Horse Antepost
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Noticed this comment by Figgis on another thread......
Yes, unfortunately it's one of those things that has been going on in racing for so long it's just accepted. Could you imagine AC Milan giving Arsenal a goal start just because their team has a lower average age? I'd like to see the best horses win the best races. As John Whitley once wrote, Group 1s are just age based handicaps.
It's an interesting view that 3YOs and 4YO+ should just run off level weights, and have heard it a few times on here by people bemoaning that older horse that have finished 2nd in races were superior to the 3Y0 Winner.
Must say though i am one of those that has hitherto 'just accepted' it and assumed that it exists because racing abilty is a test of speed and/or stamina while weight carrying is seen merely as a test of strength ( in which the older horse will almost invariably have the advantage ) that is unforunately necessary because of the requirement to have a jockey on board.
I expect 200 years ago, or whenever this scale originated , it was found that 4Y0+ would beat 3Y0 off true level weights 9/10 and this could not possibly be because they were all faster, it was therefore seen as misleading as to the real racing abilty of the horses. In an Ideal World there would be no jockeys at all (
) and the horses would race each other without them , and we would see who was faster . So IMO the Weight For Age Scale is a resonable attempt to establish this.
The arguments against it would be:
1) It is wrongly calcualted. (..but surely after centuries they would have this right by now).
2) It should take account of the size/weight of the horse rather than merely the age.
3) That weight carrying/strength is an essential part of racing abilty, and if the 3YO can't quite do it as well then so be it ( just like as Figgis says you don't get this adjustment in other sports for younger competitors.)
On Balance , i am in favour of it
Yes, unfortunately it's one of those things that has been going on in racing for so long it's just accepted. Could you imagine AC Milan giving Arsenal a goal start just because their team has a lower average age? I'd like to see the best horses win the best races. As John Whitley once wrote, Group 1s are just age based handicaps.
It's an interesting view that 3YOs and 4YO+ should just run off level weights, and have heard it a few times on here by people bemoaning that older horse that have finished 2nd in races were superior to the 3Y0 Winner.
Must say though i am one of those that has hitherto 'just accepted' it and assumed that it exists because racing abilty is a test of speed and/or stamina while weight carrying is seen merely as a test of strength ( in which the older horse will almost invariably have the advantage ) that is unforunately necessary because of the requirement to have a jockey on board.
I expect 200 years ago, or whenever this scale originated , it was found that 4Y0+ would beat 3Y0 off true level weights 9/10 and this could not possibly be because they were all faster, it was therefore seen as misleading as to the real racing abilty of the horses. In an Ideal World there would be no jockeys at all (
) and the horses would race each other without them , and we would see who was faster . So IMO the Weight For Age Scale is a resonable attempt to establish this. The arguments against it would be:
1) It is wrongly calcualted. (..but surely after centuries they would have this right by now).
2) It should take account of the size/weight of the horse rather than merely the age.
3) That weight carrying/strength is an essential part of racing abilty, and if the 3YO can't quite do it as well then so be it ( just like as Figgis says you don't get this adjustment in other sports for younger competitors.)
On Balance , i am in favour of it
Show More
Tobermory, I'm not against it in handicaps and possibly even some pattern races but I am definitely against it in Group 1s. If it was banished we would see a lot less 3yos packed off to stud, hailed as champions after only a couple of seasons racing (frequently only 1 season at the heighest level) when the truth would often be that they were precocious horses that were favoured by the weight allowance.
That is certainly a good point.
Horses don't retire at 2 (unless injured) as they will not have proved themselves against those of other generations. So it would be the same with 3YOs who would all stay in training at 4, other than those that could win an Arc or KG at level weights so there would be no arguements .
I suppose the downside would be that without the allowance 3Y0s would mostly only run in 3YO races .
Horses don't retire at 2 (unless injured) as they will not have proved themselves against those of other generations. So it would be the same with 3YOs who would all stay in training at 4, other than those that could win an Arc or KG at level weights so there would be no arguements .
I suppose the downside would be that without the allowance 3Y0s would mostly only run in 3YO races .
Yes I guess that would happen but 3yos would then be judged for what they are, i.e. not the finished article. The sport wouldn't have such a short term view of what a real champion is.
