Phil Smith's Handicapping Of The National

[Maruco]

Phil Smith has said that winner Many Clouds will go up 7lbs for his National win. Then in the same breath he says he will only go up 1lb for next years National because of the adjustment factor he uses.

I don't like taking away from the winner of the great race, but he was already well in this year being able to run from below his official rating and Smith is now going to allow him to run a further 6lbs well in next year.

There is something fundamentally wrong with this, and it has been since he took this approach. His actions have potentially decided the National winner for 2015 and denied Tom George a win.

Saint Are had gone up 14 pounds prior and was hardly hidden away to get a mark. He was potentially denied his win by Phil Smith not Many Clouds. Don't forget this was Saint Are's highest winning mark as a 9 year old Tim Vaughan off-cast so he wasn't done any favours off 141, which couldn't have been classed as on an attractive mark after 21 handicap chases and a highest previous winning mark of 137. Whereas Many Clouds had run to a mark beyond that which Phil Smith allotted him in his previous three chases. That's just plain wrong any way round I think about it.

I understand why he does it, to attract higher rated horses, but Phil Smith must be stopped from artificially altering the result of the race and making a mockery of the handicap system.

Agree or disagree?

 

[Euronymous]

Completely agree. Ironically Hemmings is such a National fan boy he'd have got Sherwood to get the horse to take his chance off a more realistic mark.

 

[EC1]

Phil Smith has said that winner Many Clouds will go up 7lbs for his National win. Then in the same breath he says he will only go up 1lb for next years National because of the adjustment factor he uses.

I don't like taking away from the winner of the great race, but he was already well in this year being able to run from below his official rating and Smith is now going to allow him to run a further 6lbs well in next year.

There is something fundamentally wrong with this, and it has been since he took this approach. His actions have potentially decided the National winner for 2015 and denied Tom George a win.

Saint Are had gone up 14 pounds prior and was hardly hidden away to get a mark. He was potentially denied his win by Phil Smith not Many Clouds. Don't forget this was Saint Are's highest winning mark as a 9 year old Tim Vaughan off-cast so he wasn't done any favours off 141, which couldn't have been classed as on an attractive mark after 21 handicap chases and a highest previous winning mark of 137. Whereas Many Clouds had run to a mark beyond that which Phil Smith allotted him in his previous three chases. That's just plain wrong any way round I think about it.

I understand why he does it, to attract higher rated horses, but Phil Smith must be stopped from artificially altering the result of the race and making a mockery of the handicap system.

Agree or disagree?

I'm not sure what he is trying to achieve..the general public don't care what rating any horse has that runs in it..so who exactly is he trying to impress by giving high weights what amounts to a 6 or 7 length edge.

Lets say in the next ten years that the top weight wins 5 or 6 times due to them being well in every year. There will be an outcry from other trainers..especially when their horse who gets beat goes up more in the weights than the winner.

Its a complete nonsense imo..i'm not that bothered about the National..but i just don't see any reason for changing the rules for it. As i said..the main people watching this are people who don't care about whether really good horses run it or not..in fact the grand nationals from the past that adorn the screen in replays are full of a lot bad horses..no one who watches the race cares..its 40 runners..thats it.

 

[tiggers1972]

Agree again, load of old tosh, makes you think why they bother with ratings to start with if he decides they are worthless come the big race.

 

[simmo]

The handicapping system for the Grand National was changed to this years ago - around 2004 or so. Since then every horse running off a high mark has been given what could be considered a lenient mark. In only 1 case since then has that actually made any difference to the result. Hardly life changing or something which Phil Smith "must" be forced to stop.

 

[Grey]

I agree, Simmo.

There are too many horses as it is staying in their stables, running on sand and over hurdles, or over inadequate trips in order to protect their marks rather than doing what they're good at. Smith's policy gives the better horses a chance to show us their talent without getting hammered for it.

 

[Maruco]

One is one too many simmo. And what if he comes back next year and wins when he's a further 6lb's well in, which isn't beyond the realms of possibility.

