There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Can someone please explain why Best Director is supposedly 22lb out of the handicap in this race:
http://www.attheraces.com/racecard/Bangor/19-May-2018/1600/
Top rated is Stick to the Plan at 168lb. Best Director is rated 28lb less with a 7lb claim. And indeed it carried 35lbs less, 133lbs. So not out of the handicap?
N.B. the minimum weight for the race was 140lb but Best Director carried 7lb less than this due to the claim.
http://www.attheraces.com/racecard/Bangor/19-May-2018/1600/
Top rated is Stick to the Plan at 168lb. Best Director is rated 28lb less with a 7lb claim. And indeed it carried 35lbs less, 133lbs. So not out of the handicap?
N.B. the minimum weight for the race was 140lb but Best Director carried 7lb less than this due to the claim.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 23
|
By:
The horse is rated 72 !!
|
|
By:
It RAN off 94 but is actually rated 72.
|
|
By:
Claims do NOT count towards Handicap RATINGS
4rd 10 [24] Best Director (IRE) 40/1Miss Lorna Brooke7 John Groucott 10-9-7 Oh22 94 Held up, effort 3 out, left in 3rd after 3 out, ridden run-in, no impression (op 50/1) ---------------- Race Record Jumps placings: 3/358P8/14P/P1/P/PUP36/P51-3 lifetime record runs Hurdle 6 0 0 0 — — 78 NHF 2 0 0 2 — £508 — Chase1 0 0 1 — £677 72 |
|
By:
Charlie Poste marries Hayley Moore
|
|
By:
it's no good telling people about ratings when they don't understand the relation to weight carried,
if they did, they wouldn't be asking in the first plaice ! |
|
By:
Domino needed hear to explain about the rantings.
|
|
By:
*ratings
|
|
By:
he likes writing essays
 |
|
By:
If you hover over the red 22 next to Best Director, it says
"Official rating down -22 to 72 in future races" So its rating in this race was 94 surely? |
|
By:
It says it was rated 94 here
https://www.racingpost.com/results/4/bangor-on-dee/2018-05-19/699899 |
|
By:
numcrun2 23 May 18 12:03
If you hover over the red 22 next to Best Director, it says "Official rating down -22 to 72 in future races" So its rating in this race was 94 surely? -------------------- Nest Director is/was previously and CURRENTLY at the time of this Bangor race rated (on the Master List of ALL Horse) 72 .... No Ifs - No Buts - 72 However - At Bangor - it was entered in a race where the BOTTOM Weight of 10 stone was EQUIVALENT to a Rating of 94 No horse is allowed to carry less than the Official Bottom Weight of 10 Stone - other than, as was the case here - when an inexperienced jockey's 7lb claim can reduce that weight to such as 9st 7lb. Such claims are, though, IGNORED, in the compilation and application of Official Ratings and Weights. The 4th horse at Bangor carried 10st 11 lb - and is rated 105 . Take the 11 lbs (down to the minimum 10 stone) from that 10st 11 lbs and 105 Rating... and you get the 10 stone minimum Weight and EQUIVALENT rating of 94. Nothing untoward or in correct here. All present and correct. |
|
By:
'22lb out of the handicap' translates to 'is having to carry 22lb more than he would if racing from his current mark' in plain language
|
|
By:
Thanks for the replies. The cached race card is here:
cache:https://www.racingpost.com/racecards/4/bangor-on-dee/2018-05-19/699899 The race card says that that Best Director is rated 94. But it is actually rated 72 and there is nothing on the race card to alert you to that fact. How ridiculous. |
|
By:
I can see no rating at all on that racing post link, but it does clearly state'LONG HANDICAP Best Director 8-6'.
|
|
By:
Onlooker has perfectly explained the handicap system here but the OP still wants to make an issue of it all.
|
|
By:
has to be fishing now
 |
|
By:
there is nothing on the race card to alert you to that fact. How ridiculous
apart from the OH22 next to the 9-7 |
|
By:
Yes it does say Long Handicap down the bottom which I was unaware of. The cache has now changed to show the result unfortunately but there was no OH22 showing.
I am certainly not fishing. The RP (and I gather other websites too) show the OR as 94 when as onlooker correctly states the OR was actually 72. So this is false information. Why don't they simply show the actual OR instead of some artificial mark the horse is being made to run off. I suppose the answer "that's the way it's always been done". |
|
By:
NO - The answer is .... that's the way it's SHOULD be done.
Because the horse has HAD to Run off a WEIGHT that is EQUIVALENT to 94 Many would (rightly) consider (it's Base Rating) of 72 to be - "false information" - if published as such when set against a Weight EQUAL to 94. |
|
By:
In the 60s before ORs there was a minimum weight in all handicaps and often a lot of horses of considerably differing abilities were lumped together on the one weight.
|
|
By:
The horse was rated 72 at that time ! End of !
To save any further possible confusion next time it runs, it is now rated 78. |
|
By:
Never mind your - "end of" - floozy
We are WELL AWARE that the horse was (BASE) rated 72 - at the time - BUT ... It looks like you have misread the OP's Opening post The absolute undeniable fact is that it ran off/Carried a WEIGHT EQUIVALENT to 94 - although, of course, even in finishing 3rd - it still did nort run to a mark anything approaching 94. ------------ It looks like you have misread the OP's Opening post - floozy The OP asked - "why Best Director is supposedly 22lb out of the handicap in this race:" It was NOT - "supposedly" 22lb out of the handicap ... It WAS 22lb out of the handicap in this race:" So it RAN OFF a rating of 94 - THAT is the - 'end of'. |
|
By:
Wow ! Apologies. I didnt realise you are the only person in the world who knows about handicap marks, long handicaps etc.
I'll stay off YOUR thread. |