Home » Racing & Sport » Opinion » Nett Ratings – What’s The Story?

Nett Ratings – What’s The Story?

Can't please everybody...

There has been a proposal to remove the weight for age (WFA) factor from the merit rated handicapping system in South Africa and thus accord horses nett merit ratings only.

This is an interesting idea and would make it easier for younger horses, suggests David Thiselton on www.goldcircle.co.za

Did you read what Tony Mincione had to say? 

David Thiselton

One of the biggest gripes of the merit rating system is that it robs young horses who are good but not top class of two or three wins which they would have earned under the old race figure system.

For argument’s sake, a two-year-old colt called Charger enters a maiden over 1400m in late July and only receives 4kg from older horses.

However, the weight for age differential at that stage between him and a three-year-old is 8,5kg and between him and an older horse is 9,5kg.

Charger is a talented horses and beats the field by one-and-a-half length. The line horse is deemed to be the runner up, a 69 merit rated three-year-old. The 1,5 lengths plus an extra 4,5kg have to be taken into account – so Charger is accorded a merit rating of 81, which is a nett merit rating of 62.

Supposing hIs next race was six weeks later in race number five run at Greyville on Sunday, a MR 64 Handicap over 1400m.

The weight for age differential between him and a four-year-old at this time of the year over that trip is 7,5kg and is 8kg between him and a five-year-old.

Charger would therefore have had to give 2kg to What A Scorcher, who is a three-time winner, he would have had to give 3kg to Roys Rolls Royce, a four-time winner, 3,5kg to Brave And Bold, a five-time winner, 5.5kg to Royal Katrina, a three-time winner, and 8,5kg to Gold Chalice, who like himself is a one-time winner.

His trainer is of the old school and immediately perceives his young horse to have been hard done by because under the old race figure system, where weight was basically accorded on the number of wins, Charger would have been receiving weight from all of those multiple winners.

Alexander wins the Clairwood on 14-05-11

However, the counter argument for those in favour of the merit rated system is that all of those older multiple winners mentioned above would not still be racing as they would have done their dash after winning one or two races.

This would be a discouragement to the smaller owner, who can only afford a quality of horse whose dream scenario, according to the law of probability, would be to be able to compete in low grade handicaps until a ripe old age.

However, introducing the new proposal of ignoring wfa would at least make it easier for the young three-year-old. In the above example, Charger would have come into yesterday’s race with his accorded nett merit rating of 62 as opposed to his gross merit rating of 81 minus the wfa allowance, which would have put him on a nett merit rating of 65.

Thus, he would have been 1,5kg better off under the new proposed system compared to the current system.

However, there will be plenty of implications if the new proposal is introduced.

Supposing Charger did run in Sunday’s race and for argument’s sake finished in a dead-heat for second with a five-year-old, to whom he was giving 3,5kg.

Both horses do not run again until December and then face each other again over the same distance. The young colt should have improved in this time by 2,5kg according to the wfa scale. He would therefore have to give the five-year-old 6kg under the current system.

Tribal Dance wins the Listed The Sledgehammer Handicap at Scottsville on 13-04-28

However, under the new proposed system he would still give the horse only 3,5kg, as they will simply be running off the nett merit ratings that they had last been accorded. The young colt in an ideal world should thus beat the five-year-old by two-and-a-half lengths.

Karel Miedema, Editor of the Sporting Post racing newspaper and a doyen of handicapping, pointed out that the above scenario would be in contravention of the NHA racing rule 47.3.2, which states: “a handicap, which shall be a RACE in which the weights to be carried by the HORSES are allocated by the handicapper for the purpose of equalising their chances of winning.”

Others would argue that the majority of horses do not improve according to the wfa scale, meaning the above scenario would be acceptable.

However, there are no statistics to back this up and, furthermore, most would argue that a specified three-year-old who is good but not top class would find it harder to win a handicap merit rated 85 in August than it would merit rated 85 in February.

The weight for age scale has also stood the test of time, although from time to time it undergoes adjustments in places like Europe.

Ascot . (Photo by Julian Herbert/Getty Images)

Ironically, the most recent adjustments made by the BHA (British Horseracing Authority) in 2017 were designed to remove a clear advantage which the data showed the existing Scale was conferring on three-year-old horses over middle and longer distances in the second half of the season. A sample of over 89,000 runners in handicaps and 5,000 runners in wfa races over a six-year-period was used in the research.

