The Marracudja Debate

Desert Orchid

Desert Orchid

Senior Jockey
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
25,651
I don't know if this has been discussed elsewhere on the forum but I'm listening the the ATR debate in the background.

Again, with the caveat that I can't go into the nuts and bolts of the form, I don't think the handicapper has had any choice but to raise Marracudja quite a bit.

Off the top of my head, I recall having Marracudja as a '+p' horse earlier in its career which then stalled somewhat. Maybe it became slightly soured under Nicholls's regime.

Skelton does have a knack of getting such types revitalised (though he doesn't have too many of them) and I can't help thinking the owner contradicted himself during the ATR debate. He said it was a slow-run race and Marracudja was ridden to pick up the pieces. If it was a slow-run race, Marracudja shouldn't have been able to go, in the final mile, with the superior horses he ended up finishing well in front of. He said Capeland was there to win but that would mean Capeland should have been able to stay close to DDS and UDS in the later stages.

I think, given how impressive Marracudja was the time before, Skelton has simply unlocked this horse's ability and the rise is entirely justified.

Marracudja had been a 147-rated (OR) improving novice in the 16-17 season, taking on Altior in the G1 Wayward Lad. A 147p novice should be able to make up into a 157+ established chaser in its second or third season with the prospect of further gradual improvement as it matures.

I have historic ratings saved in the RP system and have three ratings for the horse, one from its novice season and two from the previous season for hurdles. They are, respectively, 146, 144 and 144. I'd expect a 144 hurdler to be approximately a 154 novice chaser and a 164 established chaser.

As I say, I think Skelton appears simply to have found the key to the horse and has maybe just overplayed his hand in the Clarence House.

If this is on another thread, maybe a mod could merge this with it.)
 
For me it's not about where Marracudja finished in relation to Defi, it's what Defi has run to that matters. And I don't have Defi running even remotely close the rating he was given. Simply because he didn't need to. Therefore as a consequence I can't have Marracudja's new rating. I rate that run as no more than 158 from Defi and the handicapper rated is at 170, and I haven't the first idea how he can possibly have arrived at the mark.
 
Wel he cantered all over Un De Sceaux but even allowing for the latter possibly not running to form, and taking Marracudja out of the race, would you expect good horses like Janika and Capeland to be beaten as early as they were off a modest pace?

Look at last Saturday's Cotswold Chase. They appeared to go a reasonable enough pace, possibly a fraction quicker than the Betfair at Haydock, yet good handicapping markers were still in touch and looking dangerous coming down the hill for the final time. Look what happened next. By the line the front two were about 30 lengths clear and the winner is being talked about as a serious Gold Cup contender, now rated 171.

As I said elsewhere, I've never really taken to Defi but I do think his form lines stack up impressively.
 
Last edited:
I get what your saying Maurice. But the fact is the race turned in to a jog and sprint, where Defi had more speed than Un Des Sceaux. The others would have simply been trying not to finish too close, but the way the race was run it became kind of inevitable. How the handicapper can rate Defi 170 after that is beyond me, and as a consequence Marracudja's rating is also a complete joke.

Don't get me wrong, Marracudja was probably a well handicapped horse for all the reasons you cite, but to put him up to that mark on the basis of this race is completely wrong in my opinion.
 
A rise had to be expected after stringing two career bests over fences although eleven pounds was probably excessive given his age and experience. Assuming, as most are, that this was an anomalous and rather deceptive performance, might it be more prudent to call this a precautionary mark to be reduced as dramatically as it was raised should future evidence show that the rating is not a fair reflection of the horse's ability?
 
The handicapper should be rating the race on it's merits BH. There is nothing whatsoever from the race that warrants the allocation of Marracudja's mark, and no acceptable explanation for it. It was run particularly slowly, and as soon as the pace quickened he was beaten as were the others. At a push I could accept a rise of 3lb's and even that would still be debatable. Connections must be absolutely spitting feathers.

Raising Defi to 170 doesn't matter really. In the context of the race though it's just hilarious to think that the handicapper has that as his best ever race by four pounds. The best performance I have for Defi so far is 162, and that was last March. He hasn't bettered it since despite what the handicapper says. This is why Suny has made the post he did. He presumably thinks similar?

Whether he will ultimately be a better than a 162 horse, and can be so in March who knows. It's possible he may not have to be as the jury is still out on most of the main contenders for the Champion Chase. Chacun Pour Soi and Cilaos Emery have the potential improve at a quicker rate of knots to Defi.

