- This topic has 17 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi with frankel receiving 8 pounds tomorrow, does this mean that he has got a three length lead over a mile on the weight for age?
if frankel won by say two lengths they would be calling him the best in the world, however off level weights canford cliffs would win by a length.thanks
john.John,
Frankel’s ability (being a three year old) is measured against a lower weight than Canford Cliffs (being a four year old) would be. It’s only right that Frankel gets an allowance for his immaturity. Although to make a level playing field it is questionable whether 8lbs is a little too much.Value Is EverythingCanford has improved physical/matured from 3 to 4 and is probably in his prime but it’s not the same transition for every horse some mature faster than others and peak at 3 so it’s a concession that favours the faster maturing horses.
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
I’ve always found the weight for age allowances a very blunt tool. Early on in the season, 3yos are at a real disadvantage against the older horses and I’m not sure any weight allowance really caters for that. The classic example of this is how many 3yo sprinters struggle in all age handicaps. One of my favourite betting strategies used to be backing 4yo sprinters who had dropped in the handicap as a result of running against older horses as 3yos.
There is an argument that there should be no weight for age allowances at all. If an owner wants to race their 3yo against older horses then they should be entitled to but as has already been pointed out, horses all mature/develop at different times so assigning a blanket allowance for all 3yos at a certain point in the year is not really satisfactory.
Simon Holt in the Weekender this week talks about the out of date WFA allowance chart.
If you look at the two WFA charts which Dave Edwards sent me, http://tinyurl.com/6ypkofh you will note the difference between the out-of-date BHA WFA chart and the one used by Raceform.
Sometimes you will comes across WFA handicapping that just makes you shake your head with disbelief.
- Total Posts 17716
What are Mr Holt’s arguments for claiming the WFA charts are "out of date"?
They’ve worked perfectly well since 1855. Why is 2011 so different?
Is he trying to sell you something?
What are Mr Holt’s arguments for claiming the WFA charts are "out of date"?
They’ve worked perfectly well since 1855. Why is 2011 so different?
It’s not the same scale as that devised by Rous, it’s been updated a number of times since.
The phenotype of the thoroughbred has changed noticeably over that last 50 years, never mind the last 150, and the official scale needs to be kept up-to-date to reflect that, especially over shorter distances.
The blocky, heavily-muscled sort of animal that we see so often today matures much faster than the leaner, perhaps more elegant, traditional kind of thoroughbred.
- Total Posts 17716
It’s not the same scale as that devised by Rous, it’s been updated a number of times since.
The phenotype of the thoroughbred has changed noticeably over that last 50 years, never mind the last 150, and the official scale needs to be kept up-to-date to reflect that, especially over shorter distances.
The blocky, heavily-muscled sort of animal that we see so often today matures much faster than the leaner, perhaps more elegant, traditional kind of thoroughbred.
The scale has only undergone very minor alterations since 1860. Very minor alterations indeed.
As for the phenotype changing, I would take major issue with that. Look at the famous painting of
Ormonde
(1886, 3yo) and you’ll see no difference. [Remember that Fred Archer (up) was taller than Piggott]. Before the late 19th c., images of the horse (Stubbs et. al.) were stylised to a great extent: those slim lines, long necks and pencil heads don’t equate with reality. They are a stylistic stereotype.[attachment=0:1vxsh5mg]Ormonde.jpg[/attachment:1vxsh5mg]
Long been unhappy with the whole wfa system,
ever since the US breds started to clean up in the
late 60’s/early 70’s.
A horse bred(as they used to be)to prep 3 times
before the US triple crown in May/June could & did
have a clear advantage over their european bred 3yo
counterparts & the wfa did not(could not)reflect
this when they took on the 4yos.
Of course the blood lines are more mixed now
but the system still favours the precocious champion who
can be packed off to stud at 3 having only beaten 2
generations.
Without it racing would miss great clashes between
the generations but also we really need to see champions
racing at 4.
So if Frankel does race next year l’ll raise a glass
to a sporting owner with little to gain & plenty to
loseIt’s not the same scale as that devised by Rous, it’s been updated a number of times since.
