- This topic has 365 replies, 45 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
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.
Not worthy of your usual well thought out opinions Botchy.
In early July Ulysses gave 10 lbs and yet beat Barney Roy – latter a top class racehorse who probably would’ve won a good Guineas had he had the same experience/ride as the winner (a Dewhurst winner); with future Marois winner Al Wukair behind. Then, Barney Roy went on to victory producing top class sectionals in the St James’s Palace – and yet Ulysses beat Barney Roy. Two of them went on to the International in late August where (allowing for it being later in the year) the older horse gave 3 lbs less than at Sandown… And yet (again) Ulysses beat Barney Roy. Why shouldn’t it be a “hard task” for Ulysses to beat such a top class 3 year old. It was also a “hard task” for the 3 year old to beat the top class 4 year old Ulysses even in receipt of that weight – actually it proved impossible.
Allowances have worked well for generations. There may be a case for a reduction in the 3 year old and filly allowances, but not by much. It should be “mission impossible” for Ulysses to beat such a fantastic 3 year old filly. Ulysses is top class but he did not beat other horses by massive amounts.ie He can not be judged as an absolutely outstanding racehorse. So it is entirely right that an absolutely outstanding 3 year old filly beat him – especially at 12f, as Ulysses is probably a pound or two better at 10. Cloth Of Stars improved but just isn’t good enough at least at this stage. Whole point of allowances is to allow horses to meet on equal terms. In ratings terms (measuring their ability) Cloth Of Stars and Ulysses are just not as good four year old colts than Enable is a three year old filly.
As I said, it may be the case that this time of year (Autumn, perhaps something to do with the female cycle in horses). It does not give fillies an advantage as such. They’re not capable of better form there’s just more “in form” fillies. Hence more fillies winning the Arc.
But look at the King George:
Of the last 22 King George winners:
17 (over 77%) have been 4 year olds+.
Only 5 (under 23%) have been 3 year olds.
Only 2 of those 5 have been female.
Filly Danedream (an Arc winner) only just got up to win it as a 4 year old.
Before Danedream in 2012 you need to go back another 29 years to 1983 for a filly winner of the King George, Time Charter… And she was a 4 year old.
Before Taghrooda won in 2014 you need to go back another 38 years to 1976 for a three year old filly winner, Pawneese.It was only a matter of a few years ago people were saying it wasn’t worth 3 year olds running in the King George because the weight for age system was supposedly against them. Now it’s the opposite.
It’s a similar story with the Eclipse:
Of the last 26 runnings:
19 (over 73%) were won by 4yo+
Only 7 (under 27%) were won by 3 year olds.
You need to go back to 1992 to find a filly and she was a 4 year old, Kooyonga. Pebbles also won in 1985 as a 4 year old.
I’ve gone back 50 years and can not find a 3 year old filly winning the Eclipse.How is the King George and Eclipse going to become “3 year old races”?
Value Is EverythingI am not saying the WFA scale is unfair per se, but that it is badly out of whack when an outlier like Enable comes along. The scale was introduced 150 years ago when there was, to the best of my knowledge, no formal way of measuring the merit of horses.
Here we are in 2017 with abundant technology, superb trainers, top nutrition, and reams and reams of data. Should we really still be using Admiral Rous’s weight for age scale?
I don’t want to see all horses sticking to their own age group, but when they meet, the handicap penalty paid by an older horse should not be based on a system from the 1800s which does not take current merit into account. I don’t buy GT’s argument that a younger horse might have more merit and it is immaturity that is preventing it from showing that merit. A horse’s capabilities at the relevant point in time are what it should be measured on.
And I don’t see the point of condemning such an idea as one which turns all-aged group races into handicaps. Effectively that is exactly what they are now. To be clear, in pattern races with say 8 horses the same age, all 8 would carry the same weight irrespective of their OR. If two younger horses are in the race then the weight they get from the older horses should be based on their official rating.
