- This topic has 365 replies, 45 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
It’s hard to tell though, isn’t it? We can only guess at the progression these mares might have made from 3-4 (if any).
You look back and you remember Danedream, Treve etc as great horses because of what they did in the Arc. Perhaps a combination of the visual memories and the usual swirl of post-race hype makes you forget the ridiculous weight differential and think they were further superior than the reality of it.
Would Danedream have won off level weights against So You Think and St Nicholas Abbey? Would Enable have beaten Cloth Of Stars or Ulysses off level weights at Longchamp? Would Zarkava have beaten Youmzain and Soldier Of Fortune?
I don’t believe you’d make ‘yes!’ shorter than 5/6 off levels for any of those.
If you were saying that the 3 year old allowance is a pound or two too much and the fillies allowance a pound too much, then I might be able to agree with you; LS.
However, what evidence have you that the weight and sex allowances are a “ridiculous weight differential”?Weight differential of three year olds take in to account their relative immaturity and sex allowance takes in to account the relatively weaker sex… In theory allowing all to have an equal chance.
It is impossible to take the Arc in isolation. Only natural there’s going to be a race somewhere that is for a period dominated by a certain sex or a certain age. Although it is possible this time of year brings more fillies to their peak form.
Taking all races together… over time we’ve had far more top class males than top class females. You think 3 lbs sex allowance is too much, but even by adding 3 lbs to the top rated females (like it would be in a race) means ony 1 of the top rated 16 horses are female. That being the sprinting two year old of 1955 Star Of India who was either over-rated on 138 or injured and didn’t train on. “Timeform Favourite Horses” states her three year old season was delayed by training mishaps and apparently looked “most unimpressive in the paddock” and “grown little” in her one race at three… Best Timeform rated females without Star Of India are Allez France, Black Caviar and Habibti all on 136. (Think I’ve forgotten one?)
If there were no sex allowance, then without Star Of India the Timeform top 50 rated horses of all time would all be male. Doesn’t sound to me as if that 3 lbs sex allowance is “ridiculous”.
If there were no sex allowance then no females would take on males – there’d be no point because they’d be at a big disadvantage. Even more so with 3 year olds against older horses.
Value Is EverythingEnable is a glaring example of what is wrong with the WFA/gender allowance system (as I was banging on about before the race). I suspect we’re committed to it because of the international implications of trying to make changes.
ORs are a long established measure of a horse’s merit and are at their most reliable, imo, in pattern races. What is wrong with simply using a horse’s rating in pattern races on which to base gender/age allowances? I’d imagine that in many cases fillies and younger horses would get more weight from the older horses than the current system offers. Where a horse has not yet been given an official rating, the current scale for gender/WFA could come into play.
It probably is just we’ve been blessed with s lot of good fillies plus too many top three year old sent to stud after their three year old campaigns are finished. Danedream couldn’t repeat her performance next year so maybe there is just something in the allowances. Just goes to show what w brilliant horse alleged was. Just look he he beat in his two arcs. Was the top rated horse at that time in the globe.
What you mean Danedream couldn´t repeat it?
Her campaign the following year was designed to peak for the Arc. Yet she became the first filly to win the KG in 29 years beating one of the best KG fields in recent memories including Nathaniel and SNA. She also gave weight to the Japanese Derby winner in that race. Then she went into the GP of Baden-Baden as a PREP for the Arc and gave weight away to Novellist and Pastorius. That was the last defeat in Novellist´s career as he went on to win the Premio Jockey Club, the GP Saint Cloud, the King George and the GP Baden-Baden before missing the Arc as the ante-post favourite. Pastorius was the German Derby winner and later won the Ganay also got weight from Danedream.
Given that Solemia won the Arc in 2012 as a four year old, and Danedream acted well on heavy ground, it´s hardly a stretch to suggest she would have won the Arc as well, if not for the equine disease outbreak.
So I have no idea what you talking about.
Having said all that, Ulysses price might simply be based on the pretty daft gender/age system we have in our multi-billion dollar industry where one racehorse with 4 legs, rated 127, must give another racehorse with 4 legs, rated 126, 10lbs.
