ABSURD

Jack,It would appear that you and I agree that we should not allow horses' careers to be reborn,at the expense of others.
We obviously don't quite agree on the method though.
I am saying that a horse should not have a MR reduced easily......you are suggesting that a horse,with a MR of say 76,gets a reductionto to ,say,73 but with a 1,5kg penalty...........doesn't that just complicate the record keeping(another floor of data capture recording MRs' but with a seperate record of penalties).I am battling to understand why we don't just let the MR stay at 76?.So much more simple?
Your other suggestion of bands would theoretically be catered for by "class" racing which I queried some months ago ......it reflects in Computaform,but is apparently not official and yet seems to work well in the UK!
Our problem seems to be an abundance of divided handicaps which blurs the lines of any banding into classes,and they should probably be eliminated,or at least discouraged.


(Louis,you confuse me.....you now agree with the principle in spite of earlier suggesting we should be dropping the ratings faster ...like Hong Kong???????)

@ Rob
1) I was showing the line horse method and my concern that we are quick to go up and slow to come down. I never mentioned weekly adjustments, only the principle. I wasnt looking at alternatives, only at the CURRENT system, as it is now.
2) Once a horse runs in a weak field (with a weak line horse), it seems to remain down there forever.
3) I only have an opinion. This is a complex issue. Sometimes I am wrong. I do not have all of the answers.
4) Jacks suggestion is better than mine, on this one. I like it.
5)We do need to get the basics right, eg more rewards, through Racing opportunities, for (and not at the expense of) the better horses etc, hence our voicing our opinions and suggested solutions. We must not end up punishing achievers. Handicap them fairly, yes !

Louis,I think we generally agree ....and it would appear that most of us support a fair system.....surely we could design one fairly easily. once the principles are agreed,of course?
How about this suggestion:
Every horse has 3 ratings:
1)Ability Rating....never recedes so its Ability is a record of fact
2)Form Rating......as per current MR ratings but with a more correct definition
3) Race figure....incorporating all penalties ( including the ones Jack refers to)
Use FR for handicaps and RF for condition or plate races and all can be continually seen in relation to ability.....would help punters to assess FR rating against AR, and knowing the theoretical difference.
I think it would also help identify the "pull up" merchants,by tracking the relativity.

It is 3 ratings instead of 1 but at least all adjustments are then incorporated......just a thought.

Maybe to achieve Jack's point,no horse can run,even in a handicap,at a rating lower than it's Race Figure......?

Great ideas come out on this forum, that's for sure. Certainly got my brain working now. Thanks all !