The phenotype of the thoroughbred has changed noticeably over that last 50 years, never mind the last 150, and the official scale needs to be kept up-to-date to reflect that, especially over shorter distances.
The blocky, heavily-muscled sort of animal that we see so often today matures much faster than the leaner, perhaps more elegant, traditional kind of thoroughbred.
The scale has only undergone very minor alterations since 1860. Very minor alterations indeed.
As for the phenotype changing, I would take major issue with that. Look at the famous painting of
Ormonde
(1886, 3yo) and you’ll see no difference. [Remember that Fred Archer (up) was taller than Piggott]. Before the late 19th c., images of the horse (Stubbs et. al.) were stylised to a great extent: those slim lines, long necks and pencil heads don’t equate with reality. They are a stylistic stereotype.[attachment=0:2wk1do3q]Ormonde.jpg[/attachment:2wk1do3q]
You’ve put up a
painting
to try and prove your point?
If you had put up a
photograph
of Ormonde, of which there are several, you might have a different view. One like this perhaps http://www.tbheritage.com/Portraits/Ormonde.html
In fact, it would have made more sense for you to have posted a photo of his sire, Bend Or, http://www.tbheritage.com/Portraits/BendOr.html who looks very modern indeed, powerful, muscular and speedy-looking.
Blocky, beefcakey horses, although rare, were not totally unknown in the second half of the nineteenth century, it’s just that they are far more common now than then, in fact more common than 60 years ago. A couple of examples who were important stallions in the late 1800s are Gallinule http://www.tbheritage.com/Portraits/Gallinule.html
and, more strikingly, Springfield http://www.tbheritage.com/Portraits/Springfield.htmlWhat is interesting about Springfield, is that Bromus, the dam of Phalaris, the greatest stallion of the 20th century, is closely inbred 2X3 to him. Phalaris was much more Springfield than his sire, the leggy Polymelus, and it is from Phalaris, more than any other stallion or mare, that the modern thoroughbred owes its physique.
Lastly, if you look closely at that photo of Springfield, which modern day mega-sire is he a dead ringer for?
- Total Posts 17716
You’ve put up a
painting
to try and prove your point?
If you had put up a
photograph
of Ormonde, of which there are several, you might have a different view. One like this perhaps http://www.tbheritage.com/Portraits/Ormonde.html
Yes I did. Because (aside from being a famous and finely realistic painting which beautifully evokes the great horse and jockey) it is a dead ringer for the photo you’ve kindly provided the link for. You’ll also recall that part of my argument was that
earlier
paintings were not to be trusted!
The rest of your post is so clear and perfectly worded, in support of my contention that your point about changing phenotypes is dubious, that I’m really baffled as to why you think we’re on opposite sides at all! Perhaps I’m missing some subtleties here…
- Total Posts 17716
Lastly, if you look closely at that photo of Springfield, which modern day mega-sire is he a dead ringer for?
Indeed – very striking!!
Of course Galileo goes straight back to Phalaris (six generations) through the direct sire line (Sadlers Wells – Northern Dancer – Nearctic – Nearco – Pharos – Phalaris) so not too surprising after all.
Pinza, what I’m trying to say is that the horses I’ve highlighted are
exceptions
to the rule, that they were very untypical of the breed until 50 or 60 years ago, since when stallions like Native Dancer, Bold Ruler and Springfield’s double, Northern Dancer, have profoundly changed the appearance of the thoroughbred racehorse.
Most breeders and trainers would probably agree that the thoroughbred of today is a markedly different-looking beast to what it was only half a dozen generations ago.
- Total Posts 17716
But so far you haven’t mentioned any of the
non
-exceptions which would apparently support your point. If there’s photographic evidence of these rather strange looking beasts we see in Stubbs et. al. then I’d be fascinated to see it. I myself have seen none.
That’s partly why I chose the
painting
of Ormonde: although you are fair enough to qualify your point as to expert opinion with "most" and "probably" I personally feel that in trying to make claims for a change in phenotype too much emphasis has been put on 17th c.-early 19th c.non-representational art, from before the photographic age.