Whichever handicapping system is used, there will be one party which is happy – and others who are not.

The current merit rating system prolongs the careers of moderate horses but can be punishing to horses who find themselves in the gap between average and top class.

Dedicated punters enjoy the merit rated system as it allows them to do their own handicapping and find horses who have been underrated.

Some other punters would prefer the race figure system, in which many races had one or two horses who were clearly superior at the weights and it thus cut the amount of form study required.

It will be interesting to see whether the new proposal is ever implemented and if so it is sure to stimulate plenty of debate.


Have Your Say

Comments Policy
The Sporting Post encourages everyone to feel free to comment in the spirit of enlightening the topic being discussed, to add opinions or correct errors. All posts are accepted on the condition that The Sporting Post can at any time alter, correct or remove comments, either partially or entirely.

All posters are required to post under their real and verified names, you can adjust your display name on your account page or to send corrections privately to the Editor. The Sporting Post will not publish comments submitted anonymously or under pseudonyms.

The views of any individuals that are published are NOT necessarily the views of The Sporting Post.

6 comments on “Nett Ratings – What’s The Story?

  1. Graham Martin says:

    There should be no arguments, bring back the previous system and bring the punters flocking back to horse racing! Let’s once again see long queue’s at the tote windows and lots of people at the racecourse! This is South Africa, not the U.K. We can have our own system. The race figure system worked in this country for over a hundred years! I’m not saying this for my personal benefit but for the benefit of horse racing in THIS COUNTRY, not some other country.

  2. Kenzo says:

    in handicaps horses run off their nett ratings and in non-handicaps the ratings don’t really matter, so why mess with the ratings…

  3. Ian Jayes says:

    Graham Martin is wrong, handicapping was the order of the day for over a hundred years, not the Race-figure system which was foisted on the industry. It got support from certain people because it favoured a relatively few horses at the expense of the majority. It never was and never will be handicapping. If we had proper “divided” handicaps without benchmarks and trainers were more aware of the “class” of their horses and were more circumspect in where they placed them, much of the griping would never happen. “Classic” WFA and “Conditions” racing are totally different concepts to handicapping and to paraphrase Rudyard Kipling, never the twain should meet.

  4. Jay August says:

    There is plenty of data under the current system to support or dismiss the contention that horses do not progress according to the WFA scale. It seems however that nobody is capable of analysing it correctly. There should also be plenty of data to support or dismiss the handicap system yet once again, where is that analysis? We seem to talk about this constantly as some hypothetical best case that needs tweaking, yet we never arrive at anything that satisfies most parties. From my point of view the drudgery of so many low class handicaps makes racing less than satisfying, and certainly less attractive than under the old system.

  5. Tony Mincione says:

    It would be a big mistake to think that the answer is simple. Handicapping is relatively simple, but the outcomes are not. Racing is multi-variable and subtle and quite complicated in the end. Ask anyone.

    I think it is crucial to remember that merit rating favours the underdog and the small owner/trainer. It was a solution to the problem of the ever increasing dominance of a few.

    Perhaps we are heading back there again if you read the story that racing “needs” the small trainer https://www.sportingpost.co.za/2018/09/riaan-van-reenen-on-cape-racing/. I think common sense dictates that “more” and “diversity” are absolutely essential watchwords if you want racing to still be here in this form beyond a decade.

    We do not have impeccable leadership at the moment. It’s hard to trust anyone or anything and we seem to have a low tech attitude.. while entering a high tech world… with an ancient sport.

    So whatever changes that may be coming: I hope it’s not ego driven or devoid of proper planning. These changes of direction may seem small and insignificant, but like compound interest, in the end they aren’t.

  6. The Outsider says:

    I fully agree with the proposal to change the current merit rating system to the net merit rating system!
    This will make horse racing more punter friendly and the punters will return to racing.
    There are a lot of advantages to the net merit rating system including the following:
    1)Collateral form
    2) It favours the best horse in the race, which is the way it should be
    3)Punters don’t have to GUESS which horse will win or run a place

Leave a Comment

‹ Previous

Tarry Moves On Ready To Run Log

Next ›

Whip Survey Reveals 74% Against

Popular Posts