louisg tell the nha they are clue less

mr hawaii Wrote:

---

> Len Sham Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > The topic started by congratulating L G and
> has
> > turned 360 to saying he does not know what he is
>
> > doing :S
>
>
> LG knows more than most and has done so much for
> the Vaal owners and trainers - I don't always
> agree with him but he only has Racing's best
> interests at heart


mr h the other day i was by calvin the boys were talk about king louis the king of the vaal trainers <

Flash Harry Wrote:

---

> mr hawaii Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Len Sham Wrote:
> >
>

---

>
> >

---

> > > The topic started by congratulating L G and
> > has
> > > turned 360 to saying he does not know what he
> is
> >
> > > doing :S
> >
> >
> > LG knows more than most and has done so much
> for
> > the Vaal owners and trainers - I don't always
> > agree with him but he only has Racing's best
> > interests at heart
>
>
> mr h the other day i was by calvin the boys were
> talk about king louis the king of the vaal
> trainers <


I remember the Jungle Book and that King Louis - is he the same guy?

louisg Wrote:

---

> Hang on a minute, Frodo and Rob - I think that you
> both on a similar track here. I like it. Now, what
> about applying certain parameters to the MR
> system?
>
> Maybe a set rating of say, 70 for all maiden
> winners? A max of, say, 6 points for a win? Only
> half of sufferance when out at weights?
>
> Something along those lines. Both of your opinions
> will be valued.
>
> Lets say that the goal is to allow the better
> horses to win their fair share. (today we have too
> many multiple winners rated under 70 and too few
> horses over 70 which are multiple winners)

Louis you and I have had a similar discussion once before when I put forward a semi compromise by having a Merit and a Race Rating dual type rating..........neither of which can reduce and to be used in an appropriate balanced programme.
If there is a need (and I don't think there is while there is pressure on stakes) have special races for the geriatrics at MR (as per seniors golf and tennis) so not denying younger horses their fair chance.

Hibs, what about a compo, to see which forumite comes up with the best parameters by which to update the current handicapping system?

I will sponsor R1000 to the winner and I will take the suggestions to a panel of Trainers, to elect the winning suggestion.

Plate races and conditions races these days can be dangerous and one can get fingers burnt becos the numbers though good on paper just don't add up and you need to have a crystal ball to " read" whether a runner is in it to win or on a merit rating dropping exercise.

Check out Earth's Orbit latest run and try to figure out why the penalty kick did not convert.:S


www.formgrids.com/subscriber/fgRaceResul...,ZA&hs=EARTH'S+ORBIT

rob faux Wrote:

---

> louisg Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Hang on a minute, Frodo and Rob - I think that
> you
> > both on a similar track here. I like it. Now,
> what
> > about applying certain parameters to the MR
> > system?
> >
> > Maybe a set rating of say, 70 for all maiden
> > winners? A max of, say, 6 points for a win?
> Only
> > half of sufferance when out at weights?
> >
> > Something along those lines. Both of your
> opinions
> > will be valued.
> >
> > Lets say that the goal is to allow the better
> > horses to win their fair share. (today we have
> too
> > many multiple winners rated under 70 and too
> few
> > horses over 70 which are multiple winners)
>
> Louis you and I have had a similar discussion once
> before when I put forward a semi compromise by
> having a Merit and a Race Rating dual type
> rating..........neither of which can reduce and to
> be used in an appropriate balanced programme.
> If there is a need (and I don't think there is
> while there is pressure on stakes) have special
> races for the geriatrics at MR (as per seniors
> golf and tennis) so not denying younger horses
> their fair chance.
An important aspect of the race rating (as it was during the RF days ) is to not deny a horse a win because it was unlucky,early in it's career, to be a short head behind a top horse, also early in it's career............that is not the trainers or horses fault...........sometimes it's that race that discovers the "top" horse!

EARTH'S ORBIT'S SUPERIOR FORMLINE..........................:


www.formgrids.com/subscriber/fgHorseHist...s=EARTH'S%20ORBIT,ZA

louisg Wrote:

---

> Hang on a minute, Frodo and Rob - I think that you
> both on a similar track here. I like it. Now, what
> about applying certain parameters to the MR
> system?
>
> Maybe a set rating of say, 70 for all maiden
> winners? A max of, say, 6 points for a win? Only
> half of sufferance when out at weights?
>
> Something along those lines. Both of your opinions
> will be valued.
>
> Lets say that the goal is to allow the better
> horses to win their fair share. (today we have too
> many multiple winners rated under 70 and too few
> horses over 70 which are multiple winners)


LG, I don't make myself out as an 'expert' and I'm not sure you will be open to my suggestions - however here goes:

For me I don't see too much wrong with the MR system as it is (bar a few exceptions) and any system that involves giving a short-head winner x number of points (just because he won) while the 2nd horse gets no penalty, is inherently wrong - as the 2nd horse is surely advantaged by this? Imo one of the strengths of the current system is that horses gets 'penalized' in relative terms - and once you replace the 'relative' terms with 'fixed' penalties, you are messing with their appropriate ratings.

The one problem that is a consequence of 'line horse' handicapping, is that in the longer term MR's keep on dropping - and that is why the NHA (in their arbitrary way) decided to increase the ratings with 6 points - and have done so before - although I must say that I can't figure out their reasoning for 'absolving' the sand runners from this; now if someone can devise a 'correct' way of using line horses but also preventing this 'downward creep'; I'd say we will have a very good handicapping system

And I do have sympathy for you in your 'problem' with your Trippi colt; but if he was rated the 'old fashioned way', surely most of his contemporaries would be disadvantaged ?

Lastly imo 'our' biggest problem is no the MR system, but rather lies with the programming of races - needs to be more suitable to the horses that is looking to race

RF, you are right. Snappy ran 2nd to What a winter in the maidens beaten 1.25 lengths and 2nd to Magico in a winners race while still a maiden. We were disappointed!

Frodo, our main difference in opinion is around the principle of "pure" handicapping!

The problem I have is that, for record purposes, wins count and nothing else really matters..............how many people can even remember the name of the horse that ran 2nd to Horse Chestnut, race after race.
I see an injustice in penalising a horse(or any competitor) for what it is capable of achieving rather than what it does achieve............but that is just a bit emotive I guess!!

Craig Eudey Wrote:

---

> RF, you are right. Snappy ran 2nd to What a winter
> in the maidens beaten 1.25 lengths and 2nd to
> Magico in a winners race while still a maiden. We
> were disappointed!


Thanks for that example.........did it win here before going to Mauritius(ie. what MR did it, or would it have had as a 1 time winner here?)

rob faux Wrote:

---

> Frodo, our main difference in opinion is around
> the principle of "pure" handicapping!
>
> The problem I have is that, for record purposes,
> wins count and nothing else really
> matters..............how many people can even
> remember the name of the horse that ran 2nd to
> Horse Chestnut, race after race.
> I see an injustice in penalising a horse(or any
> competitor) for what it is capable of achieving
> rather than what it does achieve............but
> that is just a bit emotive I guess!!


I have respect for your viewpoint - but I would counter your argument by saying IF Horse Chestnut raced against Joe's Donkey 5 times and beat him by a shorthead or head every time they met, Joe's Donkey should not end up with a RF / MR of 30 points below that of Horse Chestnut - this would maybe constitute 'pure' handicapping, but would it be fair ?