Your point that judged by the official ratings it’s “pretty daft” one giving the other 10 lbs, does not make sense.
I don’t look at OR’s Joe, but presumably the WFA is 7 lbs and the sex allowance is 3 lbs adding up to 10 lbs?
Official ratings take in to account the weight for age scale at whatever time of year it may be. In this case 7 lbs.
If it did not already take weight for age in to account the ratings would say that Ulysses was 8 lbs higher than Enable, not just the 1 lb. But if it did so that would be misleading, because (in the opinion of the handicapper) the four year old Ulysses was a 1 lb better horse than the 3 year old Enable. Although presumably the ratings you were looking at were before the 3 lbs sex allowance puts Enable 2 lbs in front of Ulysses? Or do you mean that the handicapper actually had Ulysses a 4 lbs better horse reduced to 1 lb once the sex allowance was taken in to account?
Value Is EverythingEnable is a glaring example of what is wrong with the WFA/gender allowance system (as I was banging on about before the race). I suspect we’re committed to it because of the international implications of trying to make changes.
ORs are a long established measure of a horse’s merit and are at their most reliable, imo, in pattern races. What is wrong with simply using a horse’s rating in pattern races on which to base gender/age allowances? I’d imagine that in many cases fillies and younger horses would get more weight from the older horses than the current system offers. Where a horse has not yet been given an official rating, the current scale for gender/WFA could come into play.
Eh? Can’t follow that, Joe. Care to give examples?
Value Is EverythingHaving said all that, Ulysses price might simply be based on the pretty daft gender/age system we have in our multi-billion dollar industry where one racehorse with 4 legs, rated 127, must give another racehorse with 4 legs, rated 126, 10lbs.
Those ratings already took in to account the 7 lbs of the weight for age scale, Joe.
If it did not already take weight for age in to account the ratings would be 8 lbs different, not just 1 lb.So your point that judged on the ratings it’s “pretty daft” Ulysses giving 10 lbs to Enable does not make sense.
If I am reading Joe correctly here, he seems to be making the case for The Arc De Triomphe being a Handicap race
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Mark, I think we are at cross purpose here because I am seeing something quite clearly that you are seeing in a completely different light (or the other way round).
Are you saying that WFA is taken into account automatically when the BHA handicappers compile official ratings? Surely the OR for each horse is nothing but a pure measure of that animal’s merit not adjusted for any other eventuality? If not, then Enable’s OR going into the Arc (which you believe to be pre-adjusted to take into account WFA/gender) would need to be adjusted were she to run against her own gender and age group? Forget about handicapping here, I’m talking about purely measuring merit.
If your argument is that Ulysses 127 was the rating which was adjusted, then when he runs against his own kind, would that come down to 120? It’s unworkable.
To try to clarify what I am advocating: my preference would be that pattern races are run at level weights at all times. If a filly or a 3-y-o of either gender is considered good enough to take on older horses then it should do so at levels. Otherwise it should stay in its own age group until it is considered good enough/mature enough to challenge all comers.
But that won’t happen. The BHA is committed to its agreement with the European Pattern Committee (EPC) who control the WFA structure. That structure is based on guesswork regarding the relative rate of maturity with a catch-all scale irrespective of a horse’s birth date, precocity or, more importantly to my mind its innate talent (their most recent change to the structure was in September 2016 after research showed that 3-y-olds were doing better from July onwards than the scale ‘allowed for’)
So, given that some form of WFA concession will be maintained because of EPC rules, I say it would be fairer to weight qualifying horses (3-y-olds in all age pattern races for example) according to their official rating.
Under that system, Enable would have been receiving 4lbs from Ulysses on Sunday (assuming the gender allowance was upheld) and 1lb if it were not. Under the system I propose, had Enable been rated 116 rather than 126, she’d have received 11lbs from Ulysses as a concession to her gender/age.
For all-aged pattern races in the UK, an OR-based system could be applied quite easily. In the case of an entry where the horse has not yet been allocated an OR then the current WFA/gender structure could be used to decide the weight for the ratingless horse(s).
