flyingbolt
Joined: 30 May 03
Replies: 2169 19 Aug 10 13:06   
That is the crux of it,Desmond.

The 2 horses would not be deemed equal because the 3-y-o should have been receiving 7lb wfa. Therefore he is rated 7lb superior.

Indeed that is the crux of it, as I said, everyone seems to be arguing the same point. If two horses (forget their ages for a moment) ran against each other carrying the same weight and deadheated 100 times, then they're of equal ability, I'm sure we can agree on that. However, as you rightly point out the 3yo is deemed to be superior due to his immaturity (this I assume is what HM means by assuming normal improvement over time). Therefore, the WFA scale is taken into account when giving horses an official rating as that OR is higher, it doesn't mean that he is superior at that time, how can he be, they've deadheated carrying the same weight? When framing the weights for a particular race at a particular time, the appropriate WFA is then taken away to ensure parity. If its a couple of months down the line and that means WFA of 4lb, then surely that simply takes into account the 3lb of normal improvement that the horse is deemed to have made in the intervening period. Again, ensuring parity.
I'm sorry, I don't normally like using italics, I think it looks smug and I know that we're all bright as buttons here, am just trying to illustrate the areas where it seems everyone is in accord.

It includes personal observations from the Handicapper that I'm not willing to share without his permission.  You're clearly at a computer - why don't you e-mail him?

Headmaster, i'm not going to waste my time e-mailing because, quite frankly, i couldnt care less either way! What does interest me however, is that certain people on this thread are vehemently arguing their positions and claim to have evidence to back up their arguments (in the form of e-mails) but are unwilling to divulge the contents. This is hardly MI5 or the KGB ffs, it's horse racing. Just put an end to the debate once and for all, if u have the evidence to do so.

Something appears to have amused you, Yank.  Well done.

Is "Yank" Flyingbolt's alter ego by any chance?

I already have a full reply from Paul Struthers, which he has said I can post on the forum if I so wish.

Shall I post it?

'Something appears to have amused' me? Wonder what it was? Maybe the haircut you gave the wife last time, Headmaster.

According to Ferdy Murphy, Paul Struthers doesn't know what he's talking about, so not sure what good it'll do!

Stuff it, gg, I say let the banter roll.  This Yank chap's got some cracking one-liners.

LOL, Paul as he's the first to admit, is not a expert, he couldnt answer hardly any technical questions when The Magician and myself met him at High Holborn.

He is a pr guy

I'm feeling confident.

POST IT, STAKEY, POST IT!!!!

OK Stakey, i await with interest

Dear Tony

Yes, I do have weapons of mass destruction. Yes, they are aimed at London. Yes,once launched, they can reach you in 45 minutes.

Yours sincerely

Saddam

There, proof positive that Tony didnt lie.

Headmaster
Been posting on the Forum for good 6/7 years. Dont know who flying bolt is. Dont have a dog in your fight with him. But as a critical reader, I found your reason for not posting the reputed email from the handicapper amusing. S & C has a different tact when it comes to dodgy emails, hence my reply.
Nothing in any of that to apologize for.

You were asked to back up your talk and instead of putting up or shutting up, you posted a pretty lame excuse. Maybe its legit, I dont know. But it is lame and laughable all the same for you to use it. Hence

Dear XXX

Thank you for your email, which is identical to one I received earlier today. As I said to the previous correspondents, I am aware of the thread on the BF Forum and am happy to help. Below is the reply I sent last time:

To do so, rather than use your example I will use the example of Harris Tweed and Hanoverian Baron, who were both balloted out of the Ebor.

1 - Harris Tweed has an Official Rating 103 and Hanoverian Baron an Official Rating 92
2 – For the Ebor, Harris Tweed gets 12lb Weight For Age (WFA) allowance, the WFA factoring in the average maturity of a 3YO at that time of year and that distance
3 - Therefore, in reality, at this time of year at that trip he is a 91 rated horse
4 - Were they to run off level weights, HB is theoretically a 1lb better horse at this stage of HTs development (but based on the fact that HT is average, which of course he might not be)

That explains why Harris Tweed was, and in our view should be, eliminated before Hanoverian Baron because he is a 1lb inferior horse.

I have also inserted below an extract from our Guide to Handicapping on britishhorseracing.com:

Weight for age (WFA)

Just as there are athletics races for schoolboys, horses can start racing before they are fully mature.  In school athletics there would be no point in getting the best 13yo to run against the best 18yo because the older boy would beat him every time.  You would need to give the youngster a head start if you wanted an exciting and interesting race.

The same is true for horses.  If you want a 3yo to run against older horses then you have to make allowances for his immaturity.  You do this by reducing the weight that the 3yo has to carry to even things up.

The BHA publishes charts showing how much the weight has to be reduced to take account of the immaturity.  These are called “Weight For Age” allowances.  There are separate charts for Jumps and Flat.  Obviously, the allowance gets smaller as the months pass and the young horse becomes more mature.  The allowance also varies according to the distance of the race – generally the longer the race the more allowance is needed to make things equal.

The WFA scales apply to non-handicaps too and are always in the race conditions.  Otherwise it would be impossible to make a fair and exciting race between horses of different ages.

The Handicappers take account of this allowance when calculating their figures.

The italics and underlining are mine, but confirms what Headmaster has been saying.  In essence, a 3yo’s official rating is higher than what the horse’s form is actually worth at that time.



As I said previously, I am happy for you to post this response on the forum.

Kind regards

Paul

I'm off for a stiff drink now.

SEE YOU ALL TOMORROW!

....for Flyingbolt's benefit (thought I had been on the forum enough time to be trusted tbph)..

"Thanks xxxx. To be honest, it should have been the subject of a blog this week, but wasn't, so I'm not at all bothered about it being pre-empted anywhere. I checked the answer with our handicapping team and they said it was fine, so feel free to crack on if you like.

Kind regards

Paul"