Doing it this way, when the likes of Enable comes along and wins an Arc in the way she does, you get a much more accurate measure of what has been achieved. The fact that under such a system Enable would arguably have struggled to be placed in the Arc should not be a consideration in opposing the idea. The connections of Cloth of Stars, Ulysses and all other competitors have as much right as those of Enable to compete under a fairer system than WFA/gender offers.
Steeplechasing is oh-so-right here.
The notion of a sex allowance in horse racing is also quite dubious.
Please give evidence.
I went through all the British Group 1s noting down the Timeform performance rating of the last 5 winners.
Average 2000 Guineas winner was rated 8 lbs better than the average 1000 Guineas winner. 5 lbs if adding the fillies allowance (like it would be in a race).
Average Derby winners rated 10 lbs better than the average Oaks winner. 7 lbs if adding the fillies allowance.
It’s a similar story with all Group 1’s restricted to fillies, including those open to older horses. The average fillies Group 1 is not as good as the average colts Group 1 let alone those open to both sexes.Average winner of a Group 1 restricted to males (let alone those open to both sexes) is rated significantly ahead of the average winner of Group 1s restricted to fillies… and that’s even when adding the 3 lbs of the sex allowance.
It may be true that fillies that do take on the colts have an excellent record. I have no doubt in open races the percentage of fillies winning (number of filly winners in open gender races divided by number of filly runners in those races) is a lot better than males in open gender races (number of males winning divided by number of males running). But (and this is vital to understand) that’s only because the vast majority of fillies keep to racing against their own gender UNLESS they’re thought of by connections as truly outstanding. ie Most fillies Group 1 winners do not take on the colts, only the outstanding ones do. Therefore, it’s only to be expected fillies have a good record when taking on colts.
Value Is EverythingSo you generally believe in WFA, but you are unhappy, when great horses get the same treatment as all other horses? The fact alone that Danedream/Enable are the only two fillies in 66 years to do the KG/Arc double and Treve is the second filly in 97 years to the Arc double should tell you: Maybe it´s the class of the horses that´s created the problem, not the WFA scale.
Cloth of Stars was just a one time Gr.2/Gr.3 winner as a three year old.
Ulysses was just a one time Gr.3 winner as a three year old.
Dschingis Secret was a one time Gr.3 winner as a three year old.Comparing that to what Enable did at the same age, you´d have a better case to argue that the WFA was not enough that such mediocre three year olds even got that close as matured four year olds.
So you generally believe in WFA, but you are unhappy, when great horses get the same treatment as all other horses? The fact alone that Danedream/Enable are the only two fillies in 66 years to do the KG/Arc double and Treve is the second filly in 97 years to the Arc double should tell you: Maybe it´s the class of the horses that´s created the problem, not the WFA scale.
Cloth of Stars was just a one time Gr.2/Gr.3 winner as a three year old.
Ulysses was just a one time Gr.3 winner as a three year old.
Dschingis Secret was a one time Gr.3 winner as a three year old.Comparing that to what Enable did at the same age, you´d have a better case to argue that the WFA was not enough that such mediocre three year olds even got that close as matured four year olds.
I’m neither happy nor unhappy about great horses in comparison to not so great horses. I have nothing against Enable or any other horse and have no protest to mount over all-aged races. I am against an antiquated system that sometimes penalises older animals – when an Enable comes along, but much more often it penalises younger horses (that is the implication of your research published earlier). If the system were ratings based, perhaps many more three-year-olds would contest the top races?
You suggest that the class of the horses that might have created the problem – what else is that other than merit?
We have a modern system for measuring the merit of racehorses – handicapping by way of official ratings. For the elite animal (I believe that on UK ratings that starts at 115) an EPC committee agrees standardised ratings. If that standardisation could be adopted globally for all horses, racing would be simpler to understand, easier to sell to newcomers and the market for international betting would be much, much wider.
Apart from the fairness aspect, we wonder why betting on racing steadily loses its market share with each passing year. Well, once a newbie has invested the time in learning all the jargon and basics and is about to rub his or her hands and get down to studying form, somebody happens along and says, oh by the way, you’d best have a look at this.