There is an argument put forward by Brough Scott that the wfa scale should be abolished, and its coherent. The idea is that it would encourage 4yo's to stay in training and make flat racing much more interesting and less 3yo would be put away to stud. However the argument you quote from is silly. Expecting 3yo's to run of level weights is a bit like expecting a 14 year old boy to be able to have a fight with a 21 year old man. That is a closer analgy to the reality of the wfa scale.
I have to say that I think that maybe 3yo's would just stick to the 3yo only races and avoid meeting older bruisers at level weights myself.
Th weight for age scale is only an average. Some 3yo's are very mature early, and can kill 4yo's giving weight due to the wfa scale. Some are less mature and should get more wfa than the scale allows. However there is no doubt at all that the wfa scale is reasonably fair and that its generally about right.
If enough anlysis was done I dare say you might find that the exact scale should be adjusted in line with the way things may have changed. I saw an article that suggested that 3yo's should get less weight in October than they do because of the record of 3yo's in the Arc. Timeform reckon that 2yo's get far too much weight from the rest in the Nunthorpe and I personally think they are dead right about that. Mind you I hope its never changed - I got 55/1 about Kingsgate Native exactly becasue of the wfa scale and in a couple of years when he has been forgotten again another bargain will emerge!
Eve racing occasionally lets evidence change its wfa scale, and the amount of weight 3yo's get from older horses was cut some time after Grundy beat Bustino. If the current wfa scale had been used in that "race of the century" I would have won some money and Bustino would have beaten Grundy!
Anyhow when you get a truly great 4yo its worth the wait. The brigadier was virtually unbeatable and in fat was unbeatable over a mile, and his thrashing of top class milers when giving loads of weight to 3yo's under wfa terms was amazing. I cannot imagine any 3yo ever would have had a chance at all against him at level weights.
I have to say that I think that maybe 3yo's would just stick to the 3yo only races and avoid meeting older bruisers at level weights myself.
Th weight for age scale is only an average. Some 3yo's are very mature early, and can kill 4yo's giving weight due to the wfa scale. Some are less mature and should get more wfa than the scale allows. However there is no doubt at all that the wfa scale is reasonably fair and that its generally about right.
If enough anlysis was done I dare say you might find that the exact scale should be adjusted in line with the way things may have changed. I saw an article that suggested that 3yo's should get less weight in October than they do because of the record of 3yo's in the Arc. Timeform reckon that 2yo's get far too much weight from the rest in the Nunthorpe and I personally think they are dead right about that. Mind you I hope its never changed - I got 55/1 about Kingsgate Native exactly becasue of the wfa scale and in a couple of years when he has been forgotten again another bargain will emerge!
Eve racing occasionally lets evidence change its wfa scale, and the amount of weight 3yo's get from older horses was cut some time after Grundy beat Bustino. If the current wfa scale had been used in that "race of the century" I would have won some money and Bustino would have beaten Grundy!
Anyhow when you get a truly great 4yo its worth the wait. The brigadier was virtually unbeatable and in fat was unbeatable over a mile, and his thrashing of top class milers when giving loads of weight to 3yo's under wfa terms was amazing. I cannot imagine any 3yo ever would have had a chance at all against him at level weights.
However the argument you quote from is silly. Expecting 3yo's to run of level weights is a bit like expecting a 14 year old boy to be able to have a fight with a 21 year old man. That is a closer analgy to the reality of the wfa scale
I'd say compare racing to a fight is equally, if not more, silly.
I'd say compare racing to a fight is equally, if not more, silly.
If I remember correctly, admiral Rous devised the original WFA scale, at the time it was common for horses to run twice in a day and many races were 4 miles in distance, as time has passed the scale has been updated on many occasions, the horse seems to be getting faster and most horses race over specialised distances, I use it as a guide to the 3yo crop in relation to former years and it holds for about 2/3 seasons.
Said the same months ago on here in a very good quality thread. It could/should go, but this is a sport that still prevents geldings from running in the 2000 Guineas or Derby. For what good reason again? Oh yes, the same as why wfa still exists - to protect those precious breeding empires.
Anyhow, upping the 3yo's weight by 2lbs come Arc time wouldn't do a whole lot of damage on recent evidence. Perhaps the "average" should be tweaked with.
Anyhow, upping the 3yo's weight by 2lbs come Arc time wouldn't do a whole lot of damage on recent evidence. Perhaps the "average" should be tweaked with.
If you want to give horses an equal chance, then as many have posted above, WFA is a valid scale to apply.
