I can't think who it was, talking on ATR recently, who thought handicapping was the spawn of the devil, and ought to be chucked out. Was it Mark Johnston? Nah, can't recall, to be honest. Anyway, his thoughts were that handicapping is punitive for a horse's efforts, punishing him for winning, and not overall fair.
His suggestion for its replacement was that horses would rise in grades according to the amount of money they won, whether it was for 50 2nds or just one good 1st. Thus, you'd be looking at horses who were in the (I assume) 1-5K, 6-10K, 11-30K and so on grade races. Carrying the same weight throughout in their respective money grades.
It throws up some issues of weight in that lighter jockeys would always be lumbered with lead, dead rather than better live weight, but should we dismiss this as La-La Land, or really quite a good idea?
It would stand traditional racing on its head, but does it make more sense to put like with like, rather than often seeing runners 'out of the handicap', 'in the grip of the handicapper' and so on, eventually defeating the most talented and most genuine by crushing it with weight?
His suggestion for its replacement was that horses would rise in grades according to the amount of money they won, whether it was for 50 2nds or just one good 1st. Thus, you'd be looking at horses who were in the (I assume) 1-5K, 6-10K, 11-30K and so on grade races. Carrying the same weight throughout in their respective money grades.
It throws up some issues of weight in that lighter jockeys would always be lumbered with lead, dead rather than better live weight, but should we dismiss this as La-La Land, or really quite a good idea?
It would stand traditional racing on its head, but does it make more sense to put like with like, rather than often seeing runners 'out of the handicap', 'in the grip of the handicapper' and so on, eventually defeating the most talented and most genuine by crushing it with weight?