For international races, the EPC would need to extend their current structure (20 handicappers from all countries involved agree a single rating for ‘elite’ animals) to cover all potential entrants. (In my Enable Arc example above I am presupposing this to have been done on a straight conversion of UK ratings).
I say it would be fairer to weight qualifying horses (3-y-olds in all age pattern races for example) according to their official rating.
But that is basically proposing to turn the Arc into a handicap race Joe. Essentially all these races will become high class handicaps under your system.
Your earlier proposal about all horses running off the same weight is an admirable one, but surely seriously flawed. It would put trainers off running horses like Enable in such contests, making them much less interesting races. Races like the Arc would simply be contested between four and five year olds, with the occasional year featuring a really brilliant three year old like Sea the stars.
In order to make it a more level playing field, I would simply slash a couple of pounds off the three year old fillies allowance, instead.
It already is a handicap Judge because the current WFA has made it so. Enable was a blot on Sunday – 9lbs well in with Ulysses and probably about 19lbs well in with the runner-up (he has no official recent OR).
The race conditions handicap older horses. What I am saying is that if there must be a handicap for age/sex, then make it a fairer one than it currently is.
Graded races should pit the best against the best without fear or favour. As Stuart Riley (Racing Post) pointed out on Twitter this evening, when Usain Bolt entered open races as a teenager he didn’t get a five yard start.
Are you saying that WFA is taken into account automatically when the BHA handicappers compile official ratings? Surely the OR for each horse is nothing but a pure measure of that animal’s merit not adjusted for any other eventuality? If not, then Enable’s OR going into the Arc (which you believe to be pre-adjusted to take into account WFA/gender) would need to be adjusted were she to run against her own gender and age group? Forget about handicapping here, I’m talking about purely measuring merit.
If your argument is that Ulysses 127 was the rating which was adjusted, then when he runs against his own kind, would that come down to 120? It’s unworkable.
Yes, the “WFA is taken in to account automatically when the BHA handicappers compile official ratings”. Same goes for Timeform or any other organisation that does ratings. If you’ve got a Timeform Racehorses annual look just inside the back cover at the Age, Weight & Distance Table.
Yes, “the OR for each horse is nothing but a measure of that animal’s merit”… Because of the weight for age scale… ie At 12f in early October three year olds are all judged against the weight of 9 stone 7 pounds. All 4yo+ horses are judged against a different weight, in early October 10 stone.
So no, Enable’s rating going in to the Arc would not “need to be adjusted running against her own age and gender”… Because all three year olds are judged against the same/one weight. What that “weight” is depends on time of year and distance, the weight differential between 4 and 3 year olds increasing with each furlong and coming down the further we get through the season. **
Likewise, when fillies race against each other in filly only races there’s no need to adjust the ratings, again because all three year olds are rated against one weight and all 4yo+ are rated against one weight. The only adjustment that needs to be made is the sex allowance when fillies or mares meet colts or geldings.
IF Ulysses rating remains at 127 and he runs “against his own kind” then it remains 127 because all 4yo+ are judged against the same/one weight.
If there were no weight for age scale then older horses would beat the younger horses not because of superior ability but in the majority of cases just because it’s older than the three year old. Whole point of the weight for age scale is to allow 3 year olds to compete with older horses on equal terms. May be the current scale does give 3 year olds an unfair advantage towards the end of the year, but it’s only by a small amount. It probably also favours older horses in the early months of the season. Indeed, Timeform’s weight for age scale is slightly different to the official/BHA’s; bigger difference when it comes to 2 year olds.
** I’ve seen people on here suggesting an older horse running at Glorious Goodwood is X lbs better off with a particular horse than at Royal Ascot and therefore on form should reverse placings. Not necessarily. Has to be understood weight difference in the weight for age scale (smaller allowance in August compared with mid June) allows for three year olds natural progression. Three year olds must make natural progression through the year in order to maintain its rating. If showing less than natural progression its rating will go down, if showing greater than natural progression its rating will increase. In other words; if a three year old beats a four year old by 1/2 length over 12f at Royal Ascot and the four year old is 2 lbs “better off” at Goodwood… Does not mean the 4 year old is weighted to come out in front.
