Phil Smith's Handicapping Of The National

[Maruco]

Phil Smith has said that winner Many Clouds will go up 7lbs for his National win. Then in the same breath he says he will only go up 1lb for next years National because of the adjustment factor he uses.

I don't like taking away from the winner of the great race, but he was already well in this year being able to run from below his official rating and Smith is now going to allow him to run a further 6lbs well in next year.

There is something fundamentally wrong with this, and it has been since he took this approach. His actions have potentially decided the National winner for 2015 and denied Tom George a win.

Saint Are had gone up 14 pounds prior and was hardly hidden away to get a mark. He was potentially denied his win by Phil Smith not Many Clouds. Don't forget this was Saint Are's highest winning mark as a 9 year old Tim Vaughan off-cast so he wasn't done any favours off 141, which couldn't have been classed as on an attractive mark after 21 handicap chases and a highest previous winning mark of 137. Whereas Many Clouds had run to a mark beyond that which Phil Smith allotted him in his previous three chases. That's just plain wrong any way round I think about it.

I understand why he does it, to attract higher rated horses, but Phil Smith must be stopped from artificially altering the result of the race and making a mockery of the handicap system.

Agree or disagree?

[Euronymous]

Completely agree. Ironically Hemmings is such a National fan boy he'd have got Sherwood to get the horse to take his chance off a more realistic mark.

[EC1]

Phil Smith has said that winner Many Clouds will go up 7lbs for his National win. Then in the same breath he says he will only go up 1lb for next years National because of the adjustment factor he uses.

I don't like taking away from the winner of the great race, but he was already well in this year being able to run from below his official rating and Smith is now going to allow him to run a further 6lbs well in next year.

There is something fundamentally wrong with this, and it has been since he took this approach. His actions have potentially decided the National winner for 2015 and denied Tom George a win.

Saint Are had gone up 14 pounds prior and was hardly hidden away to get a mark. He was potentially denied his win by Phil Smith not Many Clouds. Don't forget this was Saint Are's highest winning mark as a 9 year old Tim Vaughan off-cast so he wasn't done any favours off 141, which couldn't have been classed as on an attractive mark after 21 handicap chases and a highest previous winning mark of 137. Whereas Many Clouds had run to a mark beyond that which Phil Smith allotted him in his previous three chases. That's just plain wrong any way round I think about it.

I understand why he does it, to attract higher rated horses, but Phil Smith must be stopped from artificially altering the result of the race and making a mockery of the handicap system.

Agree or disagree?

I'm not sure what he is trying to achieve..the general public don't care what rating any horse has that runs in it..so who exactly is he trying to impress by giving high weights what amounts to a 6 or 7 length edge.

Lets say in the next ten years that the top weight wins 5 or 6 times due to them being well in every year. There will be an outcry from other trainers..especially when their horse who gets beat goes up more in the weights than the winner.

Its a complete nonsense imo..i'm not that bothered about the National..but i just don't see any reason for changing the rules for it. As i said..the main people watching this are people who don't care about whether really good horses run it or not..in fact the grand nationals from the past that adorn the screen in replays are full of a lot bad horses..no one who watches the race cares..its 40 runners..thats it.

[tiggers1972]

Agree again, load of old tosh, makes you think why they bother with ratings to start with if he decides they are worthless come the big race.

[simmo]

The handicapping system for the Grand National was changed to this years ago - around 2004 or so. Since then every horse running off a high mark has been given what could be considered a lenient mark. In only 1 case since then has that actually made any difference to the result. Hardly life changing or something which Phil Smith "must" be forced to stop.

[Grey]

I agree, Simmo.

There are too many horses as it is staying in their stables, running on sand and over hurdles, or over inadequate trips in order to protect their marks rather than doing what they're good at. Smith's policy gives the better horses a chance to show us their talent without getting hammered for it.

[Maruco]

One is one too many simmo. And what if he comes back next year and wins when he's a further 6lb's well in, which isn't beyond the realms of possibility.

And what did the winning owners get 500k or so? What was the difference for 2nd place? I don't know with0ut checking but a significant sum I'd imagine. Saint Are and his owners will never go down in history as a Grand National winners and they deserved to be. If I owned Saint Are I'd be seriously unhappy, so I'd say to contrary, it is life changing in the loosest sense.

The gist of Phil Smith's argument is that the distance has an impact on ratings. That's cobblers. The bottom line is you can be the best rated horse in the race and never get the trip. Perhaps he should apply the same logic between two mile and three mile races and completely tie the handicapping system in knots?!

It's just wrong on every level, and now we've had a winner that's made it wrong. In fact while I think about it wasn't Neptune Collonges well in on his system. If so that's 2 winners in 10 that he's potentially manufactured.

[Maruco]

I agree, Simmo.

There are too many horses as it is staying in their stables, running on sand and over hurdles, or over inadequate trips in order to protect their marks rather than doing what they're good at. Smith's policy gives the better horses a chance to show us their talent without getting hammered for it.