And what did the winning owners get 500k or so? What was the difference for 2nd place? I don't know with0ut checking but a significant sum I'd imagine. Saint Are and his owners will never go down in history as a Grand National winners and they deserved to be. If I owned Saint Are I'd be seriously unhappy, so I'd say to contrary, it is life changing in the loosest sense.

The gist of Phil Smith's argument is that the distance has an impact on ratings. That's cobblers. The bottom line is you can be the best rated horse in the race and never get the trip. Perhaps he should apply the same logic between two mile and three mile races and completely tie the handicapping system in knots?!

It's just wrong on every level, and now we've had a winner that's made it wrong. In fact while I think about it wasn't Neptune Collonges well in on his system. If so that's 2 winners in 10 that he's potentially manufactured.

 

[Maruco]

I agree, Simmo.

There are too many horses as it is staying in their stables, running on sand and over hurdles, or over inadequate trips in order to protect their marks rather than doing what they're good at. Smith's policy gives the better horses a chance to show us their talent without getting hammered for it.

The better horses get their chance in grade 1's and 2's Grey. The National is a Class B handicap. If they're good enough they can still win anyway. Don't forget Many Clouds was still entitled to go close, even if he wouldn't have quite won.

I've no sympathy whatsoever with trainers who leave their horses in boxes. There are more than enough races in the programme, and the graded horses are running for decent prizemoney anyway.

 

[granger]

It's a double standard for sure. Phil Smith playing Jesus is how I have seen it described

 

[simmo]

One is one too may simmo. And what if he comes back next year and wins when he's a further 6lb's well in, which isn't beyond the realms of possibility.

And what did the winning owners get 500k or so? What was the difference for 2nd place? I don't know with0ut checking but a significant sum I'd imagine. Saint Are and his owners will never go down in history as a Grand National winners and they deserved to be. If I owned Saint Are I'd be seriously unhappy. I'd also say to contrary, it is life changing in the loosest sense.

The gist of Phil Smith's argument is that the distance has an impact on ratings. That's cobblers. The bottom line is you can be the best rated horse in the race and never get the trip. Perhaps he should apply the same logic between two mile and three mile races and completely tie the handicapping system in knots?!

It's just wrong on every level, and now we've had a winner that's made it wrong. In fact while I think about it wasn't Neptune Collonges well in on his system. If so that's 2 winners in 10 that he's potentially manufactured.

Afraid I can't muster the same enthusiasm for the discussion as the fevered passion that you've worked yourself up to, but I'll give it a shot.

The change came about as a result of the fact that very few high class horses were turning up for the event, resulting in loads of shite running in the race. There was an argument at the time, IIRC, that this was having a negative impact on the number of fallers.

Therefore it is not the case that it is wrong on every level, although I cede that it is wrong on every level in your opinion.

Neptune Collonges ran off a mark of 157. In his last race prior to the GN he had been beaten a snotter off 159 by a horse rated 138, whilst carrying 14lbs more than it. Just on simple 1lb a length (don't shoot me ratings chappies!!!), a mark of 157 would give the winner of the race 5lbs improvement, which seems fair enough to me.

In any case, simply allotting a horse a lower mark than normal for the GN is not "manufacturing" a winner of the race. If it was - then every race since the change would have been one by one of Phil Smith's chosen few.

Who is to say that Saint Are would have won even had Many Clouds been carrying the 1lb extra he could have done (top weight) and Saint Are had run off 10st2lbs? I don't think that I buy the argument that 1lb extra would have made a difference to Many clouds performance.

I think that's about all I can manage for the minute. Suffice to say that it's not as cut and dried as you believe.

 

[Desert Orchid]

Phil Smith has said that winner Many Clouds will go up 7lbs for his National win. Then in the same breath he says he will only go up 1lb for next years National because of the adjustment factor he uses.

I don't like taking away from the winner of the great race, but he was already well in this year being able to run from below his official rating and Smith is now going to allow him to run a further 6lbs well in next year.

Agree or disagree?

