rating system

[the galah]

Clearly the system has become unfair to non win horses,especially the rating a horse gets if it wins early in its career.

Over time,more and more horses have dropped back to levels which place them at a huge advantage rating wise in comparison with the rating a non win horse starts on.Its just the way the current rating system has evolved..

Its simply discouraging many people.Just ask someone who has a horse who's won early in their career. Everyone will tell you the same thing.Why hasn't it already been changed?

I think the answer is rather simple. 

Drop the non win horses to start with a rating 40. Any horse winning a non win race should remain a r40.A non win horses rating should not be reduced until they have had 3 unplaced starts.

There should be a scale which ensures each subsequent win to the first by a non win horse should not generate more than a 5 point penalty.e.g.2 win horse never rated higher than r45,3 win r50,4 win r 55 etc.

The reduced penalty points  for younger horses should only kick in once they have reached a rating 50. i.e.No longer such exaggerated preferential treatment for 2 and 3 year olds. The half point junior wins should be limited to 1 per season per horse.The penalty free junior drivers races that they run should also be limited to 1 per horse each 2 seasons.

Races programmed for non win horses should not only be based on ratings,but also based on stakes won in last 6 starts.

Currently those who decide the make up of fields are not using the stakes won in recent starts as they should. Its a criteria thats should be used much more than it is when compiling the fields for all the races.

 

[Brodie]

6 hours ago, the galah said:

Clearly the system has become unfair to non win horses,especially the rating a horse gets if it wins early in its career.

Over time,more and more horses have dropped back to levels which place them at a huge advantage rating wise in comparison with the rating a non win horse starts on.Its just the way the current rating system has evolved..

Its simply discouraging many people.Just ask someone who has a horse who's won early in their career. Everyone will tell you the same thing.Why hasn't it already been changed?

I think the answer is rather simple. 

Drop the non win horses to start with a rating 40. Any horse winning a non win race should remain a r40.A non win horses rating should not be reduced until they have had 3 unplaced starts.

There should be a scale which ensures each subsequent win to the first by a non win horse should not generate more than a 5 point penalty.e.g.2 win horse never rated higher than r45,3 win r50,4 win r 55 etc.

The reduced penalty points  for younger horses should only kick in once they have reached a rating 50. i.e.No longer such exaggerated preferential treatment for 2 and 3 year olds. The half point junior wins should be limited to 1 per season per horse.The penalty free junior drivers races that they run should also be limited to 1 per horse each 2 seasons.

Races programmed for non win horses should not only be based on ratings,but also based on stakes won in last 6 starts.

Currently those who decide the make up of fields are not using the stakes won in recent starts as they should. Its a criteria thats should be used much more than it is when compiling the fields for all the races.

 

Yes the system has had its day, and needs an overhaul.

When horses that have won in excess of ten races start off the front and horses that have won one race are off 15 metres, there is something seriously wrong with the system in play!

Yes we need to retain our horses but surely this needs to be looked at pronto as The Galah states?

[Nowornever]

On 3/07/2023 at 2:15 PM, the galah said:

Clearly the system has become unfair to non win horses,especially the rating a horse gets if it wins early in its career.

Over time,more and more horses have dropped back to levels which place them at a huge advantage rating wise in comparison with the rating a non win horse starts on.Its just the way the current rating system has evolved..

Its simply discouraging many people.Just ask someone who has a horse who's won early in their career. Everyone will tell you the same thing.Why hasn't it already been changed?

I think the answer is rather simple. 

Drop the non win horses to start with a rating 40. Any horse winning a non win race should remain a r40.A non win horses rating should not be reduced until they have had 3 unplaced starts.

There should be a scale which ensures each subsequent win to the first by a non win horse should not generate more than a 5 point penalty.e.g.2 win horse never rated higher than r45,3 win r50,4 win r 55 etc.

The reduced penalty points  for younger horses should only kick in once they have reached a rating 50. i.e.No longer such exaggerated preferential treatment for 2 and 3 year olds. The half point junior wins should be limited to 1 per season per horse.The penalty free junior drivers races that they run should also be limited to 1 per horse each 2 seasons.

Races programmed for non win horses should not only be based on ratings,but also based on stakes won in last 6 starts.

Currently those who decide the make up of fields are not using the stakes won in recent starts as they should. Its a criteria thats should be used much more than it is when compiling the fields for all the races.