CPS definitely shouldn't be twice the price of Defi, having already beaten him over the trip and has only had 4 lifetime chases and 7 races in total. People say Defi may have been over the top, but I'm not buying that. He had 7 races in his juvenile season alone, taking in all the best races in the programme and he didn't skip a beat. He ran less last season and had a significant experience advantage.

Cilaos Emery is also huge ew antepost value at 10/1. I have his Hilly Way win not far behind the best of the other two, and that was only his 3rd chase and only his 10th lifetime race. I reckon on potential alone he should be in everyone's antepost book, and he's a must for nrnb ew multiples.

Assuming Defi doesn't run again between now and the Festival it will be his 10th chase, and 20th race in total. The other two have only run in 7 chases and a total of 17 lifetime runs between them. Clearly there is significantly more scope for progression for those two from the similar low 160's bar we've seen from all three of them so far. The argument for Defi is his experience and his proven jumping. He's the one wearing the t-shirt so to speak, and in a fast run Champion Chase that may end up being the deciding factor. But as it stands the market is wrong and all the value is with the other two.
 
While looking for another item at the BHA site, I came across an item on this very topic:

Following comment from both written and social media in the last 36 hours, the BHA handicapping team explain a little more around the rating allotted to Marracudja and the guiding principles which they work to when allotting handicap ratings.

There has been a wide degree of comment in the last day or so regarding the rating of 154 allotted to Marracudja following his seven-and-a-half length third in Saturday’s Grade 1 Clarence House Chase at Ascot.

As has already been reported Marracudja’s mark was due to be revised to 146 following his recent win at Wetherby as the horse that had finished second to him, Hawk High, had subsequently run to a higher rating.

Marracudja’s defeat of Janika rated 165 and Capeland rated 153 left us with the view that Marracudja should as a minimum be rated higher than Capeland should the two meet again on handicap terms. We noted that Racing Post Ratings had him running to 155, however for the reasons already stated we arrived at a rating of 154.

We share the opinion that this was not a flat-out test at the trip, and it is possible that Marracudja was somewhat flattered. However, the counter to that argument is that he was held-up. If this race did turn into a bit of a sprint then he had the worst starting position when the pace livened up – he was being asked to make ground into a quickening pace so it could be argued that he has actually run extremely well to finish as close as he did.

Balancing all these arguments and turning them into a revised rating was not a simple task, but we remain confident that this represented a career-best effort by Marracudja and given the margin and manner by which he beat Capeland and Janika he should be rated accordingly.

There is of course an independent Appeals process which was brought in last year to allow trainers and owners to challenge revised marks should they wish. Part of the reason behind updating the appeals process was to ensure any handicapping queries could be responded to quickly, with the aim of reaching an outcome within 7 days.

Turning to more general matters, the subsequent discussion of Marracudja’s rating has given rise to a number of inaccurate assertions regarding how we allot handicap ratings.
There has been a misconception for a number of years, that we have gone to considerable lengths to dispel, that horses are handicapped based on the horses that beat them. Let us take this opportunity to state that this is not how we operate with horses almost always being handicapped based on the horses that they beat rather than the horses that beat them.

There is a detailed guide to handicapping which includes a section on how we decide handicap ratings on the BHA website for anyone that is interested, but we want to make clear that that the process for Saturday’s Clarence House was the same as for every other race, with each horse was treated fairly and strictly on the merits of its form using best handicapping practice.
 
Last edited:
There has been a misconception for a number of years, that we have gone to considerable lengths to dispel, that horses are handicapped based on the horses that beat them. Let us take this opportunity to state that this is not how we operate with horses almost always being handicapped based on the horses that they beat rather than the horses that beat them.
Click to expand...

This is an important principle. It is even more applicable to Irish racing, where, because there are fewer races, horses of different grades rub up against each other more often.
 
If you start the 2m 5f race that was run later on the card at the first fence that Un Des Sceaux jumped, the longer race runners beat Defi by 2L at the line. At one point they (2m5f) were half a fence in front....They crawled and sprinted....Marracudja barely got 2mile when with Nicholls....1m6f race suited him, Janika hated it, and wanted a fast run race....Defi would have won either way, but this sprint was ideal. A 60L and 7Lb swing with Capeland over the same course and distance....The handicapper has miss judged this race.
 
Last edited:
Spot on Paul. Defi has been rated over a stone better for this race than it actually was, and Skelton should be spitting feathers over the rating Marracudja was given when they only raced for about 3 furlongs.
 
Back
Top