May have said this before here but you gotta love this Iron Mare!
Probably gonna get beat at Delaware by a rival who is at home, a little faster, a pace advantage and only giving 2lbs! But none of that matters to the connections who will ship and show!
This Mare runs anywhere, almost always runs her race, doesn\'t worry about field size or pace and just gives her all! Made her name back at 2, won the Ky Oaks, almost got there in the BC Ladies Classic and still going strong at 4! A throwback type if there ever was one.
Wears a name that suits her pedigree and heart! $11K Sales purchase who is out of a Sire who ran Blind in One Eye! Gotta love this One! Doesn\'t get enough Fan love in my Book...
Agree with you Silver. I don\'t play her a lot due to price but she is one of my faves. Havre de grace is a beast though.
LC, we are on the same page! Part of my point however is that Blind Luck shipping across the country to tackle a Major Rival on her home track in a Major race has gotten less Publicity than an Uncle Mo Saratoga gallop!
And last time I checked they were both respective 3YO Champs....Just Sayin!
Enough Said! Gomex never used the stick and with 50 yards left knew he didnt!!
Cant wait to read about another Uncle Mo breeze for a week when a potential great Race Mare ships across country and isnt afraid to take the TEST!!
It\'s races like these that make you appreciate the game. Played a big double closing with Havre but knew I was in trouble when BL was close and who finishes a race better than Gomez?
Hope these two slug it out all the way to the Breeders Cup.
I agree with you LC! I guess my beef is this is the type of Hard Knocking, doesnt need to have it her way, Silky Sullivan type who shows up everytime abd could be a REAL BIG FAN FAVORITE is the Sport promoted as such!!
Instead the game spends way to much time hyping mythical 3YO types who simply dont race enough before rushing to a Stallion Barn. Or just show up and work like Uncle Mo who has done ZILCH this year.
I really didnt think she would win here. But I knew she would run her heart out. I tickled to say I have had the pleasure of watching her run in her career.....
\"Larry Jones, the trainer of Havre de Grace, had said before the race that the felt the two-pound spread was worth about 1 1/4 lengths going 1 1/4 miles. Afterwards, Jones was clearly upset the weights were not equal.
\"Tell me two pounds does not make a difference,\" Jones said. \"She won six Grade 1\'s versus our one and we are the highweight. That makes a lot of sense. I probably should not have run.\"
...Larry Jones a Kool Aid drinker, who would have guessed.2 pounds was the difference, BRILLIANT!!
Mike
...or, maybe he\'s right...
Try this, Mike. Take 2 pounds as a percentage of the weight of a horse. Then take the same percentage of either the distance or time of the race and see what you get.
JB,
Or look at the entire 6 races these horses had head to head, including the 6 and 10 lbs weight spots that BL gave HDG in the past. Both of those races very close despite the weight spot.Weight was not relevant at 6 and 10 lbs, why would 2lbs mean anything yesterday.
Math/geometry great for things that can be verified by that science, racing not one of them or the game would have already been conquered by it.Guess you missed a very interesting view by Gary Stevens yesterday about weight, much the same take as Bailey, Cordero, Migliore and other jocks who gave their opinions on weight from time to time.
Mike
You definitely should be buying Stevens\' figures then.
Right on point,per usual when a sheet theory is disproven.
That actually was exactly on point. And responding to nonsense like that is a complete waste of time.
As someone here is fond of saying, assertion is not proof. Or disproof.
Mike,
What did Stevens have to say about weight??
Paul,
From memory,it was his opinion that the 2 lbs weight spot did not figure in the outcome,Larry Jones had a different opinion.
He felt that some of the horses he rode could have run just as fast with more weight,to a point.Often, some fillies and light framed horses were not good weight carriers and every ounce of weight was important.
Something along those lines. Maybe spoke for a minute on the subject after the BL/HDG race. Had heard stuff like that before but what do guys that ride them every day know.
Mike
You\'re right, Mike. Riders are famous for being good handicappers, trainers, etc.
I love the idea that physics and geometry apply everywhere except the racetrack.
The idea that weight carried doesn\'t make a difference in any kind of race, whether its humans, automobiles, cockroaches, or horse racing, is pure ludicrous and I can\'t quite understand how anyone could possibly come to a different conclusion. e=mc2.
Using evidence that \"because all their races were close, despite weight carried, that means weight don\'t matter\" is beyond absurd and to the point of LOL funny.