 

The field sizes need to be kept high from a punters/turnover perspective but on the flip side tricky to do that with the current horse population and maintain a fair handicapping system? Keeping everyone happy is impossible I would have thought.

[the galah]

2 hours ago, Nowornever said:

The field sizes need to be kept high from a punters/turnover perspective but on the flip side tricky to do that with the current horse population and maintain a fair handicapping system? Keeping everyone happy is impossible I would have thought.

Your right in that you will never keep everyone happy.

But the reality is its no where near fair currently. 

i gave the example recently on another thread,of a meeting held at addington a couple of weeks ago

It had approximately 120 horses that started. 7 of the top 10 rated horses for the whole day were first starters.

Thats just ludicrous.

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by the galah

[the galah]

I see not quite as many non winners in the top rated % this week,but last weeks sunday meeting at addington was again proof how  badly non winners are currently placed in the handicapping system.

88 horses started. 25 of those were non winners. 

So who were the highest rated horses to start on the day?.

The answer was a staggering 90% of the top 20 rated horses for the day were non win horses. So the least performed,non winners made about 28% of the starters,yet provided 90% of the highest rated.Rather farcical.

Edited July 19, 2023 by the galah

[Michael]

23 hours ago, the galah said:

I see not quite as many non winners in the top rated % this week,but last weeks sunday meeting at addington was again proof how  badly non winners are currently placed in the handicapping system.

88 horses started. 25 of those were non winners. 

So who were the highest rated horses to start on the day?.

The answer was a staggering 90% of the top 20 rated horses for the day were non win horses. So the least performed,non winners made about 28% of the starters,yet provided 90% of the highest rated.Rather farcical.

I haven't bothered to check as to recent changes but from memory the above must be rubbish

I understood non-winners had a MR rating

And winners had a R rating

So lumping them in together for a moan is a bit ignorant

No wonder Brodie liked the post(s)

Edited July 20, 2023 by Michael

[Brodie]

2 hours ago, Michael said:

I haven't bothered to check as to recent changes but from memory the above must be rubbish

I understood non-winners had a MR rating

And winners had a R rating

So lumping them in together for a moan is a bit ignorant

No wonder Brodie liked the post(s)

Hope you are doing well MICHAEL!!!

The point that The Galah is making is that the system is not right and needs amending, but then Michael, you are always doing things by the book!

[the galah]

4 hours ago, Michael said:

I haven't bothered to check as to recent changes but from memory the above must be rubbish

I understood non-winners had a MR rating

And winners had a R rating

So lumping them in together for a moan is a bit ignorant

No wonder Brodie liked the post(s)

Just shows how ignorant you are of what i have been saying.

The point i have been making and continue to make is how unfair it is when a non win horse wins its first race because of how high it was initially rated(50),especially if it hasn't had many unplaced starts. Anyone with any grasp of how the current rating system works would understand that.Obviously that has gone completely over your head.

It seems even people like the whale don't get it sometimes.On sunday he has tipped winnyzback,a 2 start horse who he labels a clear rating special because it is a r50 horse in a race for r35-44.. He states hes not sure how it got into the race.What he fails to point out are the top 3 rated horses in that race are the ones with the least number of wins and clearly  the least stakes earned. Obviously its a race where 1 win horses are included in the conditions of eligible starters.Furthermore,If winnzyback were to win on sunday and receive a full penalty and the same races were carded at addington next week as this week,he would have to start in the race against ardies express,lifes a beach,american me ,evangilist,etc.

Edited July 20, 2023 by the galah

[Michael]

On 7/20/2023 at 5:20 PM, Brodie said:

Hope you are doing well MICHAEL!!!

The point that The Galah is making is that the system is not right and needs amending, but then Michael, you are always doing things by the book!

I thought you had blocked me and couldn't therefore read, nor quote, my messages?

Clearly you told pork pies

[Michael]

On 7/20/2023 at 7:11 PM, the galah said:

Just shows how ignorant you are of what i have been saying.

The point i have been making and continue to make is how unfair it is when a non win horse wins its first race because of how high it was initially rated(50),especially if it hasn't had many unplaced starts. Anyone with any grasp of how the current rating system works would understand that.Obviously that has gone completely over your head.

