Ratings overhaul

goose · February 2013

Darkshines you are making alot of sense again a bigger weight spread will also generate far more betting it creates interest something alot of average races can lack .

raconteur · February 2013

There will never again be the weight spread of yesteryear - ie where we had a min. of 49 and several horses where weighted well over 60kg eg Detonator's Bunbury Stakes circa. 1974/5.
Jockeys (not apprentices) want the minimum to be as high as possible and owners/ trainers don't want topweights to carry too much weight - thus a compression of handicap spread.

Rex · February 2013

You are right Raconteur but what if we went back even further with 46 min and aprentices started on $1 per week with increases of 50 cents per week each year for 5 years and had to serve at least 12 months of track riding before even being considered for trials let alone race riding.

Frank Scapens was a very good aprentice and came out of his time after 5 years with enough in his turf club bank account to buy a second hand car to get him to country meetings. If it went back to those times there wouldn't be many jocks but the one's that were there would be there for the right reasons.

Weight stops trains and maybe that is what some of them should be drivng.

raconteur · February 2013

Darkshine - are you listening to yourself:?
"...CRUCIALLY HOWEVER, back then these ones propping up the fields had a chance (or importantly - connections thought they had a chance) because the weight spread (min to max) gave them help (more help than currently). In my opinion fixing the ratings system isn't as important as fixing the handicapping system"

The Old system was Class orientated and there was no opportunity to Handicap within classes. Set weights for wins !

and the rating and handicapping is the same thing - the handicapper simply applies his 'assessment" ( called rating and subsequently the relative handicap applies when that horse is nominated for its band race..( or even nominated out of the handicap)

goose · February 2013

Raconteur without the weight spread there is not enough good horses here to consistently make big fields wont matter what the handicapper does not enough city class horses and horse population is going down.

darkshines · February 2013

raconteur said:
Darkshine - are you listening to yourself:?
"...CRUCIALLY HOWEVER, back then these ones propping up the fields had a chance (or importantly - connections thought they had a chance) because the weight spread (min to max) gave them help (more help than currently). In my opinion fixing the ratings system isn't as important as fixing the handicapping system"

The Old system was Class orientated and there was no opportunity to Handicap within classes. Set weights for wins !

and the rating and handicapping is the same thing - the handicapper simply applies his 'assessment" ( called rating and subsequently the relative handicap applies when that horse is nominated for its band race..( or even nominated out of the handicap)

You're embarrassing yourself cobber (again). Go play in the sandpit with little'uns.

raconteur · February 2013

Is that the same sandpit in which you so often bury your void head ?

D' shiner..you can't make the spurious comments that you so often do and expect to simply remain unchallenged . What I stated was the way that the prior system was structured and the way the ratings system works.

darkshines · February 2013

OK . . so let me understand this . . . according to you, under the old system, a winner of X races gets the same weight FOREVER in whatever grade of race they choose to compete in - the handicapper has NO power to ever give them relief of any sort, no matter how many times they get beat.

Maybe you should just think about that for a sec. A ratings system has ALWAYS existed in one form or another, it was just a) never published and b) not used as the criteria for race entries

Leave the intelligent debate to the intelligent people thanks.

raconteur · February 2013

darkshines said:
OK . . so let me understand this . . . according to you, under the old system, a winner of X races gets the same weight FOREVER in whatever grade of race they choose to compete in - the handicapper has NO power to ever give them relief of any sort, no matter how many times they get beat.

Maybe you should just think about that for a sec. A ratings system has ALWAYS existed in one form or another, it was just a) never published and b) not used as the criteria for race entries
Leave the intelligent debate to the intelligent people thanks.

Under the old Class system ie Mdn, Improver,Progressive,Interm Appr, Advanced , Nov, Transition,and Open there was No scope for a handicapper to assign "his" assessed weight, within those classes - they had a self weight provision depending on How many they had won up to and in that class eg Nov (1)

and there never existed any Rating Based Handicap system in WA until the current system - you might be confused (which is patently obvious from reading your posts!) about the grade weight that the handicappers might have 'assigned' to each runner. But Darkness, this only came into play in a handicap races and these were not run ( other than some outer country and picnioc races) for the Classed horses.

