BHA's Phil Smith - "Native River in the top 5 weight carrying performances"

D

Dante

At the Start
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Messages
179
BHA's Phil Smith - "Native River in the top 5 weight carrying performances"

Surely the BHA's head of handicapping has got to be having a laugh placing Native River's Welsh National victory in the top 5 weight carrying performances? Is it just a poor attempt by him at trying to justify a flawed handicap system, that allowed Native River to run in the race off the same mark as he won the Hennessy?

When attempting to justify Native River receiving no penalty for the race to Chapman on ATR his reply was "Do we really want a horse carrying more than 11st 12lbs running 3miles 5fs plus?" As he gave no reasoning or logic for this assertion he may just as well said 11st 8lbs, 11st 10lbs, 12st or 12st 2lbs.

As said elsewhere why not just take 4lbs off the other runners if you don't want the top weight more than 11st 12lbs? The bottom weight in the race was 10st 10lbs.

Raz De Maree and his connections can consider themselves very unlucky to be beaten by such a well handicapped horse by less than 2 lengths, 11lbs wrong at the weights despite beating the rest by 15 lengths.

What is the point of having just a few races every year that have early closing and early handicapping? Surely it would be fairer all round if you still had early closing but on the proviso that you run off your handicap mark a week before the race? You could still promote the races in the build up etc.

As for ante post betting, as David Williams of Ladbrokes and other reps often tell us it is not a factor these days. The amount wagered ante post is negligible when compared to the day of the race market.
 
Ladbrokes are to bookmaking what CNN are to American politics......full of shite.........I can remember you could walk into the bookies and have 5k on AP in th champion Hurdle at 12/1 Gay Brief and they wouldn't bat an eyelid. Now if you ask for 500 quid they have a dicky fit........The mount of wagering is negligible because the ***** wont take a bet unless they can lay it off to Betfair and make money got nothing.

As for handicapping being flawed I have been saying that for years but there's very little they can do about it. as I said the other week the penalty for wining a Grade 2 is the same for me as it is for you if you follow my drift and as a result horses all over the place end up on downright stupid marks,

My argument has always been it's much easier to give a horse 30 lbs a head than beat a horse 30 lengths off levels and the handicapper doesn't allow for that and you end up with Arkle getting 212 and Kauto 191.........it's a flawed system as you say always has been always will be,


Take all the 170 horses from the start of time run them in the Champion Hurdle off levels and they will all dead heat.............NOT!!!!! 20 lengths wouldn't cover the field


Who would have the poor sods job.....must drive him crazy at times
 
Dante said:
Surely the BHA's head of handicapping has got to be having a laugh placing Native River's Welsh National victory in the top 5 weight carrying performances? Is it just a poor attempt by him at trying to justify a flawed handicap system, that allowed Native River to run in the race off the same mark as he won the Hennessy?
Click to expand...

Without seeing the quote in full context, I wouldn't want to comment in detail but my initial impression is that he's referring to a horse successfully carrying top weight in one of the top handicaps. I would certainly have my doubts about its meriting a place in the top five. Arkle probably could account for the top five on his own.

Dante said:
When attempting to justify Native River receiving no penalty for the race to Chapman on ATR his reply was "Do we really want a horse carrying more than 11st 12lbs running 3miles 5fs plus?" As he gave no reasoning or logic for this assertion he may just as well said 11st 8lbs, 11st 10lbs, 12st or 12st 2lbs.

As said elsewhere why not just take 4lbs off the other runners if you don't want the top weight more than 11st 12lbs? The bottom weight in the race was 10st 10lbs.
Click to expand...

His point is valid, though. Public perception is that asking horses to carry too much weight borders on cruelty. We will rarely nowadays see horses asked to do what used to be the norm when I started studying form and compiling ratings, ie start off the weights at 12-7 and allow penalties to take the weight up to and sometimes beyond 13st.

I think the idea of lowering the remainder of the weights is worth experimenting with or at least canvassing the opinions of trainers and owners on. However, when the conditions for the races are set out, everybody knows the score. We're not kids in the playground trying to change the rules as we go just because one lucky person got a break the others didn't.

We also have to consider the notion of wanting the best horses to contest the best races. The compressed handicapping in the Grand national has, in my opinion, been a stroke of genius, making the race far classier, more appealing and and more exciting than ever.

I'll address some of your other points in due course, Dante. I need to go out right now.
 
It isn't weight carrying it's weight conceding. Horses carry 11.10 in most big conditions chases.

The weight didn't bother Denman in any of his three Hennessey's what cost him was winging the fourth or third last in his last attempt and Diamond Harry plowing through it with 10stone on his back and barely turning a hair.
 
