MR of Variety Club and Jackson

The 'problem' with Gross Ratings for younger horses are that the rating they get is meant to reflect the rating they should achieve when fully matured - according to the 'official' WFA scale - however we see proof every day of horses once rated in the 90's racing off MR's 10 points or more below that.My 'feeling' is (would be interesting to have some stats) is that in time more horses in general come down in MR (and by more points) than actually go up or even stay the same.

Just off the cuff, how about giving them a 'nett' rating and then add the WFA 'penalty' to the rating for racing purposes - as opposed to the current way which is giving them a 'gross' rating and then subtract the WFA 'allowance'?

brandhow...u are the most clueless person ive ever seen post anything on any forum..i suppose bulsara and wyatt west should have the same MR cause they both always get beat??? Mr Lips you must have patience,dont know how u managed to make as many replies without falling off ur chair!!! :S

JustinV Wrote:

---

> brandhow...u are the most clueless person ive ever
> seen post anything on any forum..i suppose bulsara
> and wyatt west should have the same MR cause they
> both always get beat??? Mr Lips you must have
> patience,dont know how u managed to make as many
> replies without falling off ur chair!!! :S

Justin, Please Don't Feed The Troll><

Frodo Wrote:

---

> The 'problem' with Gross Ratings for younger
> horses are that the rating they get is meant to
> reflect the rating they should achieve when fully
> matured - according to the 'official' WFA scale -
> however we see proof every day of horses once
> rated in the 90's racing off MR's 10 points or
> more below that.My 'feeling' is (would be
> interesting to have some stats) is that in time
> more horses in general come down in MR (and by
> more points) than actually go up or even stay the
> same.
>
> Just off the cuff, how about giving them a 'nett'
> rating and then add the WFA 'penalty' to the
> rating for racing purposes - as opposed to the
> current way which is giving them a 'gross' rating
> and then subtract the WFA 'allowance'?

I dont understand why we make assumptions. I believe the horse's rating should be what it actually ran to with assumptions, age, month, etc removed from the basis. I believe Singapore do not make assumptions.

Singapore is run by the man who put MR's into place here.

Mac Wrote:

---

> Frodo Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > The 'problem' with Gross Ratings for younger
> > horses are that the rating they get is meant to
> > reflect the rating they should achieve when
> fully
> > matured - according to the 'official' WFA scale
> -
> > however we see proof every day of horses once
> > rated in the 90's racing off MR's 10 points or
> > more below that.My 'feeling' is (would be
> > interesting to have some stats) is that in time
> > more horses in general come down in MR (and by
> > more points) than actually go up or even stay
> the
> > same.
> >
> > Just off the cuff, how about giving them a
> 'nett'
> > rating and then add the WFA 'penalty' to the
> > rating for racing purposes - as opposed to the
> > current way which is giving them a 'gross'
> rating
> > and then subtract the WFA 'allowance'?
>
> I dont understand why we make assumptions. I
> believe the horse's rating should be what it
> actually ran to with assumptions, age, month, etc
> removed from the basis. I believe Singapore do not
> make assumptions.

ok mac..so according to you...2yos after winning gr1s will get their ratings of 105+ and then must run against the older sprinters of 105+ and get no weight? what chance do they have..either that or the 2yo gr1 winners cant be higher rated then 90+-...seems a bit daft

JustinV Wrote:

---

.
>
> ok mac..so according to you...2yos after winning
> gr1s will get their ratings of 105+ and then must
> run against the older sprinters of 105+ and get no
> weight? what chance do they have..either that or
> the 2yo gr1 winners cant be higher rated then
> 90+-...seems a bit daft

This is how I see it:

When your 2yo has won its Gr1 it receives an MR which equals the sum of its race rating plus an assumption of extra lbs based on the WFA scale to compensate for its immaturity. When your 2yo runs next time out in open company this assumption is then deducted from the weight calculation formula respectve to the WFA scale in that month.

You are quite correct, this assumption must be removed when your 2yo runs in open company. My Q, all other things being equal, is why bother with these assumptions. This is just a long standing thought with me

I may be way off the mark here, but is the reason not because this was done to get out young horses a high enough merit rating to be able to race overseas?