You faltter yourself by professing to be one of the ones allowed to debate the principle and tagging yourself as "intelligent"...come on just because you were the first one in high school who was able to do his 7 times table!

Piston_Broke · February 2013

raconteur said:

darkshines said:
OK . . so let me understand this . . . according to you, under the old system, a winner of X races gets the same weight FOREVER in whatever grade of race they choose to compete in - the handicapper has NO power to ever give them relief of any sort, no matter how many times they get beat.

Maybe you should just think about that for a sec. A ratings system has ALWAYS existed in one form or another, it was just a) never published and b) not used as the criteria for race entries
Leave the intelligent debate to the intelligent people thanks.
Under the old Class system ie Mdn, Improver,Progressive,Interm Appr, Advanced , Nov, Transition,and (TRIAL) Open there was No scope for a handicapper to assign "his" assessed weight, within those classes - they had a self weight provision depending on How many they had won up to and in that class eg Nov (1)

and there never existed any Rating Based Handicap system in WA until the current system - you might be confused (which is patently obvious from reading your posts!) about the grade weight that the handicappers might have 'assigned' to each runner. But Darkness, this only came into play in a handicap races and these were not run ( other than some outer country and picnioc races) for the Classed horses.

You faltter yourself by professing to be one of the ones allowed to debate the principle and tagging yourself as "intelligent"...come on just because you were the first one in high school who was able to do his 7 times table!

not as smart as you blokes but wasn't in between Transition and Open -->Trial Class

carey · February 2013

raconteur said:

darkshines said:
OK . . so let me understand this . . . according to you, under the old system, a winner of X races gets the same weight FOREVER in whatever grade of race they choose to compete in - the handicapper has NO power to ever give them relief of any sort, no matter how many times they get beat.

Maybe you should just think about that for a sec. A ratings system has ALWAYS existed in one form or another, it was just a) never published and b) not used as the criteria for race entries
Leave the intelligent debate to the intelligent people thanks.
Under the old Class system ie Mdn, Improver,Progressive,Interm Appr, Advanced , Nov, Transition,and Open there was No scope for a handicapper to assign "his" assessed weight, within those classes - they had a self weight provision depending on How many they had won up to and in that class eg Nov (1)

and there never existed any Rating Based Handicap system in WA until the current system - you might be confused (which is patently obvious from reading your posts!) about the grade weight that the handicappers might have 'assigned' to each runner. But Darkness, this only came into play in a handicap races and these were not run ( other than some outer country and picnioc races) for the Classed horses.

You faltter yourself by professing to be one of the ones allowed to debate the principle and tagging yourself as "intelligent"...come on just because you were the first one in high school who was able to do his 7 times table!

your first paragraph is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
many of those types WERE handicaps, not to mention darkshines would not have been referring to that system(he would have been about the r3mw, r1mw etc) but nevertheless YOU ARE WRONG.
to say they had a "self weight provision' is idiotic.
once you had won one(or two) within a particular class, you had to move up, but they were still HANDICAPS that needed HANDICAPPING in the main.

your second paragraph is also NONSENSE.
how in the hell do you think handicappers could handicap, if they did not have relative class scales of one sort or another?
again darkshines is correct, handicappers had relative weight scales of a sort, the difference was they were never published.
i also know that first hand from my conversations many years ago with officials.
the class system is different, but there was still relative weight or class scales or whatever you would like to call them , being used by the handicappers.

as for darkshines and intelligence, well no matter where he is on that particular scale, it is a long way above your score of z minus.

carey · February 2013

Piston_Broke said:

not as smart as you blokes but wasn't in between Transition and Open -->Trial Class

transition
encourage
trial

was the higher order pb.

