Horse Antepost
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 372 comments are related to the topic:
Harris Tweed - Ebor
Harris Tweed - Ebor
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 372
|
By:
Good work Stevie.
The naysayers appear to be having a day off! |
|
By:
The wfa scale says he'll make 24lbs worth of improvement so that means the handicapper reckons he's going to be a 125 rated horse! Today's fav is only on 121 and he's knocked off a July Cup and a Golden Jubilee.
Agree with most of what you say but that's rubbish, sorry. The handicapper thinks he'll be a 101 horse when older but he's effectively a 77 horse against the older ones. |
|
By:
still no mail in my inbox, suprise
|
|
By:
I think you misunderstood me, ben. I was using that as an example if wfa was not built into ratings.
Thoroughly agree with your closing sentence mate. Am I detecting a gradual shift in numbers during this debate?  |
|
By:
Fair enough, sorry about that
|
|
By:
Don't let him confuse you ,Ben.
He was saying exactly what you thought he was saying. WFA is not built into the ratings therefore SOF is rated a 101 horse. |
|
By:
Have a day off, flyingbolt.
|
|
By:
Why would Harris Tweed have been balloted out of the Ebor earlier than Hanoverian Baron, even though Harris Tweed has a higher Official Rating
 This must be getting embarrassing for you flyingbolt!!! |
|
By:
^ we appear to have gone full circle
|
|
By:
I'm never embarrassed to be right,YDC
As for the Ebor question you are beginning to sound retarded. |
|
By:
listen, you can't have a wfa allowance in a handicao unless the wfa is already built in to the rating. If Harris Tweed's rating was a true reflection of his ability at the current time then he would not need an allowance.
|
|
By:
head in hands man
|
|
By:
Stevie
 |
|
By:
Sea The Stars mark left unchanged after Arc
BY DAVID BAXTER12.28PM 5 OCT 2009 SEA THE STARS'S official rating remains unchanged at 135 after his superb victory in the Qatar Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe on Sunday. The BHA's head of handicapping, Phil Smith, revealed that the mark had been left unaltered as it was deemed that the colt had run to a mark of 131 in the Arc, 4lb below his best effort in the Irish Champion Stakes. Speaking on At The Races, Smith said: "You don't get horses winning six Group 1s in six consecutive months - he's an absoultely tip-top horse. "If you look at the Arc there were two solid yardsticks,Youmzain and Conduit, and we had them both performing to 125. We called the winning distance more than two lengths so we have given Sea The Stars 6lb and a mark of 131, although if something had come and challenged then he would have probably gone further away." To put the mark into perspective, last season's acclaimed Arc winner Zarkava was given a mark of 128 with her 3lb sex allowance, while Dancing Brave, legendary winner of the Arc in 1986, was awarded a mark of 141. Racing Post handicapper Paul Curtis was also of the opinion thatSea The Stars had put up his best performance in the Irish Champion Stakes, awarding the horse a Racing Post Rating of 132 for the Arc, compared to 138 for the Irish Champion Stakes. He said: "Youmzain is a key horse, as he's pretty solid with his previous two Arc placings. If you took the result as just the first five or six then he would be better than the rating, but the form of the horses further back is not as good." There is a chance that Sea The Stars's official rating could improve before the end of the season, with Rip Van Winkle, who has been beaten by Sea The Stars on three occasions already this term, set to head for the Breeders' Cup Classic. Smith said: "If Rip Van Winkle goes higher in America there's no reason when we [the BHA handicappers] meet up again in Hong Kong that he can't go up again if the form keeps working out." ================================================================ So in the above example, Sea The Stars received 8lb from Conduit and beat him 2 ½ lengths, which Phil Smith evaluated was worth 6lb. If STS had carried the same weight as Conduit (9-5), then he would probably have just been beaten due to having to carry 8lb more than he did. So do we really think under that scenario, since Conduit is rated 125, then STS would therefore be rated 123? No of course not, he would be rated on the basis of his underlying performance (123) plus the WFA / “expected progression to maturity factor” call it what you may, of 8, to get back up to his Official Rating of 131. |
|
By:
I'd give it up if I were you,Stake.
You are obviously totally incapable of grasping the concept of wfa that has been around for over 200 years. |
|
By:
I assume you are willing to step up to the plate and put your money where you mouth is then?
|
|
By:
Pointless exercise. You will never admit you are wrong.
|
|
By:
I'm willing to accept the view of the BHA Handicapping Department - whichever way it goes...
But, based on the points in their e-mail below, why do you dispute it? 1 - Harris Tweed has an Official Rating 103 and Hanoverian Baron an Official Rating 92 2 – For the Ebor, Harris Tweed gets 12lb Weight For Age (WFA) allowance, the WFA factoring in the average maturity of a 3YO at that time of year and that distance 3 - Therefore, in reality, at this time of year at that trip he is a 91 rated horse 4 - Were they to run off level weights, HB is theoretically a 1lb better horse at this stage of HTs development (but based on the fact that HT is average, which of course he might not be) That explains why Harris Tweed was, and in our view should be, eliminated before Hanoverian Baron because he is a 1lb inferior horse. Isn't this the point that is being debated? |
|
By:
I have another example here
This time it is a 1 mile maiden stakes run on August 1st Horse A (4yo colt) Rating 100 Horse B (3yo Filly) WFA is 7lb and the filly gets a 3lb allowance as well So Horse A carries 9st and Horse B carries 8st 4lb They dead heat fot 1st place and Horse A is deemed to have run to form So what will the handicapper rate Horse B? 100 - 10 = 90 Now do we need to add back on the sex allowance? No as there is no sex allowance in handicaps so she is still 90. Do we need to add on the wfa projection? Yes because there is a wfa allowance in handicaps so we add back on the 7lb and she is rated 97. |
|
By:
Stevie you are out of your depth I'm afraid to say.
