- This topic has 40 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Is it fair that mares receive this generous allowance?
There is a good programme of mares races now which encourages owners to keep more of them in training. However, I believe when mares run in open company they should do so on level weights.
Is there any evidence mares are weaker than geldings? Isn’t the allowance based on an outdated, sexist assumption that they must be less strong because they are the female of the species? Rachael Blackmore cannot claim 7lbs, so why should a mare?
Honeysuckle would still have won the Champion Hurdle off level weights. She would still have won it giving weight to her rivals. It is ridiculous to make her task even easier.
More significantly, would Put The Kettle On have won the Champion Chase without the allowance? She showed great determination and courage to win but at the weights she was not the best horse in the race. This is unsatisfactory in a Grade 1 race which is supposed to be about identifying the best.
The same argument applies on the Flat. Should fillies and mares be given this advantage based on nothing but an assumption they are naturally weaker?
I read an article on RTV’s site by James Willoughby analysing the sectional times from the festival. He argues that the allowance is not justified by any evidence and should be removed. I believe that is right for championship races.
IMO it’s a gift.
I have read there is no statistical evidence to suggest the average mare is 7lb inferior at Pattern level and plenty to suggest there is no meaningful difference in average ability at all.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Mares allowance should certainly be scrapped for Grade 1 / Group 1 races.
The championship races should be about the best horse.
Try explaining the allowance to somebody new to racing when they then equate that to athletics
I’ve heard some say including one or two on here that the mares allowance should be scrapped in Group/Grade1 races.
Chris Cook is the latest in the Racing Post.
I’m interested to know why people think mares should not get the allowance in Group 1/ Grade 1 races but get it in all other races?
If they don’t need in G1’s why do they need it in all other races?I think it should be scrapped completely.
One thing I am unclear about. In a handicap, if a gelding and a mare are given the same mark: does the mare carry 7lbs fewer?
I thought so. Otherwise you could put a good conditional on board and in effect be a stone well in!
Nothing wrong with the Flat Mares Allowance. 3 lbs is imo spot on.
Yes, the mares jumping allowance should be kept.
The female species are not as strong as males and therefore needing a small allowance for parity.Serves to encourage top class fillies and mares to take on top class geldings – which is surely a good thing? The best should imo take on the best.
Grade 1’s restricted to females are nowhere near as competitive as open races, simply because there aren’t as many real top class females. So as well as encouraging the best females to take on the best males, it at least helps keep up competitiveness of Grade 1’s restricted to females (ie helps take away the Honeysuckles).
However, the allowance is too much!
We are currently having mares winning Grade 1’s not because they deserve it but just because the Authorities are trying to encourage mares to be trained and to keep mares in training. By giving them an unfair advantage over geldings. That’s just wrong! Grade 1 jumps races are now effectively handicaps, with geldings being asked to give mares 3 or 4 lbs more than their parity allowance warrants.Value Is EverythingChestnut, if you were explaining it to someone new to racing, and they equated it to athletics, they would quite rightly say male humans are faster/stronger than the females, whether it’s the 100 metres, the marathon or the shot putt. The stats prove it.
On that basis alone, a mares allowance would seem easier to justify.
But with horses, it becomes more complicated. Is a mare really at a physical disadvantage in this day and age, with modern nutrition?
Remember Black Caviar in the paddock at Royal Ascot? She dwarfed everything else there, male or female.
Okay, she was a freak. But overall, I’d be more comfortable with a 3 or 4 pound allowance over jumps, rather than 7.Yes, there is imo evidence mares are weaker. Even allowing for being outnumbered by geldings, mares don’t (on average) achieve the ratings of geldings.
It is the horse’s hooves on the ground, not the jockeys boots, so a comparison with jockeys is imo null and void. Strength is important in a jockey only up to a certain point; once a female jockey reaches that point there is imo usually no disadvantage with the vast majority of horses.
Just because (by distance won) Honeysuckle would’ve won the Champion Hurdle (EDIT: Actually that’s not true); connections weren’t to know that. If there were no allowance very few mares would run against geldings. Honeysuckle is a particularly good female who was running against not particularly good geldings; so she should win the race by a fair margin, although agree it should not have been quite as much as 6 1/2 lengths.