I have to disagree with your interpretation of what he's said, Maruco. When he says MC will only be 1lb higher next year he means the max the horse will have to carry is 11-10 (cf 11-9 this year). He'll be rated higher so other good horses will have lower weights. He might allow him a couple of pounds in line with his approach to handicapping the race - which I agree with wholeheartedly - so he might be rated 165 on the day.

Then again, what if he comes out and shows in other races that he's improved to become a 175 horse? He'll get in off 170 probably but those same good other horses will have less to carry.

I think he's doing a brilliant job with his handicapping of the race.

 

[Maruco]

1lb over four and half miles is clearly important to Phil Smith otherwise he wouldn't have adjusted him. It contradicts what you're saying if you think about it simmo. :lol:

 

[Maruco]

I have to disagree with your interpretation of what he's said, Maruco. When he says MC will only be 1lb higher next year he means the max the horse will have to carry is 11-10 (cf 11-9 this year). He'll be rated higher so other good horses will have lower weights. He might allow him a couple of pounds in line with his approach to handicapping the race - which I agree with wholeheartedly - so he might be rated 165 on the day.

Then again, what if he comes out and shows in other races that he's improved to become a 175 horse? He'll get in off 170 probably but those same good other horses will have less to carry.

I think he's doing a brilliant job with his handicapping of the race.

That's fair enough if I've misinterpreted his intentions DO, but it doesn't alter my view that the connections of Saint Are have been hard done by. Phil Smith has taken the race from them. Unfairly by altering the rules of handicapping.

 

[pdleech]

I have to disagree with your interpretation of what he's said, Maruco. When he says MC will only be 1lb higher next year he means the max the horse will have to carry is 11-10 (cf 11-9 this year). He'll be rated higher so other good horses will have lower weights. He might allow him a couple of pounds in line with his approach to handicapping the race - which I agree with wholeheartedly - so he might be rated 165 on the day.

Then again, what if he comes out and shows in other races that he's improved to become a 175 horse? He'll get in off 170 probably but those same good other horses will have less to carry.

I think he's doing a brilliant job with his handicapping of the race.

Have to agree with DO's interpretation of what Phil Smith said; basically Many Clouds will have to give away more weight because of his higher rating. There is, of course, a much greater likelihood of horses running from out of the handicap and, to that extent, those horses would be disadvantaged; not because of Many Clouds rating but because of the maximum and minimum weights.

 

[viking]

I have to disagree with your interpretation of what he's said, Maruco. When he says MC will only be 1lb higher next year he means the max the horse will have to carry is 11-10 (cf 11-9 this year). He'll be rated higher so other good horses will have lower weights. He might allow him a couple of pounds in line with his approach to handicapping the race - which I agree with wholeheartedly - so he might be rated 165 on the day.

Then again, what if he comes out and shows in other races that he's improved to become a 175 horse? He'll get in off 170 probably but those same good other horses will have less to carry.

I think he's doing a brilliant job with his handicapping of the race.

That's what I understood from Phil Smith's comments too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[simmo]

1lb over four and half miles is clearly important to Phil Smith otherwise he wouldn't have adjusted him. It contradicts what you're saying if you think about it simmo. :lol:

What important to Phil Smith and what's important to me might not necessarily be the same thing......

edit: to clarify - some of my post reflects a defence of Phil Smith and some of it is my own views. Apologies if the dichotomy causes confusion!

 

[Desert Orchid]

That's fair enough if I've misinterpreted his intentions DO, but it doesn't alter my view that the connections of Saint Are have been hard done by. Phil Smith has taken the race from them. Unfairly by altering the rules of handicapping.

I disagree with this element too.

The National is a unique test. It requires a unique approach to handicapping.

I'm of the opinion that Mr Smith has addressed very successfully a situation that previously disadvantaged the better horses to the point that connections were voting with their feet. It's basic physics. Just as the notional 3.6 lbs per length for 5 furlongs doesn't really apply at Epsom because it is downhill, so the handicapping scale for the National requires adjustment for the uniqueness of the test.

