’. Is it me is does that sound a horrible term?
If you take out those below 60 then 60 to 75 becomes ‘dross’ because they are the slowest.
Alternatively just jack up all ratings by 20 thus instantly ‘undrossing’ a significant percentage of the horse population. The majority of those taking an interest in racing couldn’t tell the difference between a group of horses rated 50 and a group rated 90.
Rob
I disagree Rob,
The point is to improve quality. If those below 60 are taken out the quality will be enhanced. That is not perception, that’s improvement. Whatever a quality of horses is called, if they are renamed it does not improve them.The majority of those interested in racing may not be interested in the quality. But I know quite a few racing fans who are turned off by what they see as downgrading of racing. I myself don’t go to Fontwell or Wincanton anymore because the quality of racing is on decline as entrance fees rise.
Value Is EverythingThe point is to improve quality. If those below 60 are taken out the quality will be enhanced.
If I’ve understood you correctly, what you’re saying defies logic, surely. If those below 60 are taken out tomorrow, the quality of the remaining
horses
in and of themselves isn’t materially improved – those rated 61 merely become the least good of those to have escaped the cull and are still as limited ability-wise as they were yesterday.
The inclination to dig out a deranged post from yesteryear isn’t there, frankly, but I seem to remember when this "threshold" argument was wheeled out on TRF once three or four years ago, somebody other than you or me suggested that the quality of the equine gene pool could be improved 10lb over a couple of generations by culling all horses rated 75 or below. Er, only if you raise the entire ratings scale by 10lb, you might….
gc
PS It’s entirely possible you meant the above solely in the sense of banning horses rated under 60 on your pretext that "nothing rated under 60 deserves to win a race". I’d better go and tell that to Aahgowangowan, then – her second ever win, and first in handicaps, required a drop to 59 to achieve, after which she went in another 10 times off marks of up to 71. And there’s dozen of other animals like her with similar win profiles. And you’re going to want to do away with all of those? You utter, utter cad, bounder and rotter…
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
I don’t want to stop lowly rated (less than 90) running in hunter chases. Just wondered, if under 90’s were prevented from running in handicaps; would hunter chasing be overwhelmed by these poor quality horses? And would that be a good or bad thing for hunter chasing? And, if hunting is infiltrated, is there any point in stopping them running in handicaps?
Hard to answer this. I suspect, though, that hunter chases would only be overwhelmed by these sorts if there were recognised hunter chase / point-to-point connections willing to take them on / afford the asking price in the first place.
There are certainly some hunters run where – not by design – nothing in the field either covets or is entitled to a 90-plus Official Rating, especially at the smaller tracks later on in the season when neither Foxhunters qualification nor aiming for the big end-of-term targets such as the erstwhile Horse & Hound Cup is an issue. Limiting sub-90 horses to hunter chases could swell the numbers in these sort of races numerically, I suppose, but we’re probably talking about no more than a couple of dozen races out of the 110-115 hunter chases programmed each term.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
IMO any horse below 60 does not deserve to win a race./quote]
Like in any athletic endeavour, the ability table is a pyramid, with the poorest group by far the most numerous. Ask anyone who’s ever taken part in a marathon or even a 10k race, a few seconds among the also-rans can mean a difference of fifty places in a big field. So it is in the horse population and the "under 60s" are a huge cohort. Speaking as someone who had tremendous fun with a horse who began winning off 46 before completing a three-timer, I don’t see why if I want to pay his training fees he shouldn’t be allowed to run. Judging by the divisions and balloting out that occurs in such races, I’m not alone. Despite this, I agree with recent proposals that in these challenging times, levy funding should be targeted at better racing, letting the courses and the bookies pay for the moderate stuff if they think it will pay its way in betting turnover or attendence.
I believe there is too much racing in Britain.
It seems to me the best way of cutting down the number of races / meetings is to reduce the number of “dross” races, the bottom teer. This would also improve the over all quality. Of course those 60 + horses don’t improve their own ability overnight. By getting rid of the lowest level the “average” quality of race goes up (improves).It is not inconcievable that given time it could genuinely improve the standard of British horse. Not convinced of this myself yet, but… Breeders do not set out to breed a 50 rated horse, but knowing they have a safety net in class 6 must effect their thinking. Discouraging breeding at the lowest end of the market, so in time (possibly) improving quality.
There will be potential improvers like Aahgawangawan who slip through the net, which is unfortunate. This (imo) is a price worth paying to improve the over all quality. But, may be there is another way.