It seems even people like the whale don't get it sometimes.On sunday he has tipped winnyzback,a 2 start horse who he labels a clear rating special because it is a r50 horse in a race for r35-44.. He states hes not sure how it got into the race.What he fails to point out are the top 3 rated horses in that race are the ones with the least number of wins and clearly  the least stakes earned. Obviously its a race where 1 win horses are included in the conditions of eligible starters.Furthermore,If winnzyback were to win on sunday and receive a full penalty and the same races were carded at addington next week as this week,he would have to start in the race against ardies express,lifes a beach,american me ,evangilist,etc.

I disagree Galah

The problem isn't me not understanding you, it's your poor explanation of what you are complaining about

You said "I see not quite as many non winners in the top rated % this week,but last weeks sunday meeting at addington was again proof how  badly non winners are currently placed in the handicapping system"

You now appear to be saying that non winners are treated poorly after they have a win, that's different

[the galah]

48 minutes ago, Michael said:

I disagree Galah

The problem isn't me not understanding you, it's your poor explanation of what you are complaining about

You said "I see not quite as many non winners in the top rated % this week,but last weeks sunday meeting at addington was again proof how  badly non winners are currently placed in the handicapping system"

You now appear to be saying that non winners are treated poorly after they have a win, that's different

No,obviously you haven't read what i posted.  

just to remind you the very first sentence of what i posted when i started this topic.

On 3/07/2023 at 2:15 PM, the galah said:

Clearly the system has become unfair to non win horses,especially the rating a horse gets if it wins early in its career.

 

 

In fact i repeat that point 4 times in my first post. I even gave what i thought was a logical solution and suggested non winners should start on 40,not 50. 

perhaps,next time, you should read what i have said before calling me ignorant.

Edited July 22, 2023 by the galah

[Michael]

6 minutes ago, the galah said:

No,obviously you haven't read what i posted.  

just to remind you the very first sentence of what i posted when i started this topic.

In fact i repeat that point 4 times in my first post. I even gave what i thought was a logical solution and suggested non winners should start on 40,not 50. 

perhaps,next time, you should read what i have said before calling me ignorant.

Firstly, I did not call you ignorant. Read my post

Secondly I read this "I see not quite as many non winners in the top rated % this week,but last weeks sunday meeting at addington was again proof how  badly non winners are currently placed in the handicapping system"

Whilst you might have posted in a different way in other sentences I didn't read them.

[Michael]

5 minutes ago, Michael said:

Firstly, I did not call you ignorant. Read my post

Secondly I read this "I see not quite as many non winners in the top rated % this week,but last weeks sunday meeting at addington was again proof how  badly non winners are currently placed in the handicapping system"

Whilst you might have posted in a different way in other sentences I didn't read them.

Pushed go too soon!

I was not a fan of the Rating system when it was introduced, and since introduction it has been tweaked, what, 20 times? Clearly it is still not keeping everyone happy

Racing like for like was the desire and that could have been achieved under the old Class system, or even achieved now with some effort (although a lack of horses up North make it exceptionally difficult to be fair)

No matter what the system changes only change some winners, it doesn't create additional ones

As another poster saids, you cannot keep everyone happy

"We" moan if horses are pushed through the grades too quick, saying it forces ioverseas sales

Then when there aren't enough higher rated horses to race a real good one like Copy That we moan about the opposition being cannon fodder, or if Copy That is excluded from the race we moan

It's impossible without sufficient numbers

[the galah]

1 hour ago, Michael said:

Firstly, I did not call you ignorant. Read my post

Secondly I read this "I see not quite as many non winners in the top rated % this week,but last weeks sunday meeting at addington was again proof how  badly non winners are currently placed in the handicapping system"

Whilst you might have posted in a different way in other sentences I didn't read them.

 

On 20/07/2023 at 2:53 PM, Michael said:

So lumping them in together for a moan is a bit ignorant

No wonder Brodie liked the post(s)

 

Whatever

 

[the galah]

1 hour ago, Michael said:

Pushed go too soon!

I was not a fan of the Rating system when it was introduced, and since introduction it has been tweaked, what, 20 times? Clearly it is still not keeping everyone happy

Racing like for like was the desire and that could have been achieved under the old Class system, or even achieved now with some effort (although a lack of horses up North make it exceptionally difficult to be fair)

No matter what the system changes only change some winners, it doesn't create additional ones

As another poster saids, you cannot keep everyone happy

"We" moan if horses are pushed through the grades too quick, saying it forces ioverseas sales

Then when there aren't enough higher rated horses to race a real good one like Copy That we moan about the opposition being cannon fodder, or if Copy That is excluded from the race we moan

It's impossible without sufficient numbers

I agree with a lot of that but there needs to be change to the initial rating a non win horse gets. Its a no brainer to me,but for some reason it hasn't been changed. Those who make up the handicapping rules need to be proactive and not 12 months behind the times reactive.