It is entirely likely that MC wouldn't have won without the adjustment but apart from me who else complained when Dawn Run got a 5lbs allowance without which she almost certainly wouldn't have beaten Wayward Lad, and that allowance has since been increased by a further 2lbs.

Do connections of beaten horses in big handicaps complain if they are beaten by one ridden by a brilliant claimer who is value for more than his allowance?

These phenomena are there for a reason: to make things as fair as possible for as many as possible and, in the big scheme of things, they work very well.

 

[Maruco]

But surely the unique test of the National is primarily about a horse's ability to get the four and half mile trip rather than Phil Smith's unique approach to the race.

Rocky Creek doesn't get the trip whatever he does, neither did Lord Windemere who was the biggest beneficiary of Smith. In terms of claims Mon Parrain despite the excellent claim of Sean Bowen also didn't get the trip. They were all beaten a long way out, and in Rocky Creek's case for the second year in a row. Others will be beaten because they don't take to the fences, while some can't go the pace, or are ground dependant. You say it takes a unique approach to handicapping so needs a unique approach, so tell me home Phil Smith can't possibly know these things and take any approach that can have a reasonable basis behind it?

Does Phil Smith's approach account for all this, or is he simply handing a fundamental advantage to a horse that is already built perfectly for the unique test? This is the second time he's had an impact on the result in the last 4 runnings. Neptune Collonges was 2lbs well in and beat Sunnyhillboy by a nose. Another horse denied by interference from the handicapper.

 

[Desert Orchid]

No, of course horses won't get the trip just as some sprinters wouldn't get a mile but you still get them running in the Guineas and milers don't win Derbies. They are irrelevant other than the added intrigue of whether they might get the trip.

But the ones you mention weren't deemed non-stayers until they tried and even now there will still be debate about their stamina. Even Rocky Creek was heavily touted as 'the one' this year but never travelled as well as last year anyway and I imagine at some point Nicholls will say the horse had a problem and he wants another go. Lord Windermere has run like a coo every time this season and it's possible last year's Gold Cup has sickened him for good but he was not deemed a non-stayer and I haven't read anywhere since last week that he didn't stay. Mon Parrain's form was said by some to have improved when he was stepped up to three miles so why shouldn't he have stayed? (I have my own answer to that.)

All irrelevant.

It's physics. The more stamina required the more effect the weight has. Try holding a can of beans at full arm's length. It will be okay for a wee while but see how much longer you can hold it there. It will get very painful trying.

Or what about the argument that maybe Saint Are would have won if he'd stalked Many Clouds rather than giving him a lead? We get that argument in umpteen races every week; why not in the Grand National?

Phil Smith, in my opinion, is not handing any horse a fundamental advantage. He is levelling the playing field as far as possible and is to be commended for it.

 

[moehat]

I'd like to feel aggrieved by Saint Are coming second as I really thought this year was his year but what the handicapper can't take into account is heart and guts and Many Clouds has those in abundance.

 

[Maruco]

But that's just it Maurice. Surely the can of beans argument applies to any extension of trip and that's why I can't buy into the argument.

There is an impact when stepping up from and beyond two miles, albeit less so. Obviously the further horses are stepped up the more the impact, but there is no need to make concessions based on class. It's simply about a horses ability to do so compared to the weight it's carrying in relation to everything else in the race. Phil Smith cannot possibly predict this so he shouldn't be attempting to do so.

The bottom line is nobody can know how much of an impact any extension of trip will impact on different horses until after the event and neither can Phil Smith, so how can his adjustment of the handicap be justified when there is no sound basis to do so. Handicapping and rating horses isn't an exact science and your more aware of that than most, but what Phil smith is doing isn't even an attempt at science and is more like comparing medicine to spiritual healing!

The bottom line is the National is Class B handicap, and there is unilaterally agreed handicapping system. It doesn't take account for trip and it shouldn't. If it did it would be unworkable for so many reasons.

The only way to make the cream rise to the top would be to make it a Grade 1 or 2 and then the best horse at the trip wins full stop. Not that I'd advocate that but that's what Phil Smith is attempting to do by his own means.

