Merit Rating System

You can see you an CA, looking at it from every possible angle...

gregbucks Wrote:

---

> I don't know?? you can see you an CA, looking at
> it from every possible angle...


LOL, Isn't that what racing is all about. <

shrek Wrote:

---

> gregbucks Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Surely it would only apply to the horses that
> got
> > the 6 point increase in the first place??
>
>
> And if the horse hadn't run on the Sand before and
> was a 77 on 8th August and now an 83, ran a 5th in
> a handicap on the sand off an 83. Would the horse
> now go to a 77 on the Sand or stay an 83 as Sand
> ratings were never adjusted.


Should go back to a 77 on the turf, but remain 83 on the sand ?

Surely if they felt the PE ratings were too high in the first place, they should have just dropped the PE runners ratings instead of increasing every other horse. :S

The increase was about the Asian Racing saying that RSA ratings were to low and the powers that be jumped and increased all except PE and Sand MR by 6
I wrote because of the belief that 80% plus of the trainers believe the system is flawed and Progres type and handicaps were the weight is earned are better

Strange reaction. The MR systems levels the playing fields with owners who have slow horses against owners who have fast horses. That is what a handicap is meant to do. The majority of owners do not own Igugu's and Variety Club's. Before they complain you need to ask those trainers what is their proposal which caters for all their owners who own mediocre animals in their stables. Horses are owned by owners and not trainers.

shrek Wrote:

---

> Surely if they felt the PE ratings were too high
> in the first place, they should have just dropped
> the PE runners ratings instead of increasing every
> other horse. :S


So maybe they should also give the EP Kings an advantage by allowing them to play an extra man - 16 against 15 <

If everything goes up or down, they remain the same relative to each other, so no problem there.

There will be a discrepancy in PE and Sand, but one or two cycles or racing will adjust that so it's not a biggy. The predicted low or "previously under sufferance" population on the sand did not suddenly win more than usual.

Every single race produces a winner who collects the cheque. It's the same trainers and jocks who sit on the top of the logs so you can't say the "system" changed "who" the winners are by very much. Favourites continued to win in the same percentage as always and everywhere.

So what exactly is the problem? Who that isn't winning who should be, and who is winning who shouldn't be?

Frodo Wrote:

---

> shrek Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Surely if they felt the PE ratings were too
> high
> > in the first place, they should have just
> dropped
> > the PE runners ratings instead of increasing
> every
> > other horse. :S
>
>
> So maybe they should also give the EP Kings an
> advantage by allowing them to play an extra man -
> 16 against 15 <

lol... classic...X(

The race figure system was very flawed, to say a 7 time winner is better than a one 1 time winner has to be the most illogical argument in all of racing. Treve is a five time winner with stakes earnings of 45 millions rands ()

The MR system is well and sound and it is used all over the world, it makes it easier to compare our horses with the rest of the thoroughbred population but the adjustment was just a pile of poo.....

Jack Dash Wrote:

---

> If everything goes up or down, they remain the
> same relative to each other, so no problem there.
>
> There will be a discrepancy in PE and Sand, but
> one or two cycles or racing will adjust that so
> it's not a biggy. The predicted low or
> "previously under sufferance" population on the
> sand did not suddenly win more than usual.
>
> Every single race produces a winner who collects
> the cheque. It's the same trainers and jocks who
> sit on the top of the logs so you can't say the
> "system" changed "who" the winners are by very
> much. Favourites continued to win in the same
> percentage as always and everywhere.
>
> So what exactly is the problem? Who that isn't
> winning who should be, and who is winning who
> shouldn't be?

Not a problem locally imo - but I always thought ratings were supposed to be 'universal' - a 95 in SA = a 95 in the UK - now some of our local 'stars' are rated higher than some top European performers - can't be right surely ?

The ratings went up for 1 reason,to appease some breeders