David Thiselton-Merit Rating is a handicap

When the system was first mooted I labelled it "socialism for horses"

I buy a horse for R30,000 and my mate one for R3m.When they both out the maidens, some bugger tries to ensure they deadheat if they meet in a handicap (most of the racing)....must piss off the bloke who spent R3m!

Barry,

The claiming concept has been tried a few times here, at intervals, but without generating support from owners & trainers. I suppose the culture simply isn't here.

Allowance races (plate races here) are great in theory, but
- owners & trainers don't support them, for fear of meeting better horses and then get an increase in MR without prize money to show for it (Jack has a solution for that, see above)
- having allowance races means losing a bunch of existing races; we already have too few races over too many different distances on too few tracks - juggling the handicap/allowance mix would need more opportunities, which we won't get... there are even rumours that stakes are going to be reduced in part of the country, so having numerically more races will be a pipedream right now

Programming in South Africa is the pits anyway - there's little or no innovative thinking. The plot is well and truly lost.

Jack, you're absolutely right. The handicaps are more attractive to the 'cannon-fodder'. While I get the idea of wanting everyone to have chance at the prize money, I think the whole concept of penalising better horses is patently absurd.

Your solution though does seem sensible. I was also thinking along the lines of lower stake races for the weaker horses, but in terms of highly restricted plate type races, not handicaps. I don't know enough about the pros and cons of claiming races, but that does seem an option as well.

rob faux Wrote:

---

> The last paragraph of the article has got me
> confused...how do you measure a race in it's
> entirety without yardsticks,and a line horse has
> to be more reliable than times, for example.I
> would be interested in the thinking behind that
> comment.

In the UK they don't use line horses as such. There are 12 handicappers and usually each Handicapper is given a specific group of horses to look after. For example, one person looks after of seven furlongs and less whilst another might do all the staying races. The advantage is that they get to see the same horses again and again. That way they build up an understanding of each horse’s form and characteristics which is a big help in rating them appropriately.

To see how they do it go to:

www.britishhorseracing.com/inside_horser...ngDetailedGuide2.doc

The relevant paragraph regarding your question and what I meant when I said looking at the race in its entirety is below:

How do Handicappers calculate the merit of the performances?

Every time that a horse runs we try to work out the merit of that performance. We do it by looking at our previous assessments of the opposition. We then make calculations based on the weights that the horses carried and their relative finishing positions in this race.

In Flat races one length is typically reckoned to be worth three pounds in sprint races, two pounds in mile races and one pound in staying races. Over Jumps one pound per length is typical but it might be less in long distance races or on very tiring ground.

As an example, suppose that the winner of a mile race is considered to have run to 90. A horse that finished five lengths behind it at level weights might be considered to have run to 80.

Even the simplest calculations of each performance will take into account the distance of the race, the going, the weight carried, the immaturity of the horses, any apprentice allowances, the distance the horse won by or was beaten by and the quality of the opposition.

In reality, calculations are never even that simple for two reasons.

Firstly, in every race there is a wide variation in the possible level for the ratings. The form of one opponent might suggest that your horse has run to 100, the form of another horse might suggest 80. It all depends on which of the opponents (if any) we believe has reproduced their previous form, which have improved and which have disappointed. Every race throws up a range of possible interpretations.

Secondly, the data from each race is never “clean”. There are so many factors to be taken into account. Horses are slowly away, unsuited by the draw, raced too keenly, hampered or get unbalanced in the race. Things might not have been to the horse’s liking – the going, the track, the distance, the pace of the race and so on.

The job of the Handicapper is to consider all these variables. The skill of the Handicapper is the interpretation of form. To help him he will go through the recordings of every one of his races again and again. The Handicappers maintain a database with every run of every horse, the level of performance decided by the Handicapper together with notes on every race and every performance.

Tipster,thank you for that,but having read the "how"(on the link) it follows ,in a lot more words,my post about large variants and talks about finding the most appropriate competiter to measure against.
They might not use the term "line horse" but there is no doubt that a "chosen" horse is often used as the main yardstick.Any rating,for any handicapping,has to be relative and I would have doubts about too much subjectivity,or comparisons done in isolation.
Interesting that,in the last couple of years,that I have been following UK racing,I am not aware of one SA horse(other than Imbongi,maybe)that has run one race to its BHA rating.Is that not a relativity problem perhaps?

I thinK that out MR system is effected by one or two horses getting a very high rating. Any horse that then runs against that horse and either beats it or gets close is bumoped and so the chain continues.

Golden Loom,Fovs Fav,All will be well, Nhlavini they are now only working out of the system. SpriNterS have been consiStently over rated.

Distance horsies constantly under rated. Lucky to get a mid 80 for winning the GB.

Two year olds no chance MR 99 for running a place in a weak GR1.

Cleome took forever to get the MR down to where it competed at a realistic MR.

3 Year olds seem the most realistic if the horsie never raced as a Juvenile.

Sylvester

Sprinters do tend to get higher ratings, but as an independent amateur handicapper I see that it also happens to me and it's unavoidable.

OCEANS AWAY is an excellent current example. In his 10th race as a 2 time winner and MR70 he beat another 5yo (MR59) by 1.5 lengths over 1000m. The handicapper put OCEANS AWAY up by 10 lbs.

He then started a weakish 5/2 fav and won again to be rated now MR85. And then won again on Sunday.

This is just a thing sprinters do much more often than horses over 2000m, for the same reason that a sprinter can even shoulder top weight to win twice in one afternoon, while over 2000m that is much harder.

This does cause a drift in the ratings for sprinters, but it is unavoidable in my opinion.