Nightingale's Rating

This is the result of the Fillies Guineas:

# Horse Jockey Trainer Eq. Wt Dr FP OP SP Len. Time MR
2 Bela-Bela Anthony Delpech S J Snaith A 60 10 1 4-1 11-2 0 98.97 106
13 Nightingale Grant Van Niekerk M W Bass A 60 5 2 12-1 9-2 0.50 99.06 87
3 Negroamaro Weichong Marwing J A Janse van Vuuren A 60 9 3 5-1 5-1 2.25 99.4 102
6 Flying Ice Donovan Dillon N L Bruss AB 60 6 4 25-1 20-1 4.00 99.73 98
8 Intergalactic Anton Marcus S G Tarry A t 60 7 5 10-1 14-1 5.25 99.97 94
1 Silver Mountain Fav Bernard Fayd'herbe M W Bass A 60 1 6 9-10 8-10 5.50 100.02 110
10 Bella Sonata Warren Kennedy G H Van Zyl A t 60 4 7 25-1 100-1 5.60 100.04 90
12 Alexa Raymond Danielson G V Woodruff A 60 2 8 33-1 55-1 5.85 100.09 87
5 Taffety Tart M J Byleveld M W Bass A 60 13 9 25-1 110-1 7.10 100.33 99
9 Lala Sean Veale D I Campbell A 60 12 10 33-1 110-1 7.15 100.34 91
14 Shatoosh Karl Zechner M G Azzie A 60 3 11 50-1 55-1 7.25 100.36 80
4 Our Destiny Stuart Randolph G S Kotzen A 60 11 12 25-1 110-1 8.25 100.55 99
7 Fromafar Brian Nyawo D Kannemeyer A 60 14 13 33-1 110-1 9.25 100.75 94
11 Killer Woman (NZ) Brandon Lerena A J Rivalland A 60 8 14 33-1 66-1 10.75 101.04 89
15 Ruler Of The Sky Scr Reserve 1 L L Cunha A t 60 1 15 10.75 0 76

Bela Bela wins rated 106

2nd Nightingale

3rd Negroamaro rated 102

4th Flying Ice rated 98

5th Intergalactic rated 94

How has Nighingale's rating gone from 87 to 92?????

New rules G2 second raised max 5pts

9. The winner and placed horses in a Grade 2 or Grade 3 race is capped at a 10 point penalty for the winner, 5 points for 2nd place and 3 points for 3rd place.

Ok thanks.

This is but one example of the mess that the hcap restrictions will cause - as punters we will now need to keep notes of the real achieved ratings and will no longer be able to rely on the official ratings. This fine for those of us that can do so , but it is a disaster for the ordinary punter who relies on the official MR as a guide to exposed ability.
If the NHRA is going to persist with this approach, then they should publish the unadjusted merit ratings as well as these adulterated "adjusted"ratings to ensure that the ordinary punter is not misled.
Nightingale real rating from the Guineas is 105.
The best easily accessible source of useful ratings is Sporting Post- their ARs have been calculated on a consistent basis for many years.

Absolutely agree PeterD. What an absolute mess. I pleaded for the same thing in www.africanbettingclan.com/index.php/kun...ay-25th-april#617378 and "mini tycoon" replied with a brilliant response . "How do you unscramble the omelette?"

"unconstrained MR"?

Merit ratings with all these different constraints will be applied to horses within each race. Once these horses run again, those constrained ratings are used to infer ratings to all the horses around them. Within a month how will anyone be able to unscramble the omelette?

How will anyone be able to go back and say the rating went wrong when the constrained line horse was used, then a horse who didn't apparently make wfa improvement was used, and after that horses who had been capped and then limited, was used, and then a line horse which couldn't be used further back so the had to choose one in the first 3.

Working out ratings is going to be a job, never mind what ratings should have been.

Imagine trying to figure out whether you should object to a rating. The mind boggles, and it's all very exciting. At least we will have the Sporting Post to see what could have been.

Another example showing how ridiculous these 'rules' are.......

Stebbins came into the SA Derby rated 79; ran 2 lengths behind Abashiri, and because (rightly) there are no conditions attached to placing in a Gr 1, is now rated 98 - compare that with Nightingale's situation :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:

This debate will continue for all time I guess ,and its not about the arithmetic ,its about the different views on what is fair and just!
It is no secret I do not agree with socialism ............not for people or for horses!
Having said that ,racing's greatest advantage over other forms of gambling is that if you can unscramble the omelette better than others it is rewarding,but in order to achieve that you cannot have every horse rated exactly to its ability ( :woohoo: horror)
The problem I have is the assumption that it is the new constraints that will suddenly destroy this phenomena!
The unconstrained MR system only works if all horses run all races fit and well and sound and always on merit,and evidence suggests that that is a pipedream,and ,from what I read ,there are too many understandings of what a MR is really intended to be!
Lets look at todays racemeeting and perhaps those who believe in pure handicapping would explain its benefits within practical examples.
Today we have many horses ,as usual ,with discrepancies between their ability rating(highest ever) and their form rating(todays rating)
Lets use an example of 5 and perhaps the confusion can be cleared up?
Savage Wind -HMR 96- rating 77
Jet Fever -HMR 96- rating 76
Barbel Run -HMR 86- rating 72
Seven Stars -HMR70- rating 58
Casciano -HMR 82- rating 61

Perhaps somebody could explain the sense of 2 ratings and explain what each is, and what in fact is each horses MR, in terms of their definition!

The question I am asking ,can the ratings be any more messy than they are already, albeit for different reasons!
If we are going to have a mess anyway,why not a system that errs on the side of rewarding greater ability rather than restraining it!

I think Mac is right .............either do away with constraints(a system that has now proved unacceptable to too many people) or revert to the RF system..............trying to mix them is crazy!

if ratings were fair and there for everyone to see there wouldn't be any fun in punting. if the handicapper made a horse a 100 and everyone agreed where would the value come from? the value comes from the scrambled egg surely. I would like to believe that trainers rate their horses otherwise how would they know where to place them.

I must admit to having done nothing more than quickly scan through the rules update when they came out.

I never bothered making myself too familiar with the updates as they just appeared to be either a mess or arbitrary in nature.

Having seen this ruling now I'm actually shocked.

We are supposedly using the MR system in order to meet international standards.

I do not believe for one second that other racing jurisdictions have introduced similar 'restrictions',and surely,especially not on graded races.

Maybe I'm wrong?

If I'm not wrong,then we are only meeting 'international handicapping governance' to some degree.

What's the point of that?

If Nightingale got exported to Dubai having not raced again after her Guineas run,does anyone believe that The Dubai Racing Authority would accept that she has an 'ability' of 92 as opposed to 105?

Crazy!

Huchergh wrote: If Nightingale got exported to Dubai having not raced again after her Guineas run,does anyone believe that The Dubai Racing Authority would accept that she has an 'ability' of 92 as opposed to 105?

Crazy!

The MR system ,as it was being applied,didn't alter the principle.............in my example above ,if any of those 5 horses went to race in another jurisdiction,which rating reflects their ability?