- This topic has 13 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
According to the TRF’s favourite Speedfigure compiler Nick Mordin- great article imo
<br>
Interesting though, particlarly as Dave Bellingham uses a an age allowance to compile his speedfigures
Haven’t read it yet, but TDK is quite correct to question the means by which Mordin makes what might well be a perfectly valid overall point.
Someone once said to me that in addition to a weight-for-age scale there should be a weight-for-experience scale: a horse could be allowed, say, 7 lb on its debut, 4 lb on its next run…and so on.
Discuss.
I think Mordin is correct to question summat invented 150 years ago, but as already stated by TDK the basis of the method used to prove the antique WFA scale is wrong is maybe questionable
<br>EC’s theory sounded more convincing imhaho
<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 11:04 am on Sep. 27, 2006)
The experience scale would give an even bigger advantage to trainers who get their charges ready FTO, don’t yer think?
<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 11:07 am on Sep. 27, 2006)
Quote: from Prufrock on 10:49 am on Sep. 27, 2006[br]
Someone once said to me that in addition to a weight-for-age scale there should be a weight-for-experience scale: a horse could be allowed, say, 7 lb on its debut, 4 lb on its next run…and so on. ÂÂÂ
Discuss.<br>
Surely experience? would depend on how ready a horse was to race when it gets to a racecourse, some are more ready than others. How would you differentiate.
BTW, does this act like a WFA scale?
ALLOWANCESallowances should be made for younger horses and for fillies. These allowances are made as follows:-
MONTH–.2YO/3YO<br>Jan / Feb../-/-6<br>Mar / Apr../-11/-5<br>May / Jun../-10/-4<br>Jul / Aug../-9/-3<br>Sep / Oct../-8/-2<br>Nov / Dec../-7/-1
<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 11:16 am on Sep. 27, 2006)
Quote: from thedarkknight on 10:27 am on Sep. 27, 2006[br]I got very bored with it when I found out it his theory was based on (non weight adjusted) Raceform speedfigures.
Garbage in = garbage out
Completely agree.
(Edited by thedarkknight at 10:31 am on Sep. 27, 2006)<br>
But have not Timeform, Raceform, Racing Research etc all carried out their own investigations in recent times and for the average (which is a big enough error on its own) made WFA and horse sex adjustments based on actual race results. Mostly small changes made, but greater ones eg for the different 2yo racing of today.
For the younger horses these would have experience and weight gain/loss on future runs unavoidably built into the averaging calculations. If weight ratings in themselves were an accurate guide to performance they would not have to be altered so much.
Sorry, Robert, I don’t entirely follow you.
Was your question rhetorical? If not, I cannot vouch for Raceform and Racing Research (or etc), but Timeform have looked at results many times over the last 20 years and only occasionally tweaked their wfa scales (with the exception of a much overdue jolt to the wfa for younger chasers more than 10 years ago).
This does not amount to altering them "so much" in my view, but is merely responding to a dynamic system as it evolves. You recognise this by referring to 2-y-o racing today as being "different".
Some people who use wfa scales use blatantly wrong ones – notably the BHB. In a similar fashion, some people who analyse times use incorrect methodology. In neither case does this sloppy practice invalidate weight-based handicapping or time-based handicapping per se.
(Edited by Prufrock at 12:09 am on Sep. 28, 2006)
Prufrock,
Yes, that agrees with what I was meaning about the original thread topic. The original WFA scale has been tested many times with modern ratings, race times, mathematical statistics etc and found to be not too far out. Sectional times and horse body weight data etc may iron out a few wrinkles in the scale but probably not so that it makes much practical difference. Have not read the NM article yet so should probably shut up.
This post by much missed EC made a lot of sense to me, and if i had the know how and research facilities is, i think worth pursuing imhaho
"weight allowance does not close the gap between a 2yo and an older horse imho.
For example..a 2yo is 1.2 seconds per mile inferior to a mature horse of similar ability in September..they are my calcs which I’ve found to be pretty accurate.
The wfa scale on paper suggests that the poundage allowed in September [28lbs] should wipe the 1.2 seconds per mile deficit out..it doesn’t…so weight allowed and overall times are not connected in a traditional sense re wfa…for a 2yo
It’s a question I have posed on here before..on paper like I say..the 2yo should be able to beat the older horse purely on pounds allowed..but immaturity isn’t being overcome just by lesser burden.
It’s as though weight allowance alone isn’t enough to bring them together. Maybe it’s actually telling us that weight in general doesn’t work how we think it does with a very immature horse…acceleration differences between different age groups possibly cannot be counteracted until even more weight is allowed to the 2yo generation.
Oddly once a horse is a 3yo the wfa scale appears to favour that age group from June onwards.
My view is that 2yo need more weight allowance..the scale needs adjusting to assist the 2yo..3yo though get a little too much from June onwards. Once a horse strengthens up ..it can take advantage of the weight allowed…or is it just closer to full maturity than the scale suggests?
I think it’s possible that 3yo are probably at 90/95% maturity after the winter months..but they get an allowance that is on a sliding scale that doesn’t actually reflect their maturing rate. Once the decent weather starts..mainly June if we are lucky ..a 3yo is capable of running times near a mature horse..but still receives 10lb per mile in June….thank you very much"
(Edited by empty wallet at 6:12 pm on Sep. 28, 2006)<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 6:18 pm on Sep. 28, 2006)
Presumably those who are quite certain that the WFA scale is wrong are making enormous profits at the expense of those of us who believe it’s about right.
Not me, but I know someone who did quite nicely by identifying the more obvious discrepancies by age groups judged on strike-rates in handicaps open to 3-y-o+. I used some of his work when coming up with a wfa scale of my own and intend revisiting the subject when I have a bit more time on my hands.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.