Handicapping Logic Query

[Grendel]

Can someone explain this to me:-

Aidan O'Brien's Duke Of Mantua ran in an Irish Handicap off 104 and finished 4th, beaten three and a quarter lengths. The Irish Handicapper put him down 2 lbs for that effort, to 102. That seems logical enough.

O'Brien's colt then came over to Newmarket, where he was uneasy in the betting and finished 3rd in a 4 runner race beaten 8 lengths. A Charlie Hills horse won the race by 6 lengths and got rave reviews and a short price for the 2000 Guineas on the back of it. I mused at the time that this would mean a drop to under 100 for Duke Of Mantua's rating and the Racing Post figure of 86 awarded for Duke Of Mantua's run at Newmarket would surely back that thinking up?

Duke Of Mantua finished 2 lengths behind a horse who came in rated 88 on official figures, so again, at level weights, Duke Of Mantua has surely failed to confirm his 102 rating, so surely must be dropped?

The Irish Handicapper's response was to RAISE Duke Of Mantua by a pound to 103. WTF?

The Racing Post gave winner Mutasaabeq 109 and runner up Noble Dynasty 92, which was 4 lbs rise for the latter horse. If the Irish Handicapper has got this right and Duke Of Mantua ran to 103, then the winner has run to 126 and the runner up 109, which is remarkable for a Class 3 Conditions race.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Ron]

I'm not a handicap expert by any stretch of the imagination. But I thought the RPR rating was an assessment of the horse's running in that particular race (ie 86); similar to Timeform ratings where the individual race ratings can vary significantly from the master rating. If they think the winner is the 2000 Gns winner and that DOM ran below form (he was fav to win) maybe they think he is way better than the performance on that day. On the face of it, it does look very odd logic to find a way of upping his official rating

 

[QuarterMoonII]

The short answer to explaining the quandary that you posed is “no”, I cannot explain it other than by re-examining the evidence supporting your argument.

Beaten horses can have their ratings raised on occasions when the handicapper views that improved performances were shown not just by the winner but those behind. That would certainly not seem to fit the narrative here, however, since the winner was in a different county so adjustments to the others would be expected to be relative to their finishing positions.

What I am wondering here is whether this is a case of putting two and two together and getting five. Has the Irish Handicapper raised Duke Of Mantua’s rating for a reason not related to his effort at Newmarket?

When the horse ran fourth off topweight in the 21st March handicap (beaten three and a bit lengths), his mark was dropped 2lb. The winner Amazed By Grace was racing off 85, the runner-up True Artist off 77 and the third Fourhometwo off 98. None of those have run since; however, the fifth Keeper Of Time, won the Group 3 1000 Guineas Trial last Sunday (11th April) at Leopardstown off a rating of 93 (unchanged from the race at The Curragh).

Is it not possible that, in light of that performance the Irish Handicapper has reassessed the handicap at The Curragh and raised the ratings of the horses that finished ahead of Keeper Of Time?

On the Irish Racing weekly ratings, Amazed By Grace is rated 91 (raised 1lb), True Artist is rated 86 (raised 1lb), Fourhometwo is rated 99 (raised 1lb) and the fourth is the horse about whom you are enquiring. As these weekly ratings were issued on the 12th April, they cannot possibly reflect the performance of Duke Of Mantua behind Mutasaabeq (a fine prospect out of 1000 Guineas winner Ghanaati) the following day.

So are you missing something here? Yes – next week’s ratings.

 

[Ron]

Aha. I know nothing

 

[Grendel]

Thanks for the input guys. I would always trust handicap form over the early season Group races. Surely Duke Of Mantua has to be dropped below 100 this coming week.