The better horses get their chance in grade 1's and 2's Grey. The National is a Class B handicap. If they're good enough they can still win anyway. Don't forget Many Clouds was still entitled to go close, even if he wouldn't have quite won.

I've no sympathy whatsoever with trainers who leave their horses in boxes. There are more than enough races in the programme, and the graded horses are running for decent prizemoney anyway.

[granger]

It's a double standard for sure. Phil Smith playing Jesus is how I have seen it described

[simmo]

One is one too may simmo. And what if he comes back next year and wins when he's a further 6lb's well in, which isn't beyond the realms of possibility.

And what did the winning owners get 500k or so? What was the difference for 2nd place? I don't know with0ut checking but a significant sum I'd imagine. Saint Are and his owners will never go down in history as a Grand National winners and they deserved to be. If I owned Saint Are I'd be seriously unhappy. I'd also say to contrary, it is life changing in the loosest sense.

The gist of Phil Smith's argument is that the distance has an impact on ratings. That's cobblers. The bottom line is you can be the best rated horse in the race and never get the trip. Perhaps he should apply the same logic between two mile and three mile races and completely tie the handicapping system in knots?!

It's just wrong on every level, and now we've had a winner that's made it wrong. In fact while I think about it wasn't Neptune Collonges well in on his system. If so that's 2 winners in 10 that he's potentially manufactured.

Afraid I can't muster the same enthusiasm for the discussion as the fevered passion that you've worked yourself up to, but I'll give it a shot.

The change came about as a result of the fact that very few high class horses were turning up for the event, resulting in loads of shite running in the race. There was an argument at the time, IIRC, that this was having a negative impact on the number of fallers.

Therefore it is not the case that it is wrong on every level, although I cede that it is wrong on every level in your opinion.

Neptune Collonges ran off a mark of 157. In his last race prior to the GN he had been beaten a snotter off 159 by a horse rated 138, whilst carrying 14lbs more than it. Just on simple 1lb a length (don't shoot me ratings chappies!!!), a mark of 157 would give the winner of the race 5lbs improvement, which seems fair enough to me.

In any case, simply allotting a horse a lower mark than normal for the GN is not "manufacturing" a winner of the race. If it was - then every race since the change would have been one by one of Phil Smith's chosen few.

Who is to say that Saint Are would have won even had Many Clouds been carrying the 1lb extra he could have done (top weight) and Saint Are had run off 10st2lbs? I don't think that I buy the argument that 1lb extra would have made a difference to Many clouds performance.

I think that's about all I can manage for the minute. Suffice to say that it's not as cut and dried as you believe.

[Desert Orchid]

Phil Smith has said that winner Many Clouds will go up 7lbs for his National win. Then in the same breath he says he will only go up 1lb for next years National because of the adjustment factor he uses.

I don't like taking away from the winner of the great race, but he was already well in this year being able to run from below his official rating and Smith is now going to allow him to run a further 6lbs well in next year.

Agree or disagree?

I have to disagree with your interpretation of what he's said, Maruco. When he says MC will only be 1lb higher next year he means the max the horse will have to carry is 11-10 (cf 11-9 this year). He'll be rated higher so other good horses will have lower weights. He might allow him a couple of pounds in line with his approach to handicapping the race - which I agree with wholeheartedly - so he might be rated 165 on the day.

Then again, what if he comes out and shows in other races that he's improved to become a 175 horse? He'll get in off 170 probably but those same good other horses will have less to carry.

I think he's doing a brilliant job with his handicapping of the race.

[Maruco]

1lb over four and half miles is clearly important to Phil Smith otherwise he wouldn't have adjusted him. It contradicts what you're saying if you think about it simmo.

[Maruco]

I have to disagree with your interpretation of what he's said, Maruco. When he says MC will only be 1lb higher next year he means the max the horse will have to carry is 11-10 (cf 11-9 this year). He'll be rated higher so other good horses will have lower weights. He might allow him a couple of pounds in line with his approach to handicapping the race - which I agree with wholeheartedly - so he might be rated 165 on the day.

Then again, what if he comes out and shows in other races that he's improved to become a 175 horse? He'll get in off 170 probably but those same good other horses will have less to carry.

I think he's doing a brilliant job with his handicapping of the race.

That's fair enough if I've misinterpreted his intentions DO, but it doesn't alter my view that the connections of Saint Are have been hard done by. Phil Smith has taken the race from them. Unfairly by altering the rules of handicapping.

[pdleech]

I have to disagree with your interpretation of what he's said, Maruco. When he says MC will only be 1lb higher next year he means the max the horse will have to carry is 11-10 (cf 11-9 this year). He'll be rated higher so other good horses will have lower weights. He might allow him a couple of pounds in line with his approach to handicapping the race - which I agree with wholeheartedly - so he might be rated 165 on the day.

Then again, what if he comes out and shows in other races that he's improved to become a 175 horse? He'll get in off 170 probably but those same good other horses will have less to carry.

