Cut and paste your imaginary e- mail, you pompous twaat.

Of course you will also have to do the same with your question so we know how you phrased it.

I'm perfectly calm as always.

You have made a complete fool of yourself.

Chances of that would appear somewhat limited,Uncle.

Let's just summarise your withering contribution to this debate, flyingbolt. I've taken out most of the insults to save your blushes.

Horses are given a rating based on what the handicapper thinks their form is worth. If a 3-y-o then races against older horses he is given a weight for age allowance which reduces as the season progresses.  WRONG – confirmed by the Senior Handicapper.

Their rating is NOT inflated to take onto account their age. It is the mark the handicapper thinks their form is worth. WRONG - confirmed by the Senior Handicapper.

Now which part of this simple conception that has stood the test of time for 200 years are you struggling with?  Oh dear – rude, pompous, WRONG and arrogant with it.

Just a quick one. Nideeb. Rated 106 when he last ran on Oct 1st 2009. If his rating was artificially boosted because of his age why is he still rated 106 today over 10 months later not having run in the meantime??? Because, for the final time flyingbolt, as the horse has matured the allowance that has been built into his rating has come down commensurately – CONFIRMED by the Senior Handicapper. 

I've explained the facts as simply as possible, Headmaster. You still seem unable to grasp basic mathematics so I'm not going to spend all day repeating myself. Do as I say and e-mail those chaps. Perhaps they will spare the time to put you straight. You’re right on one thing...you spend a lot of time repeating yourself.  Maybe spend more time listening in future?

Very clear, cryoftruth...........and very correct. WRONG - not very correct at all as it turns out, confirmed by the Senior Handicapper.  Don't understand how you think that is what The Headmaster is saying though. He is arguing the exact opposite. Yes he is – correctly in fact.

Now then, you appear unwilling or unable to take on board what I’m saying so if you would like to improve your miniscule knowledge of how racing works ring the BHA (0207 152 0000), ask for the Race Planning Department and pop these simple questions: Is a 3-y-o’s official rating a pure reflection of its form or does the handicapper take into account its immaturity and artificially inflate it.

I’ve given up on you anyway – as yer man says....you can't polish a turd. See ya.

RING THEM.

What's the point?  You're already calling it imaginary you clown!!

RING THEM

As I am never knowingly wrong I have no need for a 'nom de plume' Headmaster

From reading all the posts the problem is that you actually seem to get the gist of how this handicapping and weight for age system works but then at the last minute (whether as a wind up or not) you then get it all tangled up.

Unless I am very much mistaken the handicap mark is a completely seperate thing from the weight for age scale. All horses are given a mark according to how the handicapper views their ability based on their form. Then as and when a 2 or 3 year old runs in a race (h'cap or group race) which involves older horses they have their weight adjusted according to the weight for age scale (which declines as the season progresses) - their handicap mark is still the same though. Just because they may carry different weights they are still running off the same exact handicap mark that the offical handicapper has given them.

An immature horse's mark is a projection of where he would be if he was fully mature.  It is not an accurate assessment of what the handicapper thinks that horse is actually capable of.

I think you need to ring them as well, unclepuncle

The more I read what your saying Headmaster the more confused i get - as at times i don't see the difference between what you are saying and what others are.
can you repeat please what you consider is the incorrect statement, and type underneath your version of the words.
thank you.

why wont you cut and paste the email, and I will go and get my bagpipes

I don't think we are debating whether the weight for age allowance diminishes as a horse gets older. This is clear to all.

The question we are debating is whether the official rating takes into account a horses age - which it clearly does, as it is a rating based on the assumption the horse has reached maturity already (correct me if I am wrong here The Headmaster).

...on that logic then, if Dancing Brave had raced as a 4 y-o and progressed naturally, by the end of his 4-y-o season his rating would be 12lb higher....yes?

No. 12lb higher than what ? His fellow 4-y-o's who had the same scope for improvement ?

"than his"

...not sure what more there is to be said.. [:D]

Hope you kept faith with Makfi

Cut and paste the imaginary e-mail

Without wishing to pour more oil on the fire I am confused how the handicapper can base his rating on a horse being fully mature even when it isn't. Take a once raced maiden winner like the Godolphon 2 y.o. horse who won by 7l at Newbury on Friday. How does the handicapper approach this if he has to assume the horse is fully mature when he gives the rating? Horses mature at differnet rates - some horses produce their bets performances at 2 y.o - Lyric Fantasy, Xaar etc, whereas others improve upto the age of 4 or 5 (Manduro etc).

It's hard enough just getting the ratings right based on collateral form etc, but when you have to add in potential improvement (or depreciation) with age it is surely impossible.

This is getting silly now ! I don't profess to know the answer - its not an aspect that forms a criteria in my 'rules' for a bet.However - as someone said on here - this has been written in tablets of stone for the past 200 years.So there must be a definitive answer.It has to be written down somewhere! Someone must be able to produce a statement of fact that once and for all spells out what the process is and how the wfa/handicap rating relate.
Please

ThreAD OF THE YEAR [smiley:crazy]