Missing Yards 2011/2012 Season

Magi Wrote:

---

> JustinV Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > if she won a 1200 in may as a 2yo the wfa is 19
> > pounds..so if she was an 83 then with the wfa
> she
> > becomes a net 64..thats what she would be
> weighted
> > off in handicaps..hardly seems like a high
> rating
> > for a winner in a major centre..the average is
> > higher
>
>
> I am going to burst a blood vessel soon with this
> NETT merit shyte. The MR is the MR is the MR :X
> ... I have asked before and never received an
> answer... when the horse turns three and the WFA
> is different does EVERY NEW THREE YEAR OLD GET
> THEIR MR"s ADJUSTED DOWN BY the WFA difference??
> Of course not. WFA's is a condition of a race not
> an MR thaang..{stomps off to find a big vicious
> dog to kick... stops at door to barf into Chekers
> ba

the horse turning 3 has absolutely no effect on its MR dont know where u heard that...WFA is definately a MR thang as u put it and not just a condition of a race..i suggest u look at the handicapping guidelines on the nhra site and teach urself how it works..and yes the mr is the mr is the mr but horses in handicaps are weighted off their NET ratings..not their Merit Ratings..horses lose some of their WFA allowance every month..not just when they turn three.

ML I hear what you saying but she was VERY moderate and managed to win a shocking race where only the horse that ran 2nd ever won a race.I ran her again about 4 x till her merit rating was about 77 or so then advised owners to sell her which they did. What happened inJhb I cant say as she might have had other problems but I am just saying they rated her a 83 in June and a horse like I am Will a colt 79 after winning in December. I promise you he would beat her 15 lenghts without being let go. Kings Jet and Albert were or are rated 85 after winning in Nov and Dec. They would kill her. She was never a 83.

a 3yo winning in december(presuming over 1200m) rated 79 wfa is 8 pounds..so he is a net 71..she being an 83 when the wfa was 17 pounds would be a net 66..so he was rated higher..i am not saying she wasnt overated she probably was..but she also prob didnt make wfa improvement..

Magi,I have always just let you vent on this subject and you must believe whatever you wish, but as you know MR determines WEIGHT and therefore "WEIGHT for age" must surely indicate there is a relationship.
The other point is Gross MR is MR is MR..........but the nett changes ,not once a year,but every month!
The one thing that I often wonder about though, is when last any scientific study of the scale and its efficacy was tested...........if horses still develop at the same rate as they did 50 years ago, I would be surprised, as it would be virtually the only species to do so!

I remember that race (terrible conditiions, rest of meeting was postponed) and she probably was overrated, but in the longer term her inability to win again could not be traced to the MR she was given for the win.

But I don't blame you for getting rid of her when you did.

rob faux Wrote:

---

> Magi,I have always just let you vent on this
> subject and you must believe whatever you wish,
> but as you know MR determines WEIGHT and therefore
> "WEIGHT for age" must surely indicate there is a
> relationship.
> The other point is Gross MR is MR is
> MR..........but the nett changes ,not once a
> year,but every month!
> The one thing that I often wonder about though, is
> when last any scientific study of the scale and
> its efficacy was tested...........if horses still
> develop at the same rate as they did 50 years ago,
> I would be surprised, as it would be virtually the
> only species to do so!


rob spot on..my only problem with the whole thing is that every single horse can not possibly mature at the same rate..some come early and some late..so horses can at anytime be infront or behind the wfa scale therefore being at an advantage or disadvantage..