Value Is EverythingMark, I’ve never heard that argument in my life and unless I’m misunderstanding you completely here I’m sure you are wrong.
In allocating an official rating the BHA is saying forget about its age, this is the merit of this horse. If a 3-y-o and a 4-y-o are both rated 100 then the BHA is effectively saying that if they met at levels they would dead heat.
If I am understanding your argument correctly you are saying that in the above scenario the older horse would actually be 7lbs well in as the handicapper has measured his rating against a frame of reference half a stone higher than his rival?
The Timeform WFA table you refer to is to give you the allowance the younger horse in this match would receive. And I believe Timeform do indeed allow for this in their race ratings. But the BHA does not make a race by race allowance, otherwise that rating would need constant adjustment as time passed without evidence of a change in merit.
RPRs are also adjusted race by race and doubtless other rating systems do the same. But the OR is a master rating and not subject to adjustment by race conditions. If this is not the case then I’ve been labouring under a huge misunderstanding for a very long time.
Mark, I’ve never heard that argument in my life and unless I’m misunderstanding you completely here I’m sure you are wrong.
In allocating an official rating the BHA is saying forget about its age, this is the merit of this horse. If a 3-y-o and a 4-y-o are both rated 100 then the BHA is effectively saying that if they met at levels they would dead heat.
If I am understanding your argument correctly you are saying that in the above scenario the older horse would actually be 7lbs well in as the handicapper has measured his rating against a frame of reference half a stone higher than his rival?
I suppose BHA might give ratings before weight for age is taken in to account, Joe… Because that would explain why there’s far fewer three year olds in big handicaps these days. (I use only Timeform ratings in form study, never looking at BHA ratings). However, that would mean in Early October a three year old given the same rating as a four year old at 12f would effectively be 7 lbs better than the older horse.
Or to put it another way… The Handicapper is rating the two horses the same and yet – in the handicapper’s own opinion he’s still saying once the weight for age scale is taken in to account – if the two met off the same weight the 4 year old should come out on top by a 7 lbs margin.
Either way, that does not mean Group 1’s should be made in to a handicap like you’re suggesting.
Value Is EverythingIt already is a handicap Judge because the current WFA has made it so. Enable was a blot on Sunday – 9lbs well in with Ulysses and probably about 19lbs well in with the runner-up (he has no official recent OR).
The race conditions handicap older horses. What I am saying is that if there must be a handicap for age/sex, then make it a fairer one than it currently is.
Graded races should pit the best against the best without fear or favour. As Stuart Riley (Racing Post) pointed out on Twitter this evening, when Usain Bolt entered open races as a teenager he didn’t get a five yard start.
Okay you say the WFA is unfair. Why so few three year old runners then, when it´s such a huge advantage
2017: 5 of 18, three year olds.
2016: 6 of 18, three year olds.
2015: 6 of 18, three year olds.
2014: 10 of 20, three year olds.
2013: 9 of 17, three year olds.
2012: 8 of 18, three year olds.
2011: 8 of 16, three year olds.
2010: 8 of 18, three year olds.
2009: 7 of 19, three year olds.
2008: 5 of 16, three year olds.13 of a potential 30 places (43.3%)
72 of 178 runners (40.4%)If there was a WFA bias, why is the podium not dominated by them.
The three year olds that have won or placed in an Arc over the last 10 years are
3 year old winners: Enable, Golden Horn, Treve, Danedream, Workforce, Sea The Stars, Zarkava (70%)
3 year old runner-ups: Shareta (10%)
3 year old third placed: Intello, New Bay, Taghrooda, Masterstroke, Sarafina , Cavalryman (50%)
Now let´s look at the winners:
Sea The Stars six G1 wins (retired)
Treve six G1 wins (50% as an older horse)
Danedream five G1 wins (40% as an older horse)
Zarkava five G1 wins (retired)
Enable five G1 wins (to be decided)
Golden Horn four G1 wins (retired)
Workforce two G1 wins (0% as an older horse)So all the recent three year old Arc winners have won a minimum of four G1 races except Workforce, which tells me they must have been pretty decent animals.