[paleface adios]

22 minutes ago, the galah said:

I agree with a lot of that but there needs to be change to the initial rating a non win horse gets. Its a no brainer to me,but for some reason it hasn't been changed. Those who make up the handicapping rules need to be proactive and not 12 months behind the times reactive.

is it fair that a four win horse racers against a 48 win horse and the 4 win horse wins lol

[the galah]

 

27 minutes ago, paleface adios said:

is it fair that a four win horse racers against a 48 win horse and the 4 win horse wins lol

must be a hypothetical question. Has any horse ever won that many in nz ever?

Edited July 22, 2023 by the galah

[paleface adios]

12 minutes ago, the galah said:

 

must be a hypothetical question. Has any horse ever won that many in nz ever?

in Australia . so there rating is worse . so if a rating 45 horse can't beat a rating 50 horse why bother racing it lol

[Brodie]

5 hours ago, Michael said:

I thought you had blocked me and couldn't therefore read, nor quote, my messages?

Clearly you told pork pies

I did for a long time Michael!

Just thought by unblocking you could give me some more excitement in my life during Winter!

You know how much I respect you Michael?

[the galah]

Sir monty ran today. His rating was r40. His record-             

50 starts for 1 win and 4 placings.$18,421 in stakes

Compare that to the winner,rubys a delight-her record

100 starts for 7 wins and 26 placings and $85,650 in stakes.

Yet sir monty was rated above rubys a delight.

Edited July 23, 2023 by the galah

[Rangatira]

On 22/07/2023 at 4:12 PM, the galah said:

 

must be a hypothetical question. Has any horse ever won that many in nz ever?

Delightful Lady fell one short.

 

[Brodie]

5 hours ago, the galah said:

Sir monty ran today. His rating was r40. His record-             

50 starts for 1 win and 4 placings.$18,421 in stakes

Compare that to the winner,rubys a delight-her record

100 starts for 7 wins and 26 placings and $85,650 in stakes.

Yet sir monty was rated above rubys a delight.

You are correct Galah, the current system helps a lot of horses to stay racing in New Zealand rather than be exported to Oz.

There are an absolute heap of horses who hovel around the rating 35 to 40 mark indefinitely while racing like Take After Me as one example.

[the galah]

13 hours ago, Brodie said:

You are correct Galah, the current system helps a lot of horses to stay racing in New Zealand rather than be exported to Oz.

There are an absolute heap of horses who hovel around the rating 35 to 40 mark indefinitely while racing like Take After Me as one example.

Yes,its helping retain some on one hand but on the other hand  is driving more away.

The horses it helps are those who under the old system would have won 3-5 races and who the connections are happy to run every week to get back down in the ratings.

The ones it hinders are those who would have won 1-2 races under the old system,who can win next to no money thereafter as soon as they win their first race because they are now running against better horses who have dropped to their grade or below.

Also its now at a point where even the horses who may have won 3-4 races under the old system are needing to be trained by someone who will run them every week for 3 months to get the drop backs,as that initial win is placing them against horses who are better.

So the upshot of all that is its unfair on people and their horses who fall into the latter categories and they will simply give up or sell,or sell before they even race. 

The rating system works well in the non win grade,but thereafter makes so many horses having their dirst win either uncompetitive,or uncompetitive until they have run unplaced for months.

Just ask anyone with a horse after their first win ,what they think.Its leading to less of those horses being trained.

I personally can''t understand why they can't run more races where stakes won are part of the conditions.

One thing that is apparent if you walk around a racetrack and talk to the trainers and drivers. They recognise that its just as important for the industry to have people participating at all levels,top and bottom.

Which goes back to the example of Sir Monty.The current system allows horses like rubys a delight or take after me,to drop back to the same grade they have won previously, within 6 starts. So why on earth should they not have  some type of provision in the handicapping system for sir monty to drop back to a non win grade say 10 starts latter. lets face it,it took hom 50 starts to win his non win race,so no one with a non win horse is going to complain if they run against him when hes had the inevitable run of unplaced runs in his current grade.They do it in australia,but in nz they simply don't seem to care about his type.