vanturk 3 Report post Posted December 9, 2012 thought the same there sheriff-what about the grp 1 yest,winner gets 1 point,2nd no points,and mufasa gets 2 points-how do you not get any rerating for finishing 2 nd in a grp 1!!! but im sure if you go thru the results you will see same strange reratings for above average horses Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdytdy 5,335 Report post Posted December 9, 2012 The only consistency is the inconsistency. I've given up trying to fathom their workings in respect of the ratings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leggy 4,005 Report post Posted December 9, 2012 and to give us a clear and transparent handicapping policy!!! What policy? The damned thing is a mystery. When I enquired as to its whereabouts in September, I was advised that it was still being 'polished' and would be back on the website shortly. Still no sign of it. I know they are busy with all the international travel and getting other things polished but surely 12 months later...? When it emerges, it will surely become evident how these apparent anomalies arise. In announcing scallywag's appointment in July last year, GP said: '"He will also be instrumental in helping the chief handicapper form a panel to review and monitor rating movements of horses on a day-to-day basis and reporting to regional programming committees quarterly on the development of new handicapping ratings.'' Where exactly is that panel? And who is on it at present? And how are they missing all these errors e.g. horses being downgraded when they bled etc? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fartoomuch 1,376 Report post Posted December 9, 2012 As someone said earlier a dead fish rots from the top.With 2 handicappers it was probably inevitable that consistency would soon be lost given the subjective nature of the topic/subject. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
munchakov 108 Report post Posted December 10, 2012 congratulations Sheriff , this is a clear example of a major problem with the handicappers , simply applying different penalties in their respective areas , which is all very well until horses race out of their areas then it becomes absolutely totally nonsensical . NZTR need to sort this insanity out immediately . Starting with who is the chief handicapper ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaneMcAlister 1,420 Report post Posted December 10, 2012 Totally agree sherift this is a disgrace!! Very good real example. The handicapping should not be that difficult either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony 159 Report post Posted December 10, 2012 Well what about Dubai Belle. She was a rating 85 like Mosse when she won a Group 3 worth 70K at Awapuni in September.Dubai Belle got 12 points going from 85 to 97 in one jump. Where is the difference. It is good for anybody who has backed Mosse in the Railway at Fixed Odds. Had he been penalised the same as Dubai Belle he could have been carrying an extra 3 kgs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
horse1 2 Report post Posted December 10, 2012 the inconsistancy is very frustrating. surely it cant be that hard to come up with a set automated system to determine ratings, i guess it would have to be programmed by value/ status of the race competed in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdog1 19 Report post Posted December 10, 2012 This will always be a problem, due to the geographic seperation of the racing population in NZ, particularly North and South. Capital Diamond beat a Rating 90 horse by 5 lengths. She has to get a decent penalty in the context of the ratings of the horses she raced against. If she got any less than 8 points, you would be very agrieved if you owned any of the beaten brigade. And 5 lengths actually equates to a lot more than 8 points. Short of seperate handicaps for North and South Island there is no easy fix. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
munchakov 108 Report post Posted December 11, 2012 Yes indeed the Dubai Belle handicapping is extremely bizarre when you consider the topweight in both cases had 59kg but was rated 99 in Mosse's case and 97 in Dubai Belles race meaning Dubai Belle's race was supposedly weaker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leggy 4,005 Report post Posted December 11, 2012 the relevant point (from my perspective) is not what the top weight had, nor what was in the field, but rather that both races were G3 races, and the winner in both cases was on an R85 rating, yet one got penalised twice that of the other!! It's simply bizzare. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the Mosse race was of a far higher standard over all but that's only my opinion and it doesn't really have any relevance to this argument as it's too subjective. Just my view, but surely the status of the race itself is irrelevant. It seems to me that if you have two R85 horses, each of which wins a race, with say an R90 horse second and third (margins 1l, 1l) in case A, and an R100 horse second and third in case B (same margins), the case B horse should be penalised more? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
munchakov 108 Report post Posted December 11, 2012 the problem relates to the lack of open class horses in NZ , with now seemingly an attempt to push horses into the top grade faster . The rating of the horses that finished around the winner is highly relevant just as the weight/rating given to them prerace is . It is totally ludicious that a horse winning a R85 race with stake money of $9000 should receive a similar penalty to a rating 85 horse who wins a Group 3 race worth $70,000 . Likewise , such similar race winners as Dubai Belle and Mosse receiving such totally different penalties . Bringing margins into play to any significant extent is highly undesirable and just likely to encourage horses to be eased down before the finish of a race with inevitable chaotic consequences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leggy 4,005 Report post Posted December 11, 2012 Not one of your better posts Curious. Let's fabricate a scenario......your hypothetical race is over 1200m...and the horse rated 128 that finished second has never won over a trip shorter than 2400m, but it finishes second on this particular day, and you're seriously allowing that to influence your rating!!! If you're that stupid you qualify for a job at NZTR. Get over the subjectivity, the next thing you'll be telling me they should factor in the tempo of the race, and/or if those behind handled the wet/dry track, or if the jockey gave it a decent ride. This is about facts Curious....facts..nothing more. I agree that if the ratings of the beaten horses have been earned over substantially different distances they are largely irrelevant. So, assume the hypothetical race is 1200m and all placed horses have earned their rating at about that distance. I also agree with munchie that consideration of margins is problematic as otherwise we'd have everyone holding prospective winners up so they just get up to win by a small margin. However, if the winner in either of my two hypothetical examples won by 5l instead of 1l, there seems to me to be a case for a greater penalty for the former result? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
munchakov 108 Report post Posted December 11, 2012 whatever factors are used in handicapping the result must be consistant and logical these examples are neither Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdog1 19 Report post Posted December 11, 2012 Cannot explain why Dubai Belle got 12 points, sorry. She was 2 points out of handicaps, but how she got 12 points for the Short Head victory is completely bizzare Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdog1 19 Report post Posted December 12, 2012 And I note there has been no change to this practice of compressing the handicaps, and then deducting 2kgs for fillies and mares. And no better example than the Open Sprint at Te Rapa Saturday....Full of Spirit (Rating 96) has been given the same weight as Joey Massino (Rating 88). Surely someone will wake up...the process should be deduct the 4 points (F&M allowance) first, then compress handicaps. Under current process a horse like Full Of Spirit can get an 8 point allowance, and in my opinion that is just plain wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...