JB,
Could not agree more. If we could book the \"handicapping\" opinions of jockeys, trainers and especially OWNERS(you left them out) we would need to rent Fort Knox to put all the money.
Re a jockey\'s opinion on the weight issue or dead rail issue, I\'ll defer to their opinion,you can use your favorite tools.
Mike
Two years ago, there was a long string on the Paceadvantage board that began with a poster writing the following:
\"I just heard Gary Stevens say that in a handicap, two pounds of extra weight will cost a horse one length.\"
So maybe the best approach here is to use the old Stevens formula for old races and the new Stevens formula (if there is one) for more-recent races.
Without empirical data, they wouldn\'t have a clue. All the jockey\'s I personally know (and that includes couple good ones) won\'t be found anywhere near any mensa meetings or math study groups. They are the last ones who I would refer to on this topic.
\"Using evidence that \"because all their races were close, despite weight carried, that means weight don\'t matter\" is beyond absurd and to the point of LOL funny\"
...yeah, why go off real examples, duh! Never said weight does not matter.Said all horses do NOT have the same ability to carry weight, nor do humans, cockroaches or any LIVING specie, duh!
Mike
I think the weight issue is a question of degree. I don\'t think anyone on this board would dispute the claim that a 20 lb. difference in weight would affect the outcome of the race, all other factors unchanged.
I think incremental change in weight, and pace too for that matter, would be better measured using a Richter-type (logarithmic) scale, or maybe a geometric scale whereby a single unit increase may have a 10-fold effect, or an increasing effect, rather than a 1 to 1 effect.
Maybe this is how TG works already? TGJB?
Pace? Yes!
Weight? I don\'t think this works very well in real life.
>> Never said weight does not matter
You just called Larry Jones a kool-aid drinker for believing in physics. Now which is it?
I\'m happy to play this game everyday when I see people who don\'t think 2 pounds matters.
If memory serves, I think it was Lenny Goodman who said \"If I were going to be a bookie, I\'d hang out in the jocks room and take all their action\".
Maybe someone has a better recollection.
Mike
There could be a few hundred reasons that these two fillies would finish differently against one another in different races, but for understanding why they might be affected by 2 pounds today as opposed to their previous races I think I have to go with the trainer. Obviously he felt his horse was at some sort of peak relative to the other horse and had its best chance to turn the tables...the 2 pounds were an affront to him for the reasons he stated...and may have made the difference given where he thought they were in their form cycles, physical development, mental development...you name it. Your only shot in this business is to align all variables and be thrilled to win your one race out of five (or so.) In any case, I have to go with Larry Jones before I ever listen to Gary Stevens.
Gary Stevens???? He\'s that shitty actor, right? I\'d rather ask Alan Alda...at least he\'s a horse player and he can act, too.
According to this, the real weight carried may vary from the official weight by up to 5+ lbs.
\"Each day\'s official racing program would state: \"A jockey\'s riding weight includes riding clothing, saddle, undergirth, and pad. The weight listed in the program does not include the jockey\'s safety equipment, which consists of the helmet, goggles, safety vest, and overgirth, and may also include a pommel pad, girth channel, and/or chamois. The total weight of this excluded safety equipment shall not exceed five pounds. The saddlecloths, whip, and bridle are not included in the five-pound limitation on safety equipment. The weight of the saddlecloth, bridle, whip, and all safety equipment is additive to and not included in the program weight or announced overweight.\"
Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/30900/chrbs-shapiro-to-testify-on-guild-dealings#ixzz1ST03Egbx
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> Never said weight does not matter
>
>
> You just called Larry Jones a kool-aid drinker for
> believing in physics. Now which is it?
>
> I\'m happy to play this game everyday when I see
> people who don\'t think 2 pounds matters.
There are many people who don\'t think 2 pounds matters, and they win at this game. Not everyone uses TG to be a winning player.
You can now dismount that high horse you love to ride.
>
> There are many people who don\'t think 2 pounds
> matters, and they win at this game. Not everyone
> uses TG to be a winning player.
>
> You can now dismount that high horse you love to
> ride.
How did the \"You can beat the game without TG\" argument get into this discussion? Did anybody bring up that TG is the end all-be all? I missed that.
And just because somebody can beat the game without TG (There\'s absolutely people who can, duh), explain to me how that changes the laws of physics?