As for the breeding aspect, agree that stallions should have to prove themselves at 4yo+, for the sake of future bloodstock if nothing else. Otherwise, get more and more precocious and speedier types being sent to stud at end of 2yo "champion" careers, with resultant effect that their own stock also never train on past the age of 2 either. Will have nothing left but 2yo racing at this rate.
Where the 4yos struggle to give weight to the 3yo classic generation, it's because 4yo's of equivalent ability have not been kept in training eg Harbinger, Goldikova, PAco Boy, Yeats etc. Most 3yo's of classic/Grp 1 ability are packed off to stud and so the older generations are deprived of quantity of stock to represent them against the 3yo's.
Rather than abolish the WFA scale, would suggest that:
a) thoroughbreds are not allowed to race until they are 3yo's. It's actually cruel to race animals like these at this age - would you compete your physically underdeveloped 8yo child against teenagers, let alone adults? Only development of the commercial bloodstock industry in the 1700's (I think) fed the demand to race thoroughbreds as young as 2. Think was illegal to race as young as that before then.
b)only permit horses to be used as stallions if they have raced as a 4yo or older, with those unable to race due to injury being inspected by an independent vet before being allowed to go to stud without racing as a 4yo.
As for the breeding aspect, agree that stallions should have to prove themselves at 4yo+, for the sake of future bloodstock if nothing else. Otherwise, get more and more precocious and speedier types being sent to stud at end of 2yo "champion" careers, with resultant effect that their own stock also never train on past the age of 2 either. Will have nothing left but 2yo racing at this rate.
Where the 4yos struggle to give weight to the 3yo classic generation, it's because 4yo's of equivalent ability have not been kept in training eg Harbinger, Goldikova, PAco Boy, Yeats etc. Most 3yo's of classic/Grp 1 ability are packed off to stud and so the older generations are deprived of quantity of stock to represent them against the 3yo's.
Rather than abolish the WFA scale, would suggest that:
a) thoroughbreds are not allowed to race until they are 3yo's. It's actually cruel to race animals like these at this age - would you compete your physically underdeveloped 8yo child against teenagers, let alone adults? Only development of the commercial bloodstock industry in the 1700's (I think) fed the demand to race thoroughbreds as young as 2. Think was illegal to race as young as that before then.
b)only permit horses to be used as stallions if they have raced as a 4yo or older, with those unable to race due to injury being inspected by an independent vet before being allowed to go to stud without racing as a 4yo.
Pedrobob
What do you make of your time ratings when comparing 3yos to the older horses? I accept that on average wfa roughly evens out the abilities (although I still think the present scale slightly tips the balance in favour of the 3yos and as far as I'm aware Timeform agree). The problem is when you get a very good/precocious 3yo. For instance the time performance Authorized put up in his Derby, I've yet to see a 4yo that could give 12lbs to that kind of clocking. In Authorized's case he never managed to run quite as fast again. The same goes for Sea the Stars, whose time performances in the Eclipse and International were good but not exceptional. Even though I rate Harbinger very highly he would've had no chance of giving wfa to STS' performances on the clock.
What do you make of your time ratings when comparing 3yos to the older horses? I accept that on average wfa roughly evens out the abilities (although I still think the present scale slightly tips the balance in favour of the 3yos and as far as I'm aware Timeform agree). The problem is when you get a very good/precocious 3yo. For instance the time performance Authorized put up in his Derby, I've yet to see a 4yo that could give 12lbs to that kind of clocking. In Authorized's case he never managed to run quite as fast again. The same goes for Sea the Stars, whose time performances in the Eclipse and International were good but not exceptional. Even though I rate Harbinger very highly he would've had no chance of giving wfa to STS' performances on the clock.
Why does the wfa scale in Britain not take account of foaling dates for the same age group out of interest?
Figgis, I'm with you that the WFA can only ever be an average scale, so will always advantage the more precocious types or those that are hard trained early as 2 and 3yos.
Can't say I'm dogmatic on whether the scale favours 3yo's. As your first proposition suggests, it very much depends on the horse doesn't it? How hard trained from young, and as Jose93 has just inferred, presumably foaling date must impact at what point each horse starts, left to it's own devices and nature, coming to it's peak.... and in terms that we like to measure, achieving maximum figures.
You give a good example in Authorized - best figures in the Derby and never as good in 3 starts after for varying reasons, hard race at Epsom, long season by the time Arc came around etc...