BHA's Phil Smith - "Native River in the top 5 weight carrying performances"

I've never seen a thoroughbred built to carry weight like Denman. Monster of an animal. Those Hennessys were some performances - the second one brought more than one tear to my eye.
 
Last edited:
BennyB said:
I've never seen a thoroughbred built to carry weight like Denman. Monster of an animal. Those Hennessys were some performances - the second one brought more than one tear to my eye.
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFR9qPy_OPM

This talk always reminds me of Roman Warrior on the Flat and a pearl of wisdom I picked up from my old man. Thinking back on it, I now realise that when RW won the Ayr Gold Cup under 10-0 in 1975 my father would have been 54 years old. I'm not sure I would have had that kind of insight as recently as seven years ago. He had been a fearless - other relatives later opined that 'reckless' might have been more appropriate - punter in his younger days and I do recall his regular Saturday muted celebrations (he was teetotal) when, seemingly, week after week something he had bet had won, usually the big race.

Anyway, the pearl of wisdom was that when I said Roman Warrior was handicapped out of the race with 10-0, he immediately replied, "Weight doesn't matter to that horse. It's huge. It won't feel the weight. It won't stop it."

I might be mis-remembering, as Hilary Clinton might have said, the actual races as I do recall backing RW in a G1 after it had won a big handicap under 10-0 but my father also said, "It's only carrying 9-0 but that doesn't mean it can run any faster. It's still a handicapper." Needless to say, it got gubbed.

Maybe with the amount of serious information available nowadays I would view things differently but I was only about 20 [edited from the original now that I've taken my mittens off and put my fingers to use] at the time and just starting to study the form seriously for myself, using very large sheets of paper and listing figures from different races side by side, cross referencing them with lines and arrows! It was successful even back then, but masses of work.

But the principle remains, the innate or inherent ability of a horse to carry weight is a factor. For me, though, without the publication of weights of horses, it's too complicated and we just have to work around it.
 
Last edited:
Dante said:
Raz De Maree and his connections can consider themselves very unlucky to be beaten by such a well handicapped horse by less than 2 lengths, 11lbs wrong at the weights despite beating the rest by 15 lengths.
Click to expand...

That was my immediate post-race thought. However, I have to challenge your assertion that he was "11lbs wrong at the weights". He wasn't. 139 was his UK OR.

What is obvious, as it was before the race, was that Native River was very well handicapped. He had been put up 8lbs for the Hennessy but this was an early closer so it didn't apply and he was exempt from the 4lbs penalty because he was set to carry 11-12 in the original weights. I think we should be lauding the astuteness of connections for training and placing the horse to win two of the biggest handicap chases inside a month.

Did I back Native River? No. I had him top rated but fancied Carole's Destrier to overturn the Newbury form off a less negative ride as he too was favoured by the handicapping. It turned out maybe that race took more out of CD than NR. Either that or CD wasn't off at Chepstow, perhaps with an eye on Aintree.

Dante said:
What is the point of having just a few races every year that have early closing and early handicapping? Surely it would be fairer all round if you still had early closing but on the proviso that you run off your handicap mark a week before the race? You could still promote the races in the build up etc.
Click to expand...

The point is that it allows forward-planning. And why would you want to force them to run a week before? That would do nothing for the horse's welfare and would encourage non-trying. As I said earlier, everybody with an interest in the Welsh National should have known exactly where they stood regarding who was going to carry what and why. I myself had to double check how the hell NR managed to get into to race off exactly the same mark as when winning the hottest handicap of the jumping calendar. My immediate reaction was that I was on to a handicapping good thing but then I saw Carole's Destrier and the rest, as Charlie Nicholas would say, is geography.
 
BennyB said:
I've never seen a thoroughbred built to carry weight like Denman. Monster of an animal. Those Hennessys were some performances - the second one brought more than one tear to my eye.
Click to expand...

The reason you haven't see one is nothing since God knows when tried. I mean Like Kauto or Best mate etc

Kauto could have given 35lbs to more than half of the trash that ran in the race and the other half would not have turned up .............like it was in Arkle's day 0)

This is the point the poster made...........They are not all Denmans but they are all asked to do the same thing which makes H'cappin a farce
 
Last edited:
If the handicapper gets it wrong so often, it's surprising how few people seem to be making their fortune betting on his mistakes.
A horse's physique will doubtless help it carry weight but handicapping itself can only be done on the 'average' horse and it's your task, if you choose to accept it, to identify the variations from the mean. I think it would be progress for every runner to be weighed pre-race (the day before?) with those weights published for the benefit of the betting public which, if it chooses to, can build up a database of each horse's optimum racing weight.