Both horses would be rated 100. |
|
By:
Sorry Stevie you are right.The filly would be rated 97.
|
|
By:
Why is this thread still continuing. The definition has been confirmed and agreed upon. Hasn't it ?
|
|
By:
im off out for the day now but there is an article on this website that might be worth a read
http://www.b2yor.co.uk/05_articles/08_005_1_B2yoR_Estimates_Background.html |
|
By:
That seems to be a good article Stevie on first reading.
It even uses the term "inflated" when referring to the Official Rating. It seems to support our view, or at least I think! [smiley:crazy] |
|
By:
Thanks ,Stevie. Very interesting.
The sentence "There is an acknowledged WFA scale which the handicapper is unable to take account of " was particularly enlightening. |
|
By:
Stakey, i read the inflated OR in the context of its early maturity and lack of scope in this example
|
|
By:
...but doesn't the handicapper have to factor in some sort of "age progression" element into the rating? Hence the argument being put forward in the article, that the ratings can often prove to eventually be over/understated, depending on the precocity of the horse in question?
|
|
By:
The article was about 2yo's in their own age group though and the effect in Nursery races where a youngster who matured earlier with less scope would struggle off his mark against a horse with more ability who had taken longer to progress.
Its the scope thing that over the years has led me to have hardly any bets on juvenile races |
|
By:
flyingbolt 21 Aug 10 11:26
Thanks ,Stevie. Very interesting. The sentence "There is an acknowledged WFA scale which the handicapper is unable to take account of " was particularly enlightening. Could it be that that quote refers to the case where a two year old foaled 1 January for instance, has to be treated in the same way as one foaled 1 April? i.e. the handicapper cannot apply the real age factor into the Rating given based on the WFA scale (the horse is really 3 months younger), instead, he has to use a linear average development rate for all 2 year olds. Just a possible interpretation? Or am I going down a blind alley there? |
|
By:
I don't think anyone will ever agree, but if the headmaster asked Phil Smith's permission to cut and paste his entire email we would at least have the view from the top.
No idea why he persists in not doing this |
|
By:
Good luck today lads, I will leave it now until we get the definitive statement on the PS blog.
|
|
By:
Phil's still trying to Re Rate Arkle's form.................
|
|
By:
one last post on the subject for me.
2yo (receiving 24lb) dead heats 5th in Nunthorpe with a 110 older horse. Flyingbolt says the handicapper will rate him 110 as the horse should be getting 24lb as per the weight for age scale and therefore he is the equal of the 4yo. Now that is correct he will be given a rating of 110 however this is an inflated or projected rating as the headmaster says. You can't have 'should have received' when rating a horses current ability. So in reality the 2yo is currently an 86 horse as he was gettong 24lb. Of course if they used 86 as the official rating then you'd have to raise the horse and every other 2yo and 3yo up by a few llbs each month until they reach maturity whether they run or not. So instead they inflate the rating to what the horse would be as a 4yo given average improvement, which is 110 and this will be his rating until he next runs whether that be in a weeks time or a years time. That's the way I see it anyway unless someone can convince me otherwise? |
|
By:
 12 days and over 300 posts on this subject - and STILL there is no definitive statement !! |
|
By:
Why, if what is said is true, over the years have we worshipped false gods then??
If we accept that the Headmaster and others have said is correct, then NO horse can be acclaimed a champion on ratings unless it has reached full maturity because its rating is PURELY A PROJECTION of its ability |
|
By:
I suppose zilzal it would be something similar to seeing the top junior athlete getting a 10m headstart over 100m at the olympics, claiming gold and breaking the record.
I think Sea The Stars would have proven himself a great as a 4yo but I would I like to see what the finished article can do, like Harbinger in the KG. |
|
By:
Spot on Stevie. It's a question I ask myself, zil, and one of the major dividing lines between Flat and Jump racing imo. Sea-Bird v Ribot? Ribot everytime.
|
|
By:
Ive been thinking about this a bit and talking to other people, this is a extract from Pauls reply
1 - Harris Tweed has an Official Rating 103 and Hanoverian Baron an Official Rating 92 2 – For the Ebor, Harris Tweed gets 12lb Weight For Age (WFA) allowance, the WFA factoring in the average maturity of a 3YO at that time of year and that distance 3 - Therefore, in reality, at this time of year at that trip he is a 91 rated horse 4 - Were they to run off level weights, HB is theoretically a 1lb better horse at this stage of HTs development (but based on the fact that HT is average, which of course he might not be) That explains why Harris Tweed was, and in our view should be, eliminated before Hanoverian Baron because he is a 1lb inferior horse. Why i thought in ABSOLUTE terms that the rating attributed to the horse must be its official mark is that if there had been a race over 10f the same day then the position of the horses would be reversed with the 3yo being 1lb higher, is this not iyo a PRODUCT of the wfa scale and not the handicap mark being inflated?? as there is after all, only ONE rating for horses and the WFA scale adjusting?? There are after all several factions within racing who dont agree with the scale of the WFA system and even allowance in handicapping for how to treat beaten horses(5f being a case where i have heard a scale of 3-5lb per length) |
|
By:
If you didn't inflate the rating zilzal and just rated the horse purely on what he achieved then say a horse recorded a 65 rating at 7f with no wfa projection added on and was then running in a 12f hcap a week later, you'd have to put him on 60 for that race to take into account the wfa allowance is more over 12f.
So it makes sense to inflate the rating first and then have the wfa scale in place to take the weight off depending on what time of year and what distance the horse is running over. so yes Harris Tweed would get in over Hanoverian Baron over 10f |
|
By:
Not long to go now [:(]
|