ABSURD

@ Craig,

Let me fully undertsand your lack of understanding.

You think that a horse should not be judged only on its ability/perceived ability but also on stakes and number of wins?

she is ONLY 1/4 of a length better than a 5 time winner and 1 1/4 length better than double date a 1 time winner.


i think she has been well placed and shows plenty of heart but as a 11 time winner she is no empress club

I have not looked into this case but what I am saying is we need even more info used to gauge the proper ability rating of each horse. I had a filly win as a late 2yr old in a bad field in the wet and she got a rating of 83. Her next 3 runs were unplaced and then had to take on a 4x winning 5yr mare old giving her weight. You know who won that race and who ran close to last. last I saw her rating was about 48 and now apparently retired. I have had horses in my yard who have been well handicapped like Forecastle on 84 I think it was after winning 4 in a row and others as 1-2 time winners who are way to high.

Easy,if horse A) retires a 2x winner with stakes of R100,000 but a MR of 100 & horse B ) wins 11 races,with stakes of R585000 and only has a MR of 70.....which one would you have rather rather owned?

Your point about how a horse is "judged" depends what you are trying to achieve!

(BTW tell us again how far Madam Madonna was gonna beat Woman of the Year.........did you think that you had placed that one better?)

1) Hlamba would have gone close. Scratched because of Virus, coughing. NO OTHER REASON.

2) Merit rating was introduced to level the playing fields for the WotY types. In the old Race Figure system and with no Sand up here, she would probably still be battling to win her 3rd race....

3)Placing a horse properly helps a lot, so does patience, during that process.

Louisg you are right placing and patience is needed but personally I dont think they drop horses as quickly as they put them up and that does make it hard for some horses to get their next win. The earlier you win the harder it is to come down although saying that some horses drop like a stone for no apparent reason and some take ages. Is it not too subjective and sometimes maybe the wrong line horse is used?

i have followed horse racing for over 40 years. to me it is very clear that the QUALITY of the fields has gone down. it is not hard to see that today the quantity of races is more important to the quality. you can not tell me that a 10 time winner she should carry the same as a 1 time winner! the clevers will have a lot to say i do not care, we want to see 10 time winners running with 10 time winners not this rubbish we see today. merit rating has no merit. bring back the old race figure system!

When we will we ever learn in this country that number of races won means f#ck all as an indicator of merit?

Looking at Race 4 Kenilworth is another great example of our wonderful merit rating system in action.

Shrek,its not the system per se,it is the way it is implemented and regulated.
In our own guidelines,"the primary basis for rating is the revealed ABILITY of the animal"........would somebody explain how the ability of a horse can go up and down like a whores draws on payday.We need more conservative settings and reductions allowed only if the ability rating was a mistake,AT THE TIME....what happened to "form is temporary,class is forever"
It is surely the conditioners job to get the horse in a condition to produce its ability,so why are discounts given for lay offs.....who decided it was a fitness rating?
How can the inegrity of racing be maintained if a few "easy" runs,leads to a new "ability rating" setting up a handicap certainty,and a betting coup,at the expense of the uninformed?
Why should a 3 yr old,developing his career,be denied a win by a 7yr old/ 8x winner on his way down the ratings.....that is what is absurd.
Horses that have enjoyed the wins,relative to their ability,need to retire and make may for up and coming generations.
Merit ratings are here to stay....they are needed for global comparison,but they don't have to be used as a compensatory factor................ie.cripple care,fitness or old age etc.....

Rob I agree with you my biggest problem the merit rating system is the restrictions placed on it. Silky Satin probably ran more than 6 points better than her rating but cannot be penalized more than the six points. We had Royal Zulu Warrior winning by a street in each race and could only get penalized a maximum of 8 points a race. This is not a true merit rated system as a horse can run to a 100 of a mark of 70 and get hit by only 8 points then off the 78 runs to 100 again and goes to 86.

If we are to have a true merit rated system surely all these walls need to be removed. I am in full agreement in what Craig said earlier young horses leaving the maidens are hit too hard early and are therefore not competitive when entering MR races. We had Danger Point given a 78 leaving a weak KZN maiden and took about 10 subsequent starts to lower him to the rating he should have been running off he now runs off a 56 and is competitive again.

On a serious note (for those who think I always have an agenda of some kind) I have learned that unless the trainer believes he has a champion on his hands that will go to Graded races..rather go slowly and take time to win the maiden if your horse is good enough to do that..why not rather let the horse get there in its own time and earn some stake place cheques on the way..its ridiculous to go and hammer a horse for its 1st or 2nd races to win and then get a fat merit rating and then put the poor horse under all kinda pressure to compete in a division it is not competitive in with a big fat weight on its back.

Shrek,one of the problems with the system is that everybody has a different theory......I personally believe that a better horse should win more races.....just my perception of fairplay.....I am a strong opponent of socialism!
So my preference would be relatively conservative on the way up ....but a lot tougher coming back down!