Shareta two G1 wins (100% as an older horse)
Sarafina three G1 wins (0% as an older horse)
Taghrooda two G1 wins (retired)
Intello one G1 win (retired)
New Bay one G1 win (0% as an older horse)
Cavalryman one G1 win (0& as an older horse)
Masterstroke no G1 win (0% as an older horse)Of the fillies that stayed in training: Treve, Danedream and Shareta were just as successful or even moreso as older horses. The only exception is really Sarafina. Then 2011 was a much stronger year than 2010. She still finished better in that Arc than Workforce or Nakayama Festa.
Seems the system works pretty well. It´s never going to be an exact science, but it seems the best horses of their generation win the Arc more often than not.
It already is a handicap Judge because the current WFA has made it so. Enable was a blot on Sunday – 9lbs well in with Ulysses and probably about 19lbs well in with the runner-up (he has no official recent OR).
The race conditions handicap older horses. What I am saying is that if there must be a handicap for age/sex, then make it a fairer one than it currently is.
Graded races should pit the best against the best without fear or favour. As Stuart Riley (Racing Post) pointed out on Twitter this evening, when Usain Bolt entered open races as a teenager he didn’t get a five yard start.
At what age do human athletes take on their elders? Human body is pretty much fully formed at 18. Where as 3 year old horses are not fully formed. It would perhaps be fairer to compare 3 year old horses with a 16 year old Usain Bolt taking on his elders.
There are reasons why younger human athletes do not take on their elders, because it would not be fair. Although I’ve often wondered if the elder athletes were to wear weights in their socks whether a weight for age scale could be introduced in order to allow juvenile athletes to take on their heros? Ditto for men to wear weighted socks in races against women?
Actually, I do remember at my old school sports day, ex-pupil and at that time British 4 X 400 team member, Olympic Silver medalist and World Indoor record holder Todd Bennett taking on children in our 400 metres. Guess who won? Don’t think he had weighted socks!
If you had your way Joe, “the best” would not take on “the best” because you would not get 3 year olds contesting all aged events. Every Group 1 would have pretty much the same few horses. Three year olds would race against three year olds and older horses never need to test their ability against three year olds. Look at how competitive those restricted to 4yo+ are compared to open age races. There’d be no more “Duel(s) On The Downs” etc. No Enable taking on Ulysses. No Golden Horn taking on Treve. No Grundy Vs Bustino.
Weight For Age allows 3 year olds to take on their elders with only a fair allowance; that’s “FAIR”. Fair to 3 year olds and fair to older horses. It “handicaps” nobody.
Value Is EverythingSteeplechasing is oh-so-right here.
The notion of a sex allowance in horse racing is also quite dubious.
Ulysses certainly has had some hard tasks this year
10 lbs to Barney in the Eclipse
14 lbs & 10 lbs to EnableQuite obvious these allowances are an advantage for a top class filly, in hindsight it was mission impossible. You feel more for Cloth of Stars who obviously had been aimed at the race all bloody year
Unless it changes we could see more and more top 3YO colts off to stud early and the Eclipse and KG becoming 3 year old races.
Ulysses certainly has had some hard tasks this year
10 lbs to Barney in the Eclipse
14 lbs & 10 lbs to EnableQuite obvious these allowances are an advantage for a top class filly, in hindsight it was mission impossible. You feel more for Cloth of Stars who obviously had been aimed at the race all bloody year 😥
Unless it changes we could see more and more top 3YO colts off to stud early and the Eclipse and KG becoming 3 year old races.
Why is it not unfair to Enable to run all summer, while Cloth of Stars is well rested. You want total parity, so why not make rules about running frequency, too?
Is Cloth of Stars really better than OoSG, Ulysses or Dschingis Secret? Or did he simply benefit from less races, a better draw and different, less ambitious tactics.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.