If there’s no photographic evidence from the 1860’s or 70’s, say, I’d be inclined to say that the theory was wrong.
Man O’War was naturally a muscular, compact individual, even though he and his offspring were routers. http://media.smithsonianmag.com/images/ … orse-1.jpg
His son Battleship, a bulldog of a steeplechaser http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Battleship_(USA).jpgAs far as horses of the 19th century being much leaner than those of today, here is a photograph of Lexington (foaled 1850, photographed in the 1870s) http://www.sporthorse-data.com/horse/27 … -_2big.jpg
compare to this print showing him as a 5yo http://prints.encore-editions.com/500/0 … il-2nd.jpg
and this painting also done in his younger years http://www.sporthorse-data.com/horse/27 … on-big.jpgHis sire Boston http://www.sporthorse-data.com/horse/54 … on-big.jpg
Boston’s sire TImoleon, realistic except for the head http://www.sporthorse-data.com/horse/56 … on-big.jpg
Timoleon’s stocky sire Sir Archy
http://www.sporthorse-data.com/horse/25 … -_3big.jpg
http://www.sporthorse-data.com/horse/25 … -_2big.jpgFinally we come to Diomed, a 1777 model. The first is much more stylized, but in both there is no hiding his short coupling, muscular shoulders, strong hind end and thick gaskin
http://www.sporthorse-data.com/horse/73 … ed-big.jpg
http://www.sporthorse-data.com/horse/73 … -_3big.jpgI seem to recall the weight for age question being hotly debated when Sea The Starts went through his 3yo career undefeated. Such arguments were left up in the air when the decision was taken to retire him to stud at 3. Indeed modern greats like Dancing Brave and Sea Bird were never asked to test their mettle as 4yo’s when they would no longer have been able to avail themselves of the weight allowances.
I suppose in this respect the true measure of greatness could be a horse’s ability to maintain top class form into his 4yo season (and beyond) in much the way horses tended to in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The modern equivalent for us would have to be Brigadier Gerard followed by Ribot (Mill Reef probably would have continued to win had injury not ended his career).
A current example of a horse apprently being exposed once the allowance is removed is Workforce. He hasn;t done a lot wrong, and at levels he would probably have the beating of Nathaniel on a more suitable track. However you cannot help but feel at present the decision to keep him in training could be backfiring, and he really needs to win another Arc to justify it.
Another way of approaching the WFA question is if we were to give it a major overhaul or completely remove it altogether, how would we be able to make meaningful comparisons with the great horses of yesteryear. We could apply mathematical assumptions but they would be based on actual performances under similar conditions.
Nobody was arguing for the removal of the WFA when Harbinger hacked up at Ascot last year, so maybe we need to accept that if a horse is great, his age and the weight he has to concede or receive is a fair reflection of relative states of maturity.
In the last 10 years 3 3 year olds won the Eclipse, with only one Derby winner (Sea The Stars). In the same period only 2 3 yo’s won the King George. But races run when the WFA is extremely significant (12lbs KG, 11lbs Eclipse). Conversely in the same period 7 3yos won the Arc when the WFA allowance has fallen to 8lbs. It should be noted though that 5 of them were French trained colts and fillies given typical mid-season breaks coming into the race fresh.
From that quick analysis which admittedly is not to scientific, you can conclude that if the 3yo weight advantage was as unfair as is being suggested, the record of 3yos in these races would be greater – I am sure the number of 3yos contesting the KG is low anyway, but surely more would contest it if the WFA was such a major advantage?
Pinza, having posted the exceptions, it would be superfluous to post the non-exceptions.
I suggest you go onto the tbheritage site, click on portraits, and have a look for yourself at the 100s of photos on display.
Then compare with photos of modern, ie last 50 years or so, flat racers and see the difference.
It’s particularly striking in the American throughbred, the pre-1950 brigade seem like a completely different species from the the heavily-muscled champions of today.
Whether these changes are a good thing is, of course, another matter.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.