Doing it this way, when the likes of Enable comes along and wins an Arc in the way she does, you get a much more accurate measure of what has been achieved. The fact that under such a system Enable would arguably have struggled to be placed in the Arc should not be a consideration in opposing the idea. The connections of Cloth of Stars, Ulysses and all other competitors have as much right as those of Enable to compete under a fairer system than WFA/gender offers.
Where’s a brick wall Nathan?
Enable would not even run in the Arc, Joe. Any trainer would be a fool to race under such unfair conditions. The Arc would not be the Arc as we know it. It would be a Group 1 in all intents and purposes a Group 1 restricted to 4yo+ colts.I don’t want to see all horses sticking to their own age group,
But that’s exactly what you’ll end up with. You’re as bad as Boris wanting your cake and eating it, Joe.
should not be based on a system from the 1800s which does not take current merit into account. I don’t buy GT’s argument that a younger horse might have more merit and it is immaturity that is preventing it from showing that merit. A horse’s capabilities at the relevant point in time are what it should be measured on.
Does a horse run to its absolute best on debut? No.
Inexperience and immaturity mean the average horse should (without injury or temperament issues) improve its form with age – physical and mental development. How it is trained and experience – number of runs, how it ran in those races and what’s gone on at home all contribute. Would’ve thought everybody agreed with that? Weight For Age allows for these things.The Weight For Age Scale may have been around for centuries, but it has been modified so is in no way antiquated. Yes, may be it does need tweeking in places. Tweeking in favour of three year olds in the early months of the season as well as tweeking in favour of four year olds in the later months. But it does not need a complete overhaul.
“A horse’s capabilities at the relevent point ARE” currently “what it is measured on”. ie If a three year old filly is massively better than all other three year old fillies at the relevent point in time… Then it will beat a four year old colt who is not massively better than all other four year old colts. It may be unfortunate for Ulysses and Cloth Of Stars lovers, but that’s how it is. Under your system a four year old colt which is barely any better than other four year old colts would beat a truly outstanding three year old filly. Doesn’t sound very “fair” to me.
Value Is EverythingThe reason horse racing suffers is that the most brilliant colts/fillies like Sea The Stars, Zarkava, Golden Horn often do not stay in training. The general public wants to be attached to great horses. For that to happen you need them to show sustained excellence (especially once the greatness is established). That´s what hurts the SPORT horse racing, especially in EUROPE. In Japan, America and Australia it´s much more common that star horses stay in training. The public has no interest in a equine dating show.
Another reason is the presentation. They want to see the race record of the horse. I don´t see Enable´s race record broken down in wins, places, group levels and her prize money. I don´t see a discussion how Cloth of Stars could be dangerous based on his current form with four wins and a second. All I see are betting odds. I see discussions about which horses are value to bet on. That tells a casual nothing about what to expect in terms of winning chances or placing chances. You want more casuals interested in horse racing present it like a sport, not gamblers anonymous.
Back to the idea of handicapping rich races like the Arc. That would only lead to owners/trainers trying to cheat. Look at the incentive created by the huge Melbourne Cup prize money and all the problems they have. You have the European trainers trying to sneak in their horses at super-light weights, willingly avoiding Gr.1 races in Europe, because they are worth nothing in prize money or breeding value in comparison to a Melbourne Cup win.
Another reason is the presentation. They want to see the race record of the horse. I don´t see Enable´s race record broken down in wins, places, group levels and her prize money. I don´t see a discussion how Cloth of Stars could be dangerous based on his current form with four wins and a second. All I see are betting odds. I see discussions about which horses are value to bet on. That tells a casual nothing about what to expect in terms of winning chances or placing chances. You want more casuals interested in horse racing present it like a sport, not gamblers anonymous.
