Oh dear,puerile stuff starts. END OF THREAD imo !!

oi oi, oi oi

Thanks for taking the time to confirm that our position is correct, Equimine. Much appreciated.

Wo-spo,

The first answer confirms our view.

The follow-up question makes no sense in the context of the original scenario presented. How can the weight carried be changed if the race has already been run?

HTH

My thoughts entirely, fancy having a side bet on it?

Maybe answering the following 2 questions, will make the point more clearly?

Q1

Horse A (4-y-o) and Horse B (3-y-o) dead heat in a handicap race on 1 August both carrying 9 Stone. Horse A consistently runs to its Official Rating of 100. The weight for age allowance is 7 lb. What Official Rating should the Horse B now be given?

a)    100
b)    107
c)    93

Q2

Another handicap race is re-run later on the same day. Horse A will be carrying a weight of 9 stone 4 lbs.

What weight will Horse B be set to carry in the race?

a)    8 Stone 11 lbs
b)    9 Stone 4 lbs
c)    9 Stone 11 lbs


I content that the answers are:

1)b
2)b

Do you agree or disagree?

Stevie - they could carry the same weight in a handicap if the 3 year old's Official Rating was, for instance, 7lb higher.

I'm sure anyone who does their own speed ratings knows that if they don't include wfa allowance then at this time of year their 2yo ratings will be some 20-30lb less than those of the official handicapper presuming they use the same scale. so of course official ratings have wfa built in.

Now if wfa wan't built in to the rating or we didn't have wfa then a 3yo like Theology would have to be rated 98 at this stage of the season to give him a chance of beating his elders in a handicap.

I think the headmaster has explained it perfectly well tbh, I'm failing to see how anyone can argue against it.

Would you care to take a stab at answering the questions posted at 22.26 above, flyingbolt?

Looks like Wo-Spo has bottled the opportunity of taking the bet...

Exactly, since if the 3 y-o had carried 7 lb less, then it would have recorded an actual rating of 93 (in comparison to the 100 recorded by the 4 y-o) which is then inflated to get to the Official Rating of 100.

Not sure on which side of the fence you are now standing,Equimine.

Care to answer the 2 questions I posted at 22.26?

I will let someone else continue with the task of convincing you, as I have clearly failed miserably

At least can you have a go at answering the questions I posed on 22.26 please?

Answer my questions posted at 22.26 and I will demonstrate why that statement is wrong.

Final comments:

Headmaster, I would refer you to my post of 07.15. Furthermore, it is stated who answered the question.

I have watched from the sidelines as this increasingly interesting thread has developed. Headmaster, at least Equimine contacted the BHA, which i believe is roughly what u said u were going to do some while ago. Why havent u, if i may be so bold?

here is a simple example:

Claiming Stakes 1m August 1st

Horse A a 4yo carrying 9st (official rating 80)
Horse B an unraced  3yo carrying 9st

They dead heat for 1st place and the 4yo is deemed to have run to his mark.

So you would therefore rate the 3yo 80 (+7 wfa) =87

So it is plain to see the wfa is included into the rating

I too have watched from the sidelines, with interest since this threads start. I had the opinion that perp and FB had to be right as Headmasters assertions seemed a bit ar5e about face. But wasn't sure enough in my view to get involved. Am more of a NH man, personally.
The various arguments that have been made have served only to muddy my thinking further, as at times both sides seem to have been arguing the same thing. In fact I still think that you both agree to a large extent and are merely arguing semantics.
So, today I decided to get to the bottom of it and have done as The Headmaster asks and looked at the 2-50@York. I worked on the premise that the job of the handicapper when framing the weights, is to attempt to get all the horses to deadheat and therefore ensure utter fairness. As am sure we will all agree. Capponi a 3yo with an official rating of 100 carries 9-0. Vainglory a 6yo with an official rating of 94 also carries 9-0. Now, working strictly to the above premise of ensuring a fair race, Capponis official rating has to be inflated initially and then the WFA scale taken into account for both horses to have an equal chance. What the OR is taking into account is not Capponis ability today, as if they did, then when WFA was applied it would be 6lb well in with the older horse.
I hope that that is reasonably well put and maybe helps a little, although I am being royally entertained by the to-ing and fro-ing!

Welcome to the party Desmond [:D]

From what you have just posted flyingbolt, I think we are reaching the same answer, but both coming at it from a different angle.

However, it is this angle which determines whether a horse can "make the cut" for certain handicaps like the Ebor - which is the main essence of the original thread.

I have e-mailed the BHA the following question, and will post the answer if and when I get it.


Would it be possible to ask your Senior Handicapping Team for an answer to the question below:

"Does the Official Rating for a 3 year old horse include an amount for the assumed progression that it will make, given normal improvement, until it becomes
a mature horse"?

In other words, an Official Rating of 107 for a 3 year old in August for example, will represent an underlying rating of say 100, plus a "to maturity" element of 7.

That is the crux of it,Desmond.

The 2 horses would not be deemed equal because the 3-y-o should have been receiving 7lb wfa. Therefore he is rated 7lb superior.
If they both met in a handicap 2 months later neither having run since the wfa would have been reduced to say 4lb. The 2 horses would still be rated 107 and 100 respectively though.The handicapper will not have dropped the 3-y-o's rating by 3lb just because the wfa scale has changed by that amount.

gg7777 and wospo,

I did e-mail the Head Of Handicapping and I told you his first two lines, which you appear to have missed.  Go back through the thread and have another look.  I'm not really in the business of posting personal e-mails on public forums and we also quickly established that flyingbolt would not belive a word of it anyway.  We do need to keep this thread going for one more week, however.  Judgement Day comes ever closer.....