I agree, Put The Kettle On may be a particularly likeable mare, but her form rating (for winning the race) shouldn’t be good enough to win this Champion.
Value Is EverythingStrength-wise Moody Man, the vast majority of fillies and mares look inferior to colts and geldings. Black Caviar was trained in Australia at a time where their drugs rules were very different to ours. So not sure that comparison is wise.
That said there’s the odd filly or mare with as much strength as the vast majority of top class colts and geldings in Europe… But why shouldn’t a particularly strong female take advantage of that fact, just as a particularly strong colt or gelding does?
Value Is EverythingFillies and mares do effectively get the allowance in handicaps, it’s just built into their handicap rating, as opposed to being stated in the race conditions.
Consider a gelding and a mare that finish side by side in a maiden hurdle. If the gelding is awarded a handicap mark of 120, the mare will be put on 113, because she carried 7lbs less in the maiden race.
CAS,
The mark given to any horse is the mark the weight carried warrants.
The mark given to Honeysuckle for her win in the Champion will be 7 lbs less than a gelding would’ve got for a 6 1/2 and 3 lengths beating (of the same horses and winning with the same amount in hand)… Because Honeysuckle carried 7 lbs less than the geldings.Indeed, because the mare Honeysuckle beat Sharjah by 6 1/2 lengths getting 7 lbs from the gelding… The Racing Post has given both horses a rating of 166 for their performances.
If using 1 lb per length you could argue that at levels Sharjah would’ve won by 1/2 length. However, when Honeysuckle won seemingly with a little more in hand (and a record of finding plenty for pressure) suspect she’d still have won under level weights.
Value Is EverythingThere used to be an anomaly in classified races for some unknown reason, that fillies/mares still received an allowance from colts/geldings. Not sure if it still applies, apracing will know and the reasoning behind having it.
Yeats,
I’ve not seen a fillies allowance in the conditions of a Classified Stakes for a long time, but I don’t think it’s actually officially ruled out. And whilst it makes sense that males and females with the same rating, run off the same weight in a classified race, that logic isn’t applied to claimers.
Most flat claiming races still offer a 5lb allowance to fillies and mares, so that a filly valued at £10k by her trainer gets in lighter than a gelding valued at the same price. And that makes no sense at all.
You’re quite right that in the early days of classified races, or Limited Stakes as they were first known, the standard fillies allowance was included in the conditions. And it would offset the penalty for a recent win by a filly, making them a tempting bet. And at the time, I thought the allowance was there purely because the race programming dept hadn’t given it much thought – i.e it’s a level weight race, therefore fillies get an allowance. Overlooking the fact that it was actually a race based on the handicap rating.
If you happen to have a copy, there’s a tedious tale of a filly thrown in at the weights for a Limited Stakes at Bath on page 53 of The Inside Track.
if you were explaining it to someone new to racing, and they equated it to athletics, they would quite rightly say male humans are faster/stronger than the females, whether it’s the 100 metres, the marathon or the shot putt. The stats prove it.
On that basis alone, a mares allowance would seem easier to justify.
But with horses, it becomes more complicatedIt is indeed more complicated; or rather it’s foolhardy to equate the physical differences between men and women with that between male and female of other mammals, be that horses or whatever
In Greyhound Racing are there races comprising dogs and bitches, and if so are staggered start allowances made?
And I wonder if anyone has studied what stagger allowances would be given to women if mixed sex track athletics was tried
Was it Admiral Rous who introduced mares’ allowance along with his WFA scale or was it a more recent introduction?
I personally think both mares who won the big grade 1’s would have won without the concession.
Think it’s more obvious with Honeysuckle as she appeared to have that much in hand.
A bit different with PTKO but how can anyone say she wouldn’t have won with the way she races?
At both festivals she’s won at many people have said she’s not good enough and has plenty to find but she keeps on doing it!
In four course wins now she’s beaten horses rated (151)…(154)…(160)…(165)…and seems to win in the same fashion…digging in and finding for pressure up the hill…I think she’d have done the same without the allowance.
I think they should scrap it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.