Handicappers

I have been a supporter of our handicappers as a rule and believe them to have been an efficient area of racing.
However ,recently I find that some of their assessments to be a little strange.
My personal ratings concurred very closely with Graeme Hawkins assessment of the July 3yr old runners(Frodo and I were in sync on Rock Cocktail etc)
I also concur fully with the objection relating to Hill54 and Whiteline Fever's rating (disagree with using Pomodoro as line horse) and amazed to see it overruled and even more that it was regarded as frivolous?????

I hope we haven't developed a "film critic" mentality to handicapping............being controversially different just to justify the title!

I though Matthew Lips had gone there? he is top class so why is this happening?

handicapping is an armchair sport..everyone is an expert

and thats no swipe at u rob..but i do disagree with you on the gold challenge race..i thought it was rated correctly..beach beauty could never have run below her 112 in that race..the fact is whiteline fever was always going to run "above himself" over 1600m in that race..was a mistake running him in that race, if the july was the target in mind..should have gone for that allowance run for it ran in or something else..

and even if the race was rated lower..that doesnt entitle Hill 54 to a lower rating..he achieved his MR in a gr1 over 2000m..why must he be dropped when he has only had 2 prep runs over 1400m and 1600m where he was clearly underdone and not 100% fit over distances short of his best.. i think if the race was rated lower than w fever would have obv not got a hefty penalty but hill 54 was no certainty to drop

JustinV Wrote:

---

> handicapping is an armchair sport..everyone is an
> expert

Lets put that comment into perspective-you,like all handicappers,were/are employees on a salary-some armchair raters do it for a living!

Check some of the posts re 3yrold ratings long before the handicappers "confessed".

I agree that the GOLD challenge is a matter of opinion but my point about the objection is that to dismiss it as unwarranted is arrogant,to say the least.

If you allow that Variety won with 1 lb in hand, then

Variety Club (118) at -1 =117, and then you would get something like

Beach B (112) -2 110
Pomodro (113) 0
Whiteline (109) + 3 112
Ice Machine (109) 0
Hill 54 (112) -2
Master P(110) 0
Festival (107) -5 102
Pierre J (100) +5 105
Lake Arthur (105) -4 101

using underlined horses as the line

Rob and Jack the 2 best handicappers in SAF (tu)

hibernia Wrote:

---

> Rob and Jack the 2 best handicappers in SAF (tu)


Hibs,I think Jack will also agree that it is not an exact enough science for anybody to earn that..........but nice thought................lol

Whilst handicapping is obviously not an exact science,in this day and age it really should be relatively simple for a panel of people to find the best fit.Jack's computerized system has to be more simplistic than what the handicappers have at their disposal,and yet his 'fit' is relatively easily obtained.

This really isn't rocket science guys.

Justanotherpunter Wrote:

---

> Whilst handicapping is obviously not an exact
> science,in this day and age it really should be
> relatively simple for a panel of people to find
> the best fit.Jack's computerized has to be more
> simplistic than what the handicappers have at
> their disposal,and yet his 'fit' is relatively
> easily obtained.
>
> This really isn't rocket science guys.


and the top 3 is complete

Surely the handicappers spend more time evaluating the races with the biggest influence on the other key races.

Derby's,Met's,July's,Queen's Plates are key races with massive consequences for other races.

The form in these races tends to be most consistent as these races are made up of the best horses.It really is tough to cock it up,but obviously it isn't..