Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 24,311
Having only access to three pages of the archive, I wasn't sure if there already was/is a thread for this season's National. If so, maybe a mod can merge this with it.
The entries aren't known yet and the weights won't be out until mid-February so spouting about what will win could amount to premature ejaculation.
However, I'm keen to debate the handicapping issue itself.
My comment on the other thread about the issue of handicapping for the National itself is nothing new, nor is my view on the matter and I'm aware of the opposing arguments.
I'm not sure we'll ever agree but I wanted to set out why I think Phil Smith was right in adapting the handicap for this one race, even if it wasn't for the reasons attributed to him, namely to compress the handicap in order to entice better horses to take part.
For me, it's the physics. And I am wary of expounding anything relating to the laws of physics, having been turfed out of the subject at the end of second year.
I altered my handicapping of the race some years before Phil Smith's initiative but it amounts to the same principle: the longer you are asked to perform a task the more difficult it becomes.
I often use the simplest comparison of all: the can of beans. If you hold out a can of beans at locked arm's length you might find it easy enough to hold it for 30-60 seconds, depending on your own level of fitness, but the longer you hold it the more strenuous it becomes. After some time that 1lb can of beans feels like it weighs a stone.
In racing, carrying weight over a distance becomes more strenuous the longer the distance.
Sprinters can race a couple of times a week because their efforts, despite being quite intense, are over in a short time. That's why in the big athletics events humans can be asked to run in two qualifying races on the same day. Qualifiers for the long-distance events are several days apart because the recovery time is longer.
The Grand National might not be appreciably longer nowadays than a few other races in the calendar but the fences, although smaller than they used to be, add to the physical effort required to negotiate the trip.
While it is safe to accept that a pound can equate to a length at the shorter NH distances, it does not make sense to allow a pound per length at three miles, less so at further.
I changed my methods over 20 years ago to allow for this and Raceform started doing the same thing about 10 year back, if memory serves.
Sometimes when I look at Timeform ratings I wonder if they still use a pound per length at all trips.
It struck me about ten years back that if I'm down to a half-pound per length in marathons, I shouldn't be adjusting at a pound per length before the race in order to find the best-handicapped. That was when I changed from a point per pound to a point and a half per pound.
It cast my ratings for the National in a whole new light, bringing the bottom weights higher up the table, which better reflected the idea of lower weights being advantaged in the race. It allowed me to quantify that advantage.
I still believe a well-handicapped horse carrying more than 11-0 can win a National, unlike some who get entrenched in stats that suggest it's almost impossible. Of course the laws of physics say it's more difficult - because it is - but that would assume that all are equally well(or badly)-handicapped.
That is why I support the idea of higher-class animals being allowed a couple of pounds in the ratings (and therefore the weights) for this race, not purely for the sake of attracting them into running; rather for bringing the task they face more in line with the laws of physics.
That's my head above the parapet.
Fire away
The entries aren't known yet and the weights won't be out until mid-February so spouting about what will win could amount to premature ejaculation.
However, I'm keen to debate the handicapping issue itself.
My comment on the other thread about the issue of handicapping for the National itself is nothing new, nor is my view on the matter and I'm aware of the opposing arguments.
I'm not sure we'll ever agree but I wanted to set out why I think Phil Smith was right in adapting the handicap for this one race, even if it wasn't for the reasons attributed to him, namely to compress the handicap in order to entice better horses to take part.
For me, it's the physics. And I am wary of expounding anything relating to the laws of physics, having been turfed out of the subject at the end of second year.
I altered my handicapping of the race some years before Phil Smith's initiative but it amounts to the same principle: the longer you are asked to perform a task the more difficult it becomes.
I often use the simplest comparison of all: the can of beans. If you hold out a can of beans at locked arm's length you might find it easy enough to hold it for 30-60 seconds, depending on your own level of fitness, but the longer you hold it the more strenuous it becomes. After some time that 1lb can of beans feels like it weighs a stone.
In racing, carrying weight over a distance becomes more strenuous the longer the distance.
Sprinters can race a couple of times a week because their efforts, despite being quite intense, are over in a short time. That's why in the big athletics events humans can be asked to run in two qualifying races on the same day. Qualifiers for the long-distance events are several days apart because the recovery time is longer.
The Grand National might not be appreciably longer nowadays than a few other races in the calendar but the fences, although smaller than they used to be, add to the physical effort required to negotiate the trip.
While it is safe to accept that a pound can equate to a length at the shorter NH distances, it does not make sense to allow a pound per length at three miles, less so at further.
I changed my methods over 20 years ago to allow for this and Raceform started doing the same thing about 10 year back, if memory serves.
Sometimes when I look at Timeform ratings I wonder if they still use a pound per length at all trips.
It struck me about ten years back that if I'm down to a half-pound per length in marathons, I shouldn't be adjusting at a pound per length before the race in order to find the best-handicapped. That was when I changed from a point per pound to a point and a half per pound.
It cast my ratings for the National in a whole new light, bringing the bottom weights higher up the table, which better reflected the idea of lower weights being advantaged in the race. It allowed me to quantify that advantage.
I still believe a well-handicapped horse carrying more than 11-0 can win a National, unlike some who get entrenched in stats that suggest it's almost impossible. Of course the laws of physics say it's more difficult - because it is - but that would assume that all are equally well(or badly)-handicapped.
That is why I support the idea of higher-class animals being allowed a couple of pounds in the ratings (and therefore the weights) for this race, not purely for the sake of attracting them into running; rather for bringing the task they face more in line with the laws of physics.
That's my head above the parapet.
Fire away
