- This topic has 18 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I entirely agree with Roger Charlton’s comments in today’s Post. It is quite wrong that three-year-olds are denied a run in the big handicaps by lower-rated older horses who have more actual weight to carry because of weight-for-age. The Ebor didn’t have a single three-year-old in it this year and more and more of these handicaps are going the same way.
It’s not just in the big handicaps.<br>I wasn’t even aware of this until recently when the horse I am involved in (a four year old) had ballot marks for a couple of upcoming races at Wolves (0-60’s).<br>He was lucky to get in and it was only because higher rated 3 year olds had a lower weight due to the weight for age scale.<br>It’s hard enough for any horse to get in a race (especially at the 0-60 level) and to punish 3 year olds is a further example of racing shooting itself in the foot.
<br>I’d agree with Roger Charlton, but on one condition – no more 3-y-old only handicaps after July 1st each year.
Yes, 3-y-olds are currently eliminated in favour of older horses with a lower rating, but they also have the option of plenty of valuable handicaps restricted to their age group.
There are only a tiny number of handicaps at this time in the season that allow older horses to avoid well handicapped and progressive 3-y-olds. It gets a bit wearying entering a 7-y-old stayer for races that are dominated by 3-y-olds – see Yarmouth on Thursday for an example.
And I don’t remember Charlton complaining when Patavellian got into the Bunbury Cup thanks to the current system!
AP
On the subject of weight-for-age, I was interested to see the remarks this week of James Willoughby in the Post and Zorro in the Weekender.
Previewing the Arc trials, Willoughby wrote: "On fast ground – and receiving the generous weight-for-age allowance which now desperately needs revising – Rail Link may be capable of a passable imitation of Peintre Celebre in three weeks’ time."
Reviewing the Irish Champion, Zorro said this: "Dylan Thomas did very well to worry [Ouija Board] out of it, getting only 4lb."
So the wfa scale is either generous to the younger horses (Willoughby) or it’s not (Zorro). A sure sign, for me, that it’s about right.
Don’t know about that Gus, think Willoughby is slightly more knowledgeable about the subject than Haigh.
What is the reasoning supposed to be in doing the runners by weight allotted rather than rating? it’s illogical. If 3 yo’s are allowed in the race they should be treated the same. It’s one of a number of anomalys concerning weights that don’t make sense.<br>Don’t seem to remember Patavellian getting a run in The Bunbury through this anomaly.<br>As there are races confined to 3yo’s so there are for 4yo’s plus.
<br>Yeats,
If you can find a race for 4-y-olds and up at 1M 6F or 2M between now and Dec 31st please let me know as I’d like to run in it. I also know that there isn’t one.
In fact between Oct 1st and Dec 31st, in the entire racing program there’s only one race that excludes 3-y-olds – a 6F 4yo+ 61 – 75 handicap at Wolverhampton on Nov 18th.
AP
Is that the reason they do it ap? <br>Two wrongs don’t make a right, if that’s the case they should have more races for older horses only but 3yo’s should be treated fairly in the races they are allowed to enter.
Quote: from EC on 1:09 pm on Sep. 16, 2006[br]WFA..as we have discussed on this board many times..is very much in favour of 3yo’s from July onwards
I disagree. It has indeed been discussed but I’ve never seen any evidence to support that conclusion.
In Australia – take Melbourne Cup as an example – they take the weight for age allowance into consideration when ballotting horses out of the handicap.
Similarly when selecting horses to run in Hong Kong, for example, both weight for age and fillies allowances are taken into consideration.
Quote: from EC on 2:30 pm on Sep. 17, 2006[br]it’s clearly a nonsense allowing the weight concession
Are you saying that there shouldn’t be a weight concession at all?
Do you take the view, then, that Dancing Brave, for example, was never a great champion and was inferior to Shardari? He met Shardari in the 1986 King George and beat him three-quarters of a length when in receipt of 13lbs (i.e. 7lbs more than your wfa scale). Even in the Arc, he received 7bs from Shardari and only beat him about two lengths. Presumably, that’s about 5lbs more than he’d have been allowed on your scale.
I could pick out hundreds of similar cases given an hour or two with my old form books.
With the wfa scale you propose the younger horses simply wouldn’t take on their elders. Their trainers would go alternative routes.
Dancing Brave would just have "pulled out more". Hmm. He was all out at Ascot and couldn’t have found another inch.
"If they are really good though they will still take part." I don’t think so. Lammtarra wouldn’t have had a prayer against Strategic Choice in his King George, receiving just 6lbs instead of 12 nor would he have been up to beating Freedom Cry in the Arc at your suggested weights. Why would his trainer campaign him in races he couldn’t win?
And Coolmore are in the stallion business. Would they have run Galileo in the King George if Fantastic Light only had to give him 6lbs? Of course not. The scale is set in stone because it’s stood the test of time.
Quote: from EC on 10:40 pm on Sep. 17, 2006[br]I’ll just change my mind..yes Gus you are right..those figures don’t mean anything..you’ve argued a good case there..changed my view completely.
The last time I heard that sort of reaction to an argument was in the school playground about forty years ago. Grow up and stop taking it all so personally when someone disagrees with you.
You’re over-reacting again, EC – remember, deep breaths and relax.
Gus wasn’t abusive, he was responding to your initial sarcasm.  It’s been an interesting debate up to now, please get it back on track.
Isn’t it a valid point that reducing wfa allowances would discourage inter-generational competition?
I can’t read your earlier post when writing this – but do your figures take into account the % of 3yos in each race?  For example, a 12% success rate looks good, but not if 75% of runners in the race were 3yos.
Is it a lower percentage in May/June partly because a lower percentage of the runners in each race are 3yos?
Not sure if I’ve explained that very well!
(Edited by Sal at 7:01 pm on Sep. 18, 2006)
Although it went considerably off-topic, I just thought I’d resurrect this old thread in the light of James Willoughby’s comments in yesterday’s Post on the John Smith’s Cup: "Sadly, there isn’t a single three-year-old in this once great handicap. It is my view that interest in this type of race nowadays has been lessened by the general absence of horses from the Classic generation. In my opinion, that is robbing the public of interest and the sponsor of exposure, for Flat racing is all about seeing horses with potential. Yes, today’s race will still be a warm betting contest with a big crowd due at the track. But the days when horses like Medicean and Killer Instinct rocked up – only to be beaten – seem to be gone with so many higher-rated older handicappers cluttering up the weights."
I agree. This race would have been much more interesting – and would have generated considerably more betting – had the likes of Plan, Dr Faustus and Collection not been eliminated. They’re all rated considerably higher than the bottom-weighted older horses that actually ran yesterday but the cut-off point is based on the actual weights horses are set to carry rather than their official ratings, more’s the pity. It’s about time something was done.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.