I think he's doing a brilliant job with his handicapping of the race.

Have to agree with DO's interpretation of what Phil Smith said; basically Many Clouds will have to give away more weight because of his higher rating. There is, of course, a much greater likelihood of horses running from out of the handicap and, to that extent, those horses would be disadvantaged; not because of Many Clouds rating but because of the maximum and minimum weights.

[viking]

I have to disagree with your interpretation of what he's said, Maruco. When he says MC will only be 1lb higher next year he means the max the horse will have to carry is 11-10 (cf 11-9 this year). He'll be rated higher so other good horses will have lower weights. He might allow him a couple of pounds in line with his approach to handicapping the race - which I agree with wholeheartedly - so he might be rated 165 on the day.

Then again, what if he comes out and shows in other races that he's improved to become a 175 horse? He'll get in off 170 probably but those same good other horses will have less to carry.

I think he's doing a brilliant job with his handicapping of the race.

That's what I understood from Phil Smith's comments too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[simmo]

1lb over four and half miles is clearly important to Phil Smith otherwise he wouldn't have adjusted him. It contradicts what you're saying if you think about it simmo.

What important to Phil Smith and what's important to me might not necessarily be the same thing......

edit: to clarify - some of my post reflects a defence of Phil Smith and some of it is my own views. Apologies if the dichotomy causes confusion!

[Desert Orchid]

That's fair enough if I've misinterpreted his intentions DO, but it doesn't alter my view that the connections of Saint Are have been hard done by. Phil Smith has taken the race from them. Unfairly by altering the rules of handicapping.

I disagree with this element too.

The National is a unique test. It requires a unique approach to handicapping.

I'm of the opinion that Mr Smith has addressed very successfully a situation that previously disadvantaged the better horses to the point that connections were voting with their feet. It's basic physics. Just as the notional 3.6 lbs per length for 5 furlongs doesn't really apply at Epsom because it is downhill, so the handicapping scale for the National requires adjustment for the uniqueness of the test.

It is entirely likely that MC wouldn't have won without the adjustment but apart from me who else complained when Dawn Run got a 5lbs allowance without which she almost certainly wouldn't have beaten Wayward Lad, and that allowance has since been increased by a further 2lbs.

Do connections of beaten horses in big handicaps complain if they are beaten by one ridden by a brilliant claimer who is value for more than his allowance?

These phenomena are there for a reason: to make things as fair as possible for as many as possible and, in the big scheme of things, they work very well.

[Maruco]

But surely the unique test of the National is primarily about a horse's ability to get the four and half mile trip rather than Phil Smith's unique approach to the race.

Rocky Creek doesn't get the trip whatever he does, neither did Lord Windemere who was the biggest beneficiary of Smith. In terms of claims Mon Parrain despite the excellent claim of Sean Bowen also didn't get the trip. They were all beaten a long way out, and in Rocky Creek's case for the second year in a row. Others will be beaten because they don't take to the fences, while some can't go the pace, or are ground dependant. You say it takes a unique approach to handicapping so needs a unique approach, so tell me home Phil Smith can't possibly know these things and take any approach that can have a reasonable basis behind it?

Does Phil Smith's approach account for all this, or is he simply handing a fundamental advantage to a horse that is already built perfectly for the unique test? This is the second time he's had an impact on the result in the last 4 runnings. Neptune Collonges was 2lbs well in and beat Sunnyhillboy by a nose. Another horse denied by interference from the handicapper.

[Desert Orchid]

No, of course horses won't get the trip just as some sprinters wouldn't get a mile but you still get them running in the Guineas and milers don't win Derbies. They are irrelevant other than the added intrigue of whether they might get the trip.

But the ones you mention weren't deemed non-stayers until they tried and even now there will still be debate about their stamina. Even Rocky Creek was heavily touted as 'the one' this year but never travelled as well as last year anyway and I imagine at some point Nicholls will say the horse had a problem and he wants another go. Lord Windermere has run like a coo every time this season and it's possible last year's Gold Cup has sickened him for good but he was not deemed a non-stayer and I haven't read anywhere since last week that he didn't stay. Mon Parrain's form was said by some to have improved when he was stepped up to three miles so why shouldn't he have stayed? (I have my own answer to that.)

All irrelevant.

It's physics. The more stamina required the more effect the weight has. Try holding a can of beans at full arm's length. It will be okay for a wee while but see how much longer you can hold it there. It will get very painful trying.

Or what about the argument that maybe Saint Are would have won if he'd stalked Many Clouds rather than giving him a lead? We get that argument in umpteen races every week; why not in the Grand National?

Phil Smith, in my opinion, is not handing any horse a fundamental advantage. He is levelling the playing field as far as possible and is to be commended for it.

[moehat]

I'd like to feel aggrieved by Saint Are coming second as I really thought this year was his year but what the handicapper can't take into account is heart and guts and Many Clouds has those in abundance.