Possibly one for a different thread, but there does seem to be an across-the-board reticence on the part of handicappers (official or otherwise) to award output ratings which show great variance from the input rating.
For me, I have no issue in determining that a particular performance can be several lbs below a horses official mark. That's not to say I would drastically revise an official-mark upwards/downwards - but I have no hesitation as regards putting a low/high mark on an isolated performance.
Generally speaking, handicappers prefer not to put great variance on individual performances; preferring (in my view) to award a figure that's only a lb or two either side of the official mark - regardless of the actual performance displayed.
I realise that they have to maintain a 'master rating' that accurately reflects a horse's capabilities - but I find that handicappers generally work around that rating for any given performance, whereas I feel it's more appropriate to award an isolated rating that is entirely seperate from the official mark.
In the case of Sprinter Sacre in the Tingle Creek, the bare performance merits no more than high-160's, imo, but because his OR is so high, he will undoubtedly be awarded something in the region of 10lbs higher......with the result that kumbeshwar will be dragged-up to a mark that he cannot possibly hope ever to win from. In effect, connections of Kumbeshwar will be taking it in the hoop, merely because the OH will view SS's run in a linear fashion, when it's self-evident - on the line through Kumbeshwar - that he has run nowhere near 179.
Edit: Hopefully not contradicting myself, but I do expect the OH to hammer Kumbeshwar's official mark......though this is principally because he won't accept that SS ran well below his official mark. Hope this makes sense.