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > There are many people who don\'t think 2 pounds
> > matters, and they win at this game. Not
> everyone
> > uses TG to be a winning player.
> >
> > You can now dismount that high horse you love
> to
> > ride.
>
> How did the \"You can beat the game without TG\"
> argument get into this discussion? Did anybody
> bring up that TG is the end all-be all? I missed
> that.
>
> And just because somebody can beat the game
> without TG (There\'s absolutely people who can,
> duh), explain to me how that changes the laws of
> physics?
TG uses weight as a major component in their ratings and analysis. Some non-TG users apply weight advantages to their handicapping, but it is usually for apprentice allowances and large weight differences. A couple pounds doesn\'t matter to them.
You made a comment that you would be happy to play with people that dismiss a couple pounds. As Mike stated, not all horses/people etc.. have the same ability to carry weight. Some can carry it better than others, it affects horses/people differently.
There is a lot more to this game than a couple pounds. Having a slavish fixation on weight, I\'m sure there are some that would be happy to play this game with those people.
Its an odds game, 2 pounds won\'t get me off a horse at a price. When someone is playing 3/1 shots, and have to be right far more often, perhaps being exact is more important.
Not saying weight never matters. Complaining about a couple pounds, without knowing how exactly that weight truly affected a horse, is specious at best. They aren\'t machines.
Many factors will affect horses differently, e.g., their comfort riding along the rail. However, the game is nothing if not about percentage plays and variables. There are always horses who will win at a weight disadvantage. That\'s not the issue, because horses will overcome all kinds of disadvantages to win. It\'s about weighing all the factors, however one might prioritize them. If weight is not a high priority for someone, so be it, but don\'t say it\'s not a factor, unless you wish to rewrite the laws of physics.
It is this sort of lack of exactness and disclosure that is discouraging to me as a horse player (don\'t even get me started on run ups and fractional times...). They should weigh each horse before each race and weigh each jockey (with EVERYTHING he is going to be wearing/using). Then we\'d get a much better picture. I believe they are far better at this sort of thing in Hong Kong.
Tangentially and speaking of horses\' weights - there was a good point made in a thread over at DRF about HDG and BL and their respective size. On Gomez\'s ESPN blog, he estimates that BL is 15.2 hands and weighs no more than 980 lbs. A commentator in the drf thread estimates that HDG is perhaps 16.1 hands and 100 lbs heavier than BL. Based on these two estimates, HDG was carrying 11.4% of her body weight in the race while BL, even though carrying \"less official weight\" was actually carrying a higher PERCENTAGE of her body weight, at 12.5%
Regardless of whether the two estimates of their body weights are correct, to me, this brings up a very good point. Of course weight carried matters. But should it not also be taken in the context of the size of the animal carrying it? For instance if a 140 lb sprinter runs against a 170lb sprinter and they carry 2lbs, wouldn\'t it be wise to assume that those two pounds negatively impact the smaller sprinter\'s final time more? Granted - attempting to get to this sort of contextual level in horse racing is all but impossible as they do not publish the actual body weight of horses.
On another tangent, this reminds me of a debate in hockey right now. Some people are in favour of bigger nets to create more offence, but many see that as fundamentally changing the game. But back 20 or 30 years ago, goalies were far smaller and thus shooters saw much more of the net (ie there was more empty space to shoot at). So wouldn\'t widening the net simply be returning the ratio of goalie:space in the net to it\'s original ratio...actually returning to the fundamentals of the game.
At any rate, good debate.
I\'d rather bet on Larry Jones theory of weight carried as opposed to yours...and in this case he appears to have been right.
Moose,
I didn\'t say it doesn\'t matter. I\'m saying 2 pds isn\'t going to sway me if the price is right.
Alm,
You can agree with Jones all you want. You have no idea whether that 2 pds made a difference. If you think all horses are created equal, and that weight affects them all equally, you are well within your rights. It\'s possible that if made a difference, and it\'s possible it didn\'t. If all of the amateur scientists on this board want to ramble on about physics, more power to them.
It\'s your money. You\'re entitled to ignore whatever you want. My point was addressed to your comment that \"complaining about a couple pounds without knowing how that weight truly affected a horse is specious at best\". No, we don\'t know such matters conclusively, and as I said above, there are many such variables with indeterminate impact, but does that mean they\'re off the table for discussion about a horse\'s performance? It is not specious, but rather speculative, and speculation that is grounded in sound theory.
phil23 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is this sort of lack of exactness and
> disclosure that is discouraging to me as a horse
> player (don\'t even get me started on run ups and
> fractional times...). They should weigh each horse
> before each race and weigh each jockey (with
> EVERYTHING he is going to be wearing/using). Then
> we\'d get a much better picture. I believe they
> are far better at this sort of thing in Hong
> Kong.