Pete,
If a “casual” wants to know about “winning chances” it’s simple; horse with the best chance of winning is usually the favourite. But talk of “value” does tell the punter something important about “winning and placing chances”. It tells what horse/s winning and/or placing chance is under-estimated by the market. If a “casual” wants to back an outsider who is he/she going to want to bet? The one available @ 20/1 that probably has only a true 50/1 chance of winning? Or the one available @ 20/1 whose true chance is that of a 10/1 shot?Gambling IS part of the attraction for most of the general public. It’s intrinsically linked to horse racing in a way that it’s not with any other sport. You can’t get away from that fact. People love the chance of getting money for nothing (well, very little). There is one thing I do agree with you. We have plenty of talk about the humans; jockey, trainer, owners, fashion, the “day out” etc; but what first got me interested in “Racing” wasn’t any of that, it was the big beautiful beast that is the horse.
Value Is EverythingWhere’s a brick wall Nathan?
Here you go ginge, if you can’t find the wall, I know of a few volunteers willing to knock you out….
by the way ginge, I’ve asked you a question in the 1000 guineas thread regards Clemmie, not sure if you’ve seen it.?
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
The reason horse racing suffers is that the most brilliant colts/fillies like Sea The Stars, Zarkava, Golden Horn often do not stay in training. The general public wants to be attached to great horses. For that to happen you need them to show sustained excellence (especially once the greatness is established). That´s what hurts the SPORT horse racing, especially in EUROPE. In Japan, America and Australia it´s much more common that star horses stay in training. The public has no interest in a equine dating show.
Pete,
Top class horses retired after just a couple of seasons is a problem for Flat racing. Although not as much as it used to be in the 1980s and I don’t think they make enough of what they’ve got. eg Public being able to identify top class horses and latching on to their brilliance as they develop during a season. Celebrating the racehorse. The British Champion Series is a nonentity as far as both the public and racing enthusiasts are concerned and rightly so because it’s useless. Only the racing business might be interested. I (with a nudge from Jonibake) came up with an idea of a European Champion Series where top class horses are in a sort of league that culminates on Champions Day. Although nothing now can catch this year’s winner… Guess who?Value Is EverythingThere is a difference in the quality of any female Classic winner from year to year. It’s a variable that no weight for age scale can ever hope to accurately address.
Enable just happens to be one of the top end Oaks winners. If you wish to wind back to a previous year to find a lesser filly, you only need to go to 2013 to find a very different story. Talent won the Oaks in 2013 and was 20/1, coming in rated 96 and with her stable all over their other filly, Secret Gesture, who was rated 15 lbs higher on 111, a figure she had been awarded for winning the Lingfield Oaks Trial by 10 lengths.
Sadly for me, on Secret Gesture ante-post at 25/1, her lesser considered stablemate won easily in the end. That was the queue for a raise of 18 lbs for Talent to a mark of 114, a modest figure that would have meant she would have needed more than WFA to help her. Thunderbirds, a following wind and being able to employ Twiggy at her slimmest as the jockey would not have seen Talent land that Arc.
Talent would never win again and her rating deteriorated to 103. Her Leger conqueror Leading Light went to the Arc and although fancied by some was only 12th to Treve, beaten more than 12 lengths. Clear evidence than Talent would not have had a prayer.
Some years the WFA won’t be enough, some years it might be almost spot on, some years it might be too much. That’s just natural, and inevitable, variation. Let the talented horses win when one comes along that is good enough to do so.
What beats me is why everyone who thought Enable held an unfair advantage has not cashed in on their feelings by backing her after she won the Oaks. Any advantage was clearly there then, they didn’t sneak WFA in at the last minutes. Come the day of the race it must surely have been a mortgage job at Evens.
I don’t understand how anyone could have backed a different horse when they considered another runner to be thrown in? It makes no sense. It’s painful enough giving bookies money at the best of times but to do it when you feel another horse is a shoo-in, because of a flaw in the system, seems folly to me.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
There is a difference in the quality of any female Classic winner from year to year. It’s a variable that no weight for age scale can ever hope to accurately address.