Going back to Roman Warrior, I have a memory that he was too big (long) to fit in some of the starting stalls at the time and some kind of belt was used to secure him in the stall because the rear gate couldn't be closed.
 
archie said:
If the handicapper gets it wrong so often, it's surprising how few people seem to be making their fortune betting on his mistakes.
Click to expand...

Agreed, archie.

I pay very close attention to the official handicapping and I find they are very skilled. One or two of the team are perhaps more difficult to impress than others but, overall, I think they do a helluva good job and I think Phil Smith does an excellent job of keeping everything largely under control.
 
No matter how skilled they are the horses they have to assess is a large amount, just like the races bookies have to price up, even larger. Punters can specialise, they don't have to be intimate so to speak with anywhere near that volume. That's a big advantage.
 
archie said:
If the handicapper gets it wrong so often, it's surprising how few people seem to be making their fortune betting on his mistakes.
A horse's physique will doubtless help it carry weight but handicapping itself can only be done on the 'average' horse and it's your task, if you choose to accept it, to identify the variations from the mean. I think it would be progress for every runner to be weighed pre-race (the day before?) with those weights published for the benefit of the betting public which, if it chooses to, can build up a database of each horse's optimum racing weight.

Going back to Roman Warrior, I have a memory that he was too big (long) to fit in some of the starting stalls at the time and some kind of belt was used to secure him in the stall because the rear gate couldn't be closed.
Click to expand...

Those who play the h'cap game don't tell you when the day is the day but really we are talking top notchers here not Wolverhampton trash.

The thing is the H'Capper can give a horse any rating he wants in Group 1's like eg The Gold Cup and it don't mean diddly ****.
 
Desert Orchid said:
His point is valid, though. Public perception is that asking horses to carry too much weight borders on cruelty.
Click to expand...

Why would the public (most barely casual horse racing fans) see 12 stone as the threshold for a cruel weight? Why not 11 stone?
 
HawkWing said:
Why would the public (most barely casual horse racing fans) see 12 stone as the threshold for a cruel weight? Why not 11 stone?
Click to expand...

Good question, HW.

I'm speculating but the tradition is that 10-0 is the ceiling for Flat horses and 11-12 or 11-10 for NH horses because that's how weights are framed. 40 years ago 12-0 or even 12-7 would have been the ceiling for NH horses.

When racing is televised the presenters and pundits tend to make a big thing of good performances under heavy weights. The casual observers, including the animal welfare nutjobs, take this kind of comment on board. Next thing it hits the news bulletins with the 'cruelty' slant agenda driven by the animal welfare people.

You only need to look at what they've caused to happen to the National to see it in action. Meantime people who know better, like John Francome, will tell you horses and riders had to be more careful when the fences at Aintree were bigger.

It's the world we live and, as in the absence of info on the weight of horses, sectional times, etc, etc, we have to work around it.
 
Today saw Casual Cavalier win at Ayr under 12-6 and a horrible looking very sad leg break for a King novice chaser at plumpton.

I guess i dont buy the Phil Smith argument that giving Native Ruler the deserved penalty is done to appease the public perception on the horse cruelty. There is some argument that having a classier Grand National is good for the sport in general, its a bit of a stretch for the handicapper for the same to apply to the welsh national.

Not sure why the connections couldnt decide if 12-02 was a cruel weight for THEIR horse to carry
 
Hunt Ball got a similar favour at Cheltenham a few years back.
Top weight stpry reminds me of Grimes having an entry in Galway Hurdle years ago.
Top weight a stated 12/0 but Grimes so far ahead of other entries no other horse would be in handicap proper if he ran.
Talk was of him getting 12/7 so JP canvassed the stewards "not to break their own rules " as he put it.
One steward told him that Galway race was a Summer Handicap for summer jumpers to which JP asked " in other words you want the owner of a bad racehorse to win a big pot; remember i own more bad racehorses than anyone !"
Grimes got 12/4; did not run but got into Galway Plate the following year of 10/2 and the opposition did not see which way he went.
The better ground helped Native River lead all the way off top weight, a feat Bonanza boy and Carvills Hill achieved previously.
i had Raz in a docket with Westerner Point so have no real gra for the handicapper; mind you I should have done exacta which paid 88/1.
 
archie said:
If the handicapper gets it wrong so often, it's surprising how few people seem to be making their fortune betting on his mistakes.
Click to expand...

If betting in handicaps, you pretty-much have to start out with an assumption that the handicapper is wrong - otherwise what would be the point of looking for a bet?