>
> Tangentially and speaking of horses\' weights -
> there was a good point made in a thread over at
> DRF about HDG and BL and their respective size.
> On Gomez\'s ESPN blog, he estimates that BL is 15.2
> hands and weighs no more than 980 lbs. A
> commentator in the drf thread estimates that HDG
> is perhaps 16.1 hands and 100 lbs heavier than BL.
> Based on these two estimates, HDG was carrying
> 11.4% of her body weight in the race while BL,
> even though carrying \"less official weight\" was
> actually carrying a higher PERCENTAGE of her body
> weight, at 12.5%
>
> Regardless of whether the two estimates of their
> body weights are correct, to me, this brings up a
> very good point. Of course weight carried
> matters. But should it not also be taken in the
> context of the size of the animal carrying it?
> For instance if a 140 lb sprinter runs against a
> 170lb sprinter and they carry 2lbs, wouldn\'t it be
> wise to assume that those two pounds negatively
> impact the smaller sprinter\'s final time more?
> Granted - attempting to get to this sort of
> contextual level in horse racing is all but
> impossible as they do not publish the actual body
> weight of horses.
>
> On another tangent, this reminds me of a debate in
> hockey right now. Some people are in favour of
> bigger nets to create more offence, but many see
> that as fundamentally changing the game. But back
> 20 or 30 years ago, goalies were far smaller and
> thus shooters saw much more of the net (ie there
> was more empty space to shoot at). So wouldn\'t
> widening the net simply be returning the ratio of
> goalie:space in the net to it\'s original
> ratio...actually returning to the fundamentals of
> the game.
>
> At any rate, good debate.
It\'s legitimate to question weight as it pertains to body weight. That said, there\'s another issue to consider, and it\'s the build of the horse, not just their weight. Some smaller horses and ponies can more easily carry weight than larger horses. The width and strength of their loin is important in weight-carrying ability.
Now, how we\'d check for this, I don\'t know. At one time I thought, too, that weight should be a percentage of body size instead of flatly assigned regardless of the animals\' sizes, but it\'s entirely possible to have a very big horse like Zenyatta have a weaker loin and have less weight carrying ability than a smaller horse like Blind Luck.
Paul,
Guys are all around it. Size alone may not determine any specie\'s ability to carry weight. A smaller horse could be stronger,a better weight carrier than a larger horse.Until science has a way to measure each individual horses strength, there is only speculation/opinion as to what affect there may be under various weight scenarios.
The \"scientists\" here completely ignore that all horses having the EXACT ability/strength to carry weight is out there in la la land. Check out the Beyer Speed Figures for the Fall Highweight each of the last 20 years and tell me about physics, as it applies to weight carrying in horse racing.Watch some horses drilling in the am under 135-140 lbs ripping off splits with impunity under much heavier imposts than they ever carry in a race,never showing any slow down despite the extra weight.
Incidentally, Garret Gomez who rode BL stated the two pounds WAS the difference in his opinion and feels 2 pounds always makes a difference, contrary to what others opine about that.
Lots of differing opinions but no science.I\'ll always take the 2 pounds for insanity insurance in case I get head bobbed.
Mike
Miff wrote:
\"Check out the Beyer Speed Figures for the Fall Highweight each of the last 20 years and tell me about physics, as it applies to weight carrying in horse racing.\"
Len Friedman uses the Fall Highweight as evidence that the sheet weight correction is accurate. From an old post of his:
\"As I\'ve posted before, those who say that weight doesn\'t matter or that its effect is too hard to quantify will have to explain to me how the horses in the Fall Highweight Handicap over several decades have run slower in time in proportion to our correction for the extra weight that they carry over their usual imposts. These were situations where the horses were carrying substantially increased weight so that the effects were more easily measured and were horses of enough quality that there was sufficient consistency in their performances so the measurement of the effect of weight was possible (as against their before and after performances). On the one hand trainers and owners complain about two extra pounds in a handicap (so much so that racing secretaries have been intimidated from make realistic handicapping decisions on highweights that they hope will enter their races) and on the other hand you have putzes that believe that contrary to all known physical laws that added weight doesn\'t require more effort to move it! The idea that the weight differences are so small as to be de minimus in relation to the weight of the horse (or the jockey)is sophistry. All the measurements we make as to the effort that each horse has put out are based on relatively small differences. A point at 6f is based approximately on a difference of 1/3 of a per cent of the time of the race and the ground loss correction is a similar % of the distance of the race for each point. To get accurate figures there are many precise measurements that need to be made and the idea is to make them, not make excuses for why they don\'t matter or are too tough to work out.\"
Len Friedman, too funny, not self serving at all. Don\'t know him well enough, ask him if he\'d like to bet using an impartial ref, my data against his.