Enable just happens to be one of the top end Oaks winners. If you wish to wind back to a previous year to find a lesser filly, you only need to go to 2013 to find a very different story. Talent won the Oaks in 2013 and was 20/1, coming in rated 96 and with her stable all over their other filly, Secret Gesture, who was rated 15 lbs higher on 111, a figure she had been awarded for winning the Lingfield Oaks Trial by 10 lengths.
Sadly for me, on Secret Gesture ante-post at 25/1, her lesser considered stablemate won easily in the end. That was the queue for a raise of 18 lbs for Talent to a mark of 114, a modest figure that would have meant she would have needed more than WFA to help her. Thunderbirds, a following wind and being able to employ Twiggy at her slimmest as the jockey would not have seen Talent land that Arc.
Talent would never win again and her rating deteriorated to 103. Her Leger conqueror Leading Light went to the Arc and although fancied by some was only 12th to Treve, beaten more than 12 lengths. Clear evidence than Talent would not have had a prayer.
Some years the WFA won’t be enough, some years it might be almost spot on, some years it might be too much. That’s just natural, and inevitable, variation. Let the talented horses win when one comes along that is good enough to do so.
What beats me is why everyone who thought Enable held an unfair advantage has not cashed in on their feelings by backing her after she won the Oaks. Any advantage was clearly there then, they didn’t sneak WFA in at the last minutes. Come the day of the race it must surely have been a mortgage job at Evens.
I don’t understand how anyone could have backed a different horse when they considered another runner to be thrown in? It makes no sense. It’s painful enough giving bookies money at the best of times but to do it when you feel another horse is a shoo-in, because of a flaw in the system, seems folly to me.
exactly. I said on here before the Arc that backing anything other than Enable was a fool’s errand, and noone believed me
People were going on here about how backing something each way was a much better punt than backing enable, or going for this loser horse or this loser horse, when the obvious was staring us all in the face. It’s human nature to overanalyse stuff, or create barriers to success when there are none there beforehand.
Sometimes you got to do a goreisking and leave your brain at the door
People were going on here about how backing something each way was a much better punt than backing enable, or going for this loser horse or this loser horse, when the obvious was staring us all in the face. It’s human nature to overanalyse stuff, or create barriers to success when there are none there beforehand.
Sometimes you got to do a goreisking and leave your brain at the door
But surely backing oosg each way at 16s was better than backing enable at evens. I get what you mean though. Enable was always the likely winner but you can never discount horses having an odd day.
People were going on here about how backing something each way was a much better punt than backing enable, or going for this loser horse or this loser horse, when the obvious was staring us all in the face. It’s human nature to overanalyse stuff, or create barriers to success when there are none there beforehand.
Sometimes you got to do a goreisking and leave your brain at the door
You were spot on about Enable Judge, there’s no debating that, but I think for value you
still have to consider e/w if you are equally confident that your horse will place. As
you already know I backed CLOTH OF STARS e/w at 33/1 and then 40/1 (both posted in the
thread). I wont say how much I put on, but if I were to put £10 e/w on both bets I would
get returns of £76 and £90 (including stakes returned) The total amount staked, being £40,
if placed on Enable at the SP of 10/11 would return £76.36 (including stake returned) which
barring a few pennies is £90 less than the e/w bets for the same stake. To get back more than
the £166 return, you would have had to get Enable at more than 3/1. Well done to anyone that
got higher than those odds, that would have been a cracking bet, but I think you would have
had to get in very early ante post to get near that.As I had posted in my original post, when I first backed COS at 33s, that barring a bad
or unlucky run Enable was the very likely winner, but even accepting that, it was more
profitable at the odds to back COS e/w. I get it if you are not an e/w fan Judge, fair
enough, but it sometimes it’s not such a bad ideaPS. I should have added in that I calculated the e/w bets above at 1/5 the odds, although
if my recollection is right I think some firms went 1/4 the odds nearer the race.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.