Piston_Broke · February 2013

cheers,I knew trial was there, when you won a transition did u become a trial class then, I was under he impression you could win 2 sat grads (older horse) before you become a open class

carey · February 2013

i can't remember exactly pb, but if you won a transition, then you would be eligible for encourage and trial.

graduations would have been special weight races for horses eligible for maiden, novice, etc etc.

so from memory it would likely have depended on which type of graduation as to what class the horse became after winning one or two of them.

thefalcon · February 2013

wasn't there a "purse" class in there somewhere?
maiden, novice, purse, graduation, transition, encourage, welter, open handicap.
2yo were called "nursery" handicaps.
i think you could drop classes after so many unplaced runs

raconteur · February 2013

Carey (as in Dame Nellie Melba) - you're back - ah let the vitriol, acerbic comments and self effacing edification of all those below you recommence.

- great stuff!

jonesee · February 2013

raconteur said:
Carey (as in Dame Nellie Melba) - you're back - ah let the viriol, acerbic comments and self effacing edification of all those below you recommence.

- great stuff!

Viriol must mean vitriol unless you are also questioning Careys virility.......great to see you back here posting Carey although some will not agree!

thefalcon · February 2013

you speak a lot of sense, carey.

carey · February 2013

whatever, just prove me wrong.
you won't because you can't.
you talk the talk, now walk the walk.

as for me being back, that is entirely YOUR doing numbnuts.
remember your smart arsed comments, you know, the ones where you got your dates all wrong.
so i am going to make a point of targeting your stuff every time it is nonsensical, and that should have me very busy if you keep up to your normal standards.

TheFunkster · February 2013

Vitriol - the first 5 secs of this video def worth watching!

TheDiva · February 2013

I just enjoyed the whole thing....three times.. :x

jonesee · February 2013

funkster that is a little bit of vitriol that the forum could well do with...

Piston_Broke · February 2013

the falcon said:
wasn't there a "purse" class in there somewhere?
maiden, novice, purse, graduation, transition, encourage, welter, open handicap.
2yo were called "nursery" handicaps.
i think you could drop classes after so many unplaced runs

Falc u going way back to the 50's and 60's u old codger :)

thefalcon · February 2013

you speak a lot of sense, carey.

thefalcon · February 2013

i just found one of dads old racebooks, piston.
i am still a young colt...right diva? :))

[DeletedUser] · February 2013

Love your work carey lol

TheDiva · February 2013

:-B

Fastmoney · February 2013

The WA racing industry's war against the ratings system and programming could come to an end next month when Racing and Wagering WA chief handicapper David Hunter proposes major changes.

RWWA chief executive Richard Burt is confident the changes will help ease the frustrations of trainers, owners and breeders over small field sizes and the ratings system.

Hunter will reveal his recommendations at the next Thoroughbred Racing Consultative Group meeting on February 5.

The meeting includes representatives from owners, breeders, trainers, jockeys, bookmakers, provincial and country racing associations and Perth Racing.

Burt said the changes would be rolled out quickly if they were supported by the industry.

Any word on the outcome of the meeting?

RIO · February 2013

hope this works

http://www.rwwa.com.au/home/thoroughbred-racing-consultative-group-handicapping-and-race-programming-15870.html

SPUDLEY · February 2013

Thanks Rio that was very interesting BUT the part that I would never agree to is the idea to entice more 2 year olds to race earlier, young horses are put under too much pressure now due to their owners trying to get their money back, a horse that is given time to mature at its own pace will have more chance to show its true potential.

Whilst working on horse studs every stud season I would see fillies that were basically still 2 year olds coming to stud to be put in foal , due to them being pushed so early in their life to be a racehorse and failing so their owners would send them off to stud to hopefully be a good broodmare which most would also fail at and you would also be amazed how many would grow in their first year at stud , I have seen horses come to stud and be just 15.1 hands tall and by the time they have their first foal they are 16.2 hands.

Most horses do not mature properly until they are 5 years old and to do justice to any filly they should be sent to stud in the year they turn 6 as a mature mare so than can have their first foal as they turn 7.

So that part of their plan they really need to re-think as if more horses were allowed to reach their true potential by being given time there would be more of them around so to hopefully get bigger and better fields.

G'day Punter!

In this Discussion

Who's Online

Ratings overhaul

Comments