Nice science too, duh!
Mike
\"Len Friedman, too funny, not self serving at all.\"
You are quoting jockeys and sending people to Beyer figures, and then you are complaining about \"self serving\"? And while we\'re at it, whom are you serving, Mother Teresa?
\"Don\'t know him well enough, ask him if he\'d like to bet using an impartial ref, my data against his.\"
Is this one of those, you know, rhetorical challenges that are meant only for grandstanding purposes? If not, if in fact you are serious about it, then why not post it on Friedman\'s board? You don\'t have to know Friedman to post there.
Rich,
Never posted there ever but speak daily to a serious Raggie gambler who knows them well.You\'d like to locked up in a room with them gambling horses, head to head.
You have selective memory also, If I offer a bet here,I follow through.Not surprising you have stayed away from \"all horses are not of equal strength\"as that kinda flies in the face of the weight discussion here.
Mike
\"Never posted there ever but speak daily to a serious Raggie gambler who knows them well.You\'d like to locked up in a room with them gambling horses, head to head.\"
I thought \"News of the World\" went out of business.
\"You have selective memory also, If I offer a bet here,I follow through.\"
I have no way of knowing what happened to the bet you and Jimbo were trying to work out a few years ago. Is that what you are talking about? If you\'re talking about something else, then this is going to get very funny very fast.
\"Not surprising you have stayed away from \'all horses are not of equal strength\' as that kinda flies in the face of the weight discussion here.\"
How so? I have no reason to believe that all horses are equally good at carrying weight. But what is your solution? You began this string by ridiculing Larry Jones\' weight adjustment. What is yours? Interview the jockey after the race, ask him how much he thinks the weight cost the horse, and adjust in that manner?
We did,Jimbo beat me for big money.
On weight, easy, physics.Have a kool aid on me!
Mike
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not surprising you have
> stayed away from \"all horses are not of equal
> strength\"as that kinda flies in the face of the
> weight discussion here.
I don\'t see any inherent contradiction there. Yes, weight affects horses differently, in ways we don\'t fully understand. Shall I document other facets of the thoroughbred that we don\'t completely understand? It would be a very long list. However, there are numerous variables which will affect them to a degree, which can be quantified and, over a sufficient period of time, will hold true more often than not. We look to these for an edge that will serve us well over the long haul, which also means they won\'t necessarily hold true for every race, or every horse. What else is this game if not about percentage plays, and percentage angles?
\"Have a kool aid on me!\"
Meanwhile, you are drinking an invisible drink out of an invisible cup, with the occasional visible jockey quotation mixed in, and when that same jockey turns out to have said the complete opposite of what you believe, you yourself become invisible.
Rich
Serious,the kool aid has impaired you. I posted that Gomez completely disagrees with me on the 2 pounds.Disappeared? Let\'s cool it,making a fool of yourself
Mike
\"Serious,the kool aid has impaired you. I posted that Gomez completely disagrees with me on the 2 pounds.Disappeared? Let\'s cool it,making a fool of yourself\"
I was talking about Gary Stevens, whom you had credited with having an informed opinion on the subject. Are you willing to accept everything Stevens has to say about weight? And the same goes for the 10+ nameless jockeys you enlisted in your cause the other day. Live by these guys? Actually name these guys? You will die by these guys.
Mike, I\'ve been trying to stay out of this. But you have absolutely no position. You have sort of quotes from some guys (maybe), a sort of opinion based on selected results (as opposed to a serious study), and considering all that, an awful lot of insults coming out of you. Rich is not the one making a fool out of himself.