Only goes to show what an amazing horse Sea The Stars was - a near miracle to keep a 3yo winning a Group 1 every month of the season, culminating in the race that always goes to a horse basically laid out and targetted for it - the Arc.
I gave Harbinger just about the highest rating in the King George I've personally awarded any horse. Say he had been in Sea The Star's 2009 (very fast Eclipse) and as effective at 10f, I would have had Harbinger 3lbs ahead of Sea The Star's including WFA, though with both appearing to still have something left in the locker, it's unfair to put one ahead of the other.
What's the last real 3yo champion that was left in training in 4? Struggling to think of the best recent one. That would be the acid test of what we are talking about, wouldn't it ? Whether the likes of Sea The Stars could truly clock 15lbs better figures in the July of his 4yo career compared to 3? And whether the WFA scale truly applies.
In principle, I think it does, as the above comparison with Harbinger and Sea The Stars shows. No way could Harbinger beat Sea The Stars on his equivalent ratings as a 3yo. But allowed to develop into a mature horse, he clocked a figure in the King George that made him a monster in my eyes and could have beaten Sea The Stars conceding 15lbs.
Goldikova another who has clocked a couple of serious figures kept in training at 4+ and is a true champion. Yet she was clearly not as good as her nemesis Zarkava - who herself possibly could not have won the Arc, as brilliant as she was, without the fillies allowance and the WFA scale. Yet, would like to think that Zarkava would have kept on strengthening and given Sea The Stars an almighty race if kept in training at 4 with the disadvantage of the WFA scale.
Can't say I'm dogmatic on whether the scale favours 3yo's. As your first proposition suggests, it very much depends on the horse doesn't it? How hard trained from young, and as Jose93 has just inferred, presumably foaling date must impact at what point each horse starts, left to it's own devices and nature, coming to it's peak.... and in terms that we like to measure, achieving maximum figures.
You give a good example in Authorized - best figures in the Derby and never as good in 3 starts after for varying reasons, hard race at Epsom, long season by the time Arc came around etc...
Only goes to show what an amazing horse Sea The Stars was - a near miracle to keep a 3yo winning a Group 1 every month of the season, culminating in the race that always goes to a horse basically laid out and targetted for it - the Arc.
I gave Harbinger just about the highest rating in the King George I've personally awarded any horse. Say he had been in Sea The Star's 2009 (very fast Eclipse) and as effective at 10f, I would have had Harbinger 3lbs ahead of Sea The Star's including WFA, though with both appearing to still have something left in the locker, it's unfair to put one ahead of the other.
What's the last real 3yo champion that was left in training in 4? Struggling to think of the best recent one. That would be the acid test of what we are talking about, wouldn't it ? Whether the likes of Sea The Stars could truly clock 15lbs better figures in the July of his 4yo career compared to 3? And whether the WFA scale truly applies.
In principle, I think it does, as the above comparison with Harbinger and Sea The Stars shows. No way could Harbinger beat Sea The Stars on his equivalent ratings as a 3yo. But allowed to develop into a mature horse, he clocked a figure in the King George that made him a monster in my eyes and could have beaten Sea The Stars conceding 15lbs.
Goldikova another who has clocked a couple of serious figures kept in training at 4+ and is a true champion. Yet she was clearly not as good as her nemesis Zarkava - who herself possibly could not have won the Arc, as brilliant as she was, without the fillies allowance and the WFA scale. Yet, would like to think that Zarkava would have kept on strengthening and given Sea The Stars an almighty race if kept in training at 4 with the disadvantage of the WFA scale.
I think Rip Van Winkle is a good example. The reason he hasn't carried all before him this year isn't because he's gone backwards, his time rating in the QE2 is as good as anything I gave him last year, it's because he hasn't made the improvement from 3 to 4 that the wfa scale allows for.
Rip Van Winkle has been a big disappointment for me.
I gave him a 1lb higher fig in the Sussex compared to the QEII, but still 7-9 lbs below his best performances in the 2009 Eclipse and Sussex. Agree that he is majorly regressive just on pure figures alone, and even more so taking WFA into account. Why do you think that is?
I gave him a 1lb higher fig in the Sussex compared to the QEII, but still 7-9 lbs below his best performances in the 2009 Eclipse and Sussex. Agree that he is majorly regressive just on pure figures alone, and even more so taking WFA into account. Why do you think that is?