What if there is no true cut off point? Just with a minimum handicap mark of 60, with those below (like Aahgawangawan) being allowed to race “out of the weights”.
Never said owners of these 50 odd rated horses don’t deserve to win, I am not anti-owner, far from it. I know these horses mean a lot to their owners and trainers. It tugs on the proverbial to think “our old boy will not be able to win a race”. But the simple fact is, owners would just own a higher quality horse, albeit (if finances don’t allow) a smaller share. Those who don’t fit in to the new system can be sent hurdling or sold to race abroad.
Value Is EverythingIMO any horse below 60 does not deserve to win a race./quote]
Like in any athletic endeavour, the ability table is a pyramid, with the poorest group by far the most numerous. Ask anyone who’s ever taken part in a marathon or even a 10k race, a few seconds among the also-rans can mean a difference of fifty places in a big field. So it is in the horse population and the "under 60s" are a huge cohort. Speaking as someone who had tremendous fun with a horse who began winning off 46 before completing a three-timer, I don’t see why if I want to pay his training fees he shouldn’t be allowed to run. Judging by the divisions and balloting out that occurs in such races, I’m not alone.
Despite this, I agree with recent proposals that in these challenging times, levy funding should be targeted at better racing, letting the courses and the bookies pay for the moderate stuff if they think it will pay its way in betting turnover or attendence.
That might be an alternative Carv. The problem I can see with it is: That bottom layer in the pyramid will have far fewer races to run in. Wouldn’t there be an outcry from owners? With so many horses not being able to get a run. Is it not better to just do away with the bottom layer? So owners and trainers know where they stand.
Wouldn’t bookies go back to showing racing from South Africa instead of paying for racing?
Value Is EverythingChanges could be faised in. With the minimum bottom weight going up 3 or 5lbs each year until 60 is reached. So owners and trainers can adapt.
Value Is EverythingGT
At what point in a horse’s career does the cut off point get made. Two years old, three years old, four years old, five? Horses develop at different rates so why penalise those trainers/owners of late developers. Alternatively how many chances would you give a horse to attain the required rating? Three runs, five runs, ten runs?
In my opinion there is no one point applicable to all horses’ careers at which you can draw a line across and say those below it aren’t good enough.
Flapping might suddenly thrive……
Rob
Rob,
Time for a climb down.
TRFers arguements have convinced me an outright ban on those below 60 would not work.However,
Now gone over to the idea of a minimum "weight" of a 60 OR, with those below that mark able to run from "out of the weights". It would be up to trainers and owners to decide whether something rated say 55 can improve / worth keeping in training in Britain. Same as it is with the lowest rated horses now.As you say horses mature at different rates. I can see that Two and three year olds may need lower minimum OR than 60. Presumably their minimum weights can be done by looking at average improvement.
There may be an increase in the risk of "Flapping" but don’t see that as a reason not to change.
Value Is Everythinggingertipster said
Those who don’t fit in to the new system can be sent hurdling or sold to race abroad
Obviously, if they can’t run to three figues NH they must be turned into glue, yes?
Simon,
As I said, I am not as confident something like this will work over the jumps.Again you don’t appear to have read my posts carefully enough. My jumps figure is only around 87, not three figures.
There is the safeguard of hunter chases and point to points, but I bow to others with greater knowledge of that game to know what effect this will have.
So NO, it would not mean those who do not make the grade being turned in to glue.
Presumably Simon, you are totally against racing? The Glue factory has always been there on the horizon.
Value Is EverythingSimon,
As I said, I am not as confident something like this will work over the jumps.Again you don’t appear to have read my posts carefully enough. My jumps figure is only around 87, not three figures.
There is the safeguard of hunter chases and point to points, but I bow to others with greater knowledge of that game to know what effect this will have.
So NO, it would not mean those who do not make the grade being turned in to glue.
Presumably Simon, you are totally against racing? The Glue factory has always been there on the horizon.
Gingertipster
The problem with point to points for these lowly rated horses is that apart from young horse maidens run over 2 and a half miles, the rest of the races are run over 3 miles. That might be okay at somewhere in the south east like Godstone or Penshurst (two lovely days out incidentally) which are on the sharp side, though Godstone’s finish is up hill. On the other hand Detling and Charing (also lovely days out) are good galloping stayers tracks. I cannot say how you would rate a good Open horse JeremyGrayson would be the man for that or the good auspices of Mckenzie and Harris and their ratings.
or the good auspices of Mckenzie and Harris and their ratings.
[plug]
The brand new Mackenzie & Harris is due out next Monday.
[/plug]gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.