Regardless, variance between your mark and the handicapper's mark is only a part of the puzzle. There is no point backing a horse your rating tells you is 2lbs well-in, if the horse does not go on the specified ground, or usually fails to run up to its mark over the specified trip.

The handicap mark should never be looked at in isolation - it's just one of the myriad factors that are part of a betting equation.

More generally, I would agree with DO, in that the Official Handicapping team are usually not too far off the mark....but then again, it's such a subjective area, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. And they only ever really get called-out when someone strongly disagrees with a particular award, rather than by rote.
 
Last edited:
What % of a 'typical' NH horse is 12 stone? What % does an extra 7lb amount to? Surely it isn't the 'straw that broke the camel's back' in carrying what must amount to an insignificant bit of extra for such large animals.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Agreed, archie.

I pay very close attention to the official handicapping and I find they are very skilled. One or two of the team are perhaps more difficult to impress than others but, overall, I think they do a helluva good job and I think Phil Smith does an excellent job of keeping everything largely under control.
Click to expand...

Gimme a break the handicapper gets it wrong all the time and is a robot.

Let's take a look at the last H'cap run in the Uk at Plumpton eg.

They are all supposed to dead heat but there's 40 lengths between 1st and last..........that happens almost every race.

Why? Take Doormouse he wins as a 9 year old off 117 but the horse he beats has never won a race in 34 attempts but the H'capper still puts him up to 120.......... 10 losses and 1 year later he manages to win a couple of moderate races off 110 and 114 what does the handicapper do? straight back up to 120 the very mark he find it impossible to win off.....the horse he beats has lost 9 times since ??? Then after 2 losses Doormouse it's Oh Oh better drop him again......now he's 12 year old carrying 11st12lbs off 107 because he feels sorry for him?????

The handicapper waits until a horse runs 3 times before handicapping him but waits only 1 time before hammering him.

A better system might be that a horse should win off the same mark twice before being re handicapped? Luck, other horses running bad races, whatever can lead to horses getting wrong ratings and messing up their careers,,,,,,,,,,,Try telling trainers the OH is skillful you won't get much agreement from them with horses they find it impossible to work with off their current marks.

Quite frankly if he had the time to study every race and every horse their ratings would be different but he doesn't so it's mostly robotised.
 
Dave G said:
What % of a 'typical' NH horse is 12 stone? What % does an extra 7lb amount to? Surely it isn't the 'straw that broke the camel's back' in carrying what must amount to an insignificant bit of extra for such large animals.
Click to expand...

Surely that depends on the horse. A big brute like Denman could carry like Arkle did 12st10lbs and still beat most of the dross that ran in those Hennessy's.

Oldest and truest saying in racing is that weight can slow down a fast horse but the lack of it won't make a slow horse go faster.

They are talking the Ferry Boat's who carried 9 stone 7lbs and got 35 lbs from Arkle. 12.0lbs or whatever

They say adding weight to a horse like Arkle say 13st3lb might stop him but give Ferry Boat 8st 7lbs and he still wont be fast enough to beat Arkle,

The suggestion is add weight is more effective at the top end than reducing it at the lower end.

In short some horses are so good and some so moderate the handicap to bring them together does not exist.

It's like Night Nurse 184 V Doormouse 107 Night Nurse 12stone would mean Doormouse would carry 6stone 7lbs and still get his ass kicked Trust Me!!!!......stick 14 stone on Night Nurse you might stop him
 
Tanlic said:
Let's take a look at the last H'cap run in the Uk at Plumpton eg.

They are all supposed to dead heat but there's 40 lengths between 1st and last..........that happens almost every race.
Click to expand...

Of course it does but that doesn't mean the handicapper is wrong. It's a bit like saying on current form Man U and Arsenal should draw but one team goes and wins 5-0.

Just because the horses AREN'T robots doesn't mean the handicapper is.

As for the Doormouse example, it is not uncommon for a horse that loses every time to still go up the handicap. It doesn't mean it is inherently wrong or unfair. It's the way it should be, in fact. The handicapper is assessing current form. I've often got a 'p' next to a horse that doesn't have a '1' in its form figures.
 
Tanlic, I appreciate all of that, but that's why I said the 'average' NH horse, not beasts like Denman etc.
 
Dave, they weighed a couple of horses on the ITV NYD programme. I stand to be corrected but I think the hurdler was about 485 Kg and the chaser 530 Kg. That would be about half a ton in old money.
 
Of course it's flawed and unfair... a rise in the H'cap is supposed to indicate you have improved..too bad if you have not seems to be the only answer available. Maybe in a year we will drop you back down again duh!!!!
 
Back
Top