I have this year's Sussex as a very low rating due to the slow pace, as Hughes said afterwards, the pacemaker went fast but nobody else did. I have his rating in this year's QE2 as good as last year's Sussex, ignoring wfa.
I have generally found that the faster a horse can run as a 3yo, the less improvement (if any) he will make as a 4yo. It's the likes of Harbinger, who weren't top class 3yos that are inclined to improve more when older. Which gives creedence to the view that it is as much about precocity as ability.
I have generally found that the faster a horse can run as a 3yo, the less improvement (if any) he will make as a 4yo. It's the likes of Harbinger, who weren't top class 3yos that are inclined to improve more when older. Which gives creedence to the view that it is as much about precocity as ability.
Interesting Figgis. Did you have good times for the recent Royal Lodge and Fillies mile then?
Without the WFA Youmzain would have been a 2 times Arc winner in theory beating STS and Zarkava.
Using the same allowance as for the QE2, as I normally would, then those races can't be rated highly. However, even though those 2 races weren't run flat out, my feeling is they were still faster than that one allowance gives them credit for. Ascot has been unusual in recent years and I'm quite sure that the turf there is capable of drying out significantly throughout racing, much more so than other courses. I have too much evidence for this to be just some kind of educated guess. Whether it happened on QE2 day can only be an educated guess but I reckon it did, so I have rated those 2 races quite high. I think I remember you saying that you found Ascot to sometimes dry out quickly?
Not sure I ever said that Figgis, but agree Ascot a funny place to rate. Used to have a theory (for the relaid straight course) that there were literally 3 feet wide strips of ground that were mini-golden highways, and if you were lucky enough to find one, then was worth many lengths, hence why they finish so strung out like 3m chasers.
Thought maybe it was the drainage systems were laid up and down the course, rather than across it, and caused the faster strips. A wild theory, as don't know which way the drainage laid.
Thought maybe it was the drainage systems were laid up and down the course, rather than across it, and caused the faster strips. A wild theory, as don't know which way the drainage laid.
Sandown, yes that's true in theory, although a horse with a finishing kick, like STS and Zarkava, can't always be truly measured in weights and measures, as I'm sure you know.
Do you think that would necessarily be a bad thing though if Youmzain had won? I don't think it's a healthy situation for the sport to encourage an environment where horses are lightly raced with the aim of keeping them unbeaten, in order to conform to an unrealistic expectation of what a champion is.
Do you think that would necessarily be a bad thing though if Youmzain had won? I don't think it's a healthy situation for the sport to encourage an environment where horses are lightly raced with the aim of keeping them unbeaten, in order to conform to an unrealistic expectation of what a champion is.
Figgis
I agree with you that for the all-aged G1's there should be no allowances at all - not only age but sex as well just as jockeys allowances are not allowed either. The consequences would be that fewer 3 yr olds would run but so be it. It would also encourage owners to keep horses in training for another year which would help provide continuity. The breeding industry has such a grip - the money involved outweighs prizemoney - I guess it won't happen.
I agree with you that for the all-aged G1's there should be no allowances at all - not only age but sex as well just as jockeys allowances are not allowed either. The consequences would be that fewer 3 yr olds would run but so be it. It would also encourage owners to keep horses in training for another year which would help provide continuity. The breeding industry has such a grip - the money involved outweighs prizemoney - I guess it won't happen.
Yes I agree, Sandown , the breeding industry will never let it happen.
IMO any radical changes in the WFA scale would not help the sport. An Epsom Derby winner would only have either the Irish Derby or Grand Prix de Paris as summer targets - unless they upgraded the King Edward. While late season races such as the Arc or Champion Stakes would be more realistic targets as by then the gap in the WFA scale has narrowed by a further 6 or 7 pound, the likes of the Eclipse and King George would suffer greatly, and just at a time when the latter the 3 y-r-o's are returning to the latter.
The obvious upside of that would be that more 3yos would be kept in training, leading to the Eclipse and KG being much more competitive amongst the older brigade.
Sandown
Without the WFA Youmzain would have been a 2 times Arc winner in theory beating STS and Zarkava.
I suppose people would say he was just a beaten horse running on against the comfortable, but idling, winners . So that the lb difference was really rather bigger than the distance at the line.
Without the WFA Youmzain would have been a 2 times Arc winner in theory beating STS and Zarkava.
I suppose people would say he was just a beaten horse running on against the comfortable, but idling, winners . So that the lb difference was really rather bigger than the distance at the line.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539