Far be it from me to defend Friedman, but you live in a world where the opinion of someone named Raggie Richie as to the handicapping ability of someone else is a response to their argument on weight? Really? While at the same time valuing the handicapping opinion of those famously hopeless handicappers, jockeys?
JB,
Rich has no opinion. He is one who picks thru different posts, selects a word or a phrase and goes on a babbling off point tangent. Check the facts on that.
Defending your friend is admirable but he has no opinion based on anything,mine is based on lack of science in determining the ability of each horse to carry weight.Only science can prove my opinion wrong, not your opinion, Friedman\'s or any jockey\'s.
Mike
miff,
The facts of empirical data collection have proven you wrong. Characterizing Friedman or Jerry\'s thoughts on the subject as \"opinion\", while at the same time citing jockey opinion, has you making a fool out of yourself.
I love how a thread about loving Blind Luck, just a simple fan letter, turns into this. What a great board. Absolute pisser.
If it means anything, from what I\'ve read, Friedman sounds like a combination of Shakespeare and Einstein compared to everything else!
Funny thing is years ago when I worked at TG I had a similar argument with Jerry. \"Five pounds is like a horse carrying a can of tuna. What difference could it make?\"
But hey, five pounds equals one point. Either use it or discard. Live and let live! Or as this seems to be going, live and let DIE. LOL.
HP
\"The facts of empirical data collection\"
Another genius.This is gettin good!!
Precisely WHAT \"facts of empirical data collection\" has quantified the individual strength of each horse.
Surely you are not referring to the unscientific data bases all over the place, laden with opinion and preconceived notions, are you??
Mike
The point people (and certainly Mike) don\'t get is how small a length (let alone less than that) is relative to the distances horses race. Again, 5 pounds is 1/200th (approximately) of the weight of a racehorse. 1/200th of a mile is... MORE than what we\'re using for a point at a mile.
Not that that\'s where the \"formula\" comes from. It\'s an approximation, and different versions have been used for many years by people quantifying performance (hence the term \"pounds the best\', among a million other things). Most ratings in other countries are in fact expressed in pounds.
One of the more ridiculous things Mike says (though not as ridiculous as ground loss doesn\'t matter on the first turn except in certain pace scenarios) is that 2 pounds doesn\'t make a difference, but ten does. Ten makes MORE of a difference. But either weight matters or it doesn\'t, and gravity says it does. It may or may not be the deciding factor in a race, it may not matter to a meaningful degree. But more weight makes the job harder to SOME degree.
Ragozin was using 5 pounds+ 1 point before I was, it\'s slightly different than what they use in Europe. After looking at how the figures mesh in tens of thousands of races it looks about right. The problem is that we don\'t know the weights of the individual horses, as I have said here several times in the past. The good news is that unlike with humans, racehorse size falls in a fairly tight range, like 1,000 pounds plus or minus 20%. So the degree of accuracy is probably about that-- five pounds = somewhere between 1.6 and 2.4 points, depending on the size of the horse.
And by the way, the post about weights not always being accurate raised an important issue. There have been at least two scandals I\'m aware of concerning clerks of scales letting certain riders break rules (in both directions, by the way). But that doesn\'t mean we can disregard the whole question. You work with the data you have. You just don\'t assume your figures are 1/4 point accurate, like that guy across town used to do (read his book).
Nice theory,no science.
Yeah, the theories of Euclid and Newton probably won\'t hold up in the long run.
Yeah,Euclid, Newton and Ragosin. Which doesn\'t belong and why?
What exactly would qualify as \"science\" here to you Miff?
The dictionary says science is \"a branch of study concerned with observation and classification of facts and especially with the establishment of verifiable general laws.\"
Building a database like TG\'s and having Jerry observe the effects of weight...actually sounds like science on some level to me. What kind of study could YOUu design that could do a better job here?
Part of science is designing methods to observe and confirm your theories. Jerry has a database and has been observing EVERY race on EVERY major circuit for...a very long time. That\'s a pretty comprehensive study. I can\'t even imagine the cost and labor involved in creating a comparable database. What would YOU offer in its place? To get to the bottom of it? HP
Miff wrote:
\"Rich has no opinion. He is one who picks thru different posts, selects a word or a phrase and goes on a babbling off point tangent.\"
Damn! Raggie Richie was supposed to keep that between me and him.
Pretty sure I didn\'t put Len in with Euclid and Newton. That really would be a news story. That was all you. (And probably Len, if you asked him).
HP,
A very intelligent question. There may