Some points -
1) Overall or normally horses may lose their form, from time to time, but not their ability. Obviously, certain injuries or upper airway diseases do result in a permanent loss of form. But, over time and through exposure to the handicapper, (running the horse), the MR will be adjusted.
2) I have yet to find a strange or biased decision by our handicappers. I have often had my disagreements with them, but I have never been able to pinpoint a definite unfair practice.
3) Ratings ARE reviewed regularly. But, the parameters as described to us all on the NHRA website (go and look and STUDY them), are strictly adhered to. The only grey area is the selection of the line horse, after a race. That is what is called HANDICAPPER's DISCRETION. On that one we sometimes have a difference of opinion.....but then again, that's what racing is all about, in the first place - opinion.
4)Too often we are guilty of only looking at our own horses or only at a few select horses. It's an extremely complex job to look at ALL horses in SA, day in and day out.
5)As for JustinV and somewhere where he was referred to as an ''apprentice handicapper''this is a lot of nonsense. The few dealings I had with him were very pro and he knows his game, irrespective of any differences of opinion which we might have had. I am dissapointed to read that he has left the game. Young people are sorely needed for the future. Maybe now that he has left NHRA, we can read more from him. NHRA's loss is our gain, here on ABC.....

Thanks for the kind words Mr Goosen..i will definately be posting on the forum with regards to rating issues and giving opinions etc..you are right racing needs young people for the future but with my own experience i can assure you racing is not easy for a young person to get involved..i was lucky to be given the job at the nhra and honestly was probably only considered because of the lack of applicants! from my experience i can say that each of the current handicappers know what they are doing and this notion from trainers that the handicappers's due extra punishment to their horses etc is nonsense..in fact just about every trainer that phones in says the handicappers are harsh on his horses and that they favour certain trainers! which is hogwash..trainers and handicappers are always going to be at loggerheads because trainers want to maximise earnings for their horses by winning as many races as possible and handicappers are employed to make that not happen by making horses competitive! its up to trainers to familiarise themselves with the system and then squeeze as much juice out of it as they can..there is also alot of talk amongst some of our top horses being too high..the dubai handicapper infact mentally adds on a few pounds to our ratings because he has noticed that they are generally to low! and ratings have to be within a certain level to keep races at gr1 levels etc...in fact when an international handicapper came in to evaluate the way it was done down here they felt that our handicappers were if anything a bit too soft with punishments..

the fact is handicappers are the only people who dont have an invested interest in the horses so they can be 100% subjective..unlike owners and trainers and punters! who will obviously want to get away with as much as possible..

my advice to everyone is too study the handicapping guidelines on the nhra website and try understand things as much as possible,Mr Goosen is in fact very familiar with how things work,and not many trainers can say that!!..it definately helps with ur punting too..i for one since i left handicapping am actually making more money betting than from my day job..and i dont get peanuts! and thats just from what ive learnt about the system..if people want to ask questions about any horses im more than happy to answer if i read them on time!

mac there is no assumption added onto a race rating or whatever...lets use kavanagh

he wins the gold medallion and achieves 105 when winning the race...that is the rating he achieves and the MR he is allocated..nothing added nothing taken away

now kavanagh has turned 3 and runs in a 1200m handicap as a prep for the dingaans...its september...in the race is also the 5yo renegade also rated 105...now at level weights the still maturing kavanagh has literally no chance against the stronger mature renegade..he is therefore allocated a WFA allowance to make him competitive..in september its 13 pounds over 1200m for a 3yo..so the 13 is deducted from his 105 and he becomes a 'net' 92...so he will carry the weight of a 92 against renegade therefore recieving 6.5kgs from renegade,giving him a chance of beating him..

this is another reason why people think 3yos are rated too highly..they dont understand WFA allowances..105 seems high for a 2yo maybe albeit a gr1 winner but when you see what his net rating is after WFA it actually seems low...thats why when a 2yo wins its given a 88 or something people say how can it be so high..but if you minus WFA which is like 19 pounds in may for a 2yo then it becomes a net 69..which is the same as a horse like wyatt west..then it doesnt seem so high does it?

Thanks for your contribution Justin, much appreciated