 

[EC1]

Phil Smith, in my opinion, is not handing any horse a fundamental advantage. He is levelling the playing field as far as possible and is to be commended for it.

He clearly is handing an advantage to horses by allowing them to carry less than they should..thats fact...if it isn't then why don't we let all Group 1 winners run off 9-10 in all heritage handicaps?

The argument that handing top horses an edge is somehow lessening the fall rate doesn't really hold water imo..we don't have really bad horses running in the race that can't jump..its a decent standard that competes. I would say lowering the fences causes more danger of falls or incidents because you can go faster over lower obstacles.

The whole beauty of the race is that is a unique test..always has been...its beeing dumbed down in many ways and this is another aspect that didn't need tampering with.

The 2nd time Red Rum won..he carried 12 stone..if any of you have seen Red Rum..I have..he opened a betting shop in my town in the 70's:lol:..he was a small horse...and won with 12 stone on the back of him.

There was no one then saying..oh dear its too tough..top horses can't carry the weight etc..and bearing in mind..in the 70's the fences didn't just give way like they do now..and they were taller. A small horse carried top weight...a small horse who was not rated as high as the top weights are now managed it.

If a horse is rated above 11-10 then it should carry above that weight in line with its rating imo..otherwise you are disadvantaging 99% of the field. That is just a simple fact..making one horse.. well in.. is unfair to the rest of the field imo.

 

[Desert Orchid]

He clearly is handing an advantage to horses by allowing them to carry less than they should..thats fact...if it isn't then why don't we let all Group 1 winners run off 9-10 in all heritage handicaps?

I don't see how that follows. If there were a like-situation it would be asking top weights over 5f at Epsom to carry extra weight (which some would counter by saying that would advantage them on account of momentum.

Suppose there was a race in the calendar over 5m 5f. The weight concession would disadvantage by an even greater margin the top weights. The difference is the Grand National is a one-off and has to be treated like one. When assessing the form of your normal staying chases the handicapper won't allocate a pound per length, especially in heavy ground, so those races are already accommodated for within ordinary racing. It's asking a lot more of a horse to carry weight over that trip and those fences.

Let's go back to the Epsom argument. Suppose there was one handicap race per year there over 4f and worth a million to the winner. If normal handicapping was applied, there would be uproar because normal handicapping would disadvantage the lower weights.

Referring to how things were before doesn't make today wrong. 90% pf people in the the 1950s didn't think smoking was bad for them. The National got by for all those years because of the conservative nature of the people involved. Smith has seen through a fault in the system and addressed it.

 

[EC1]

I don't think that I buy the argument that 1lb extra would have made a difference to Many clouds performance.

1lb does seem a very small amount..its only one thou of the weight of an average race horse..is it insignificant?...gravity says yes i would think...so you are arguing with physics to not believe it..its not really an argument...its just reality

1 thou of 540 seconds ..time to run 4miles+2.5f ...is also only a small fraction of time...but its just over half a second..which is about 2 lengths at this trip. In this years race just 1lb is enough to make the second horse the winner. And would have been enough to stop the grey getting up on the line for Nicholls.

So small amounts of weight do make a difference...just 1lb does...so in handing horses a 5 or 6lbs helping hand to a horse will change results..5lb gives a horse 10+ length edge..doesn't seem fair imo..can't change it obviously..but it is tampering with the result without any doubt

 

[EC1]

The thing is DO..he isn't doing it to correct a scale for all runners..he is doing it to encourage Grade 1 hosses to take part.

Whatever scale you use over that trip..its the same for every horse under the old system..under the new it favours some over others..that cannot be fair.

When horses are handicapped..at whatever trip..the handicapper allows a poundage per distance rating to suit. Because he doesn't handicap horses over 4.4 he is now saying..oh that rating you get over 3m2f..well its too stiff over this marathon trip..i need to knock 5lb off. The problem is he is only offering that concession to the top weights..why can't all the horses be given the same concession?..the horse on 11.0 has also been handicapped at shorter distances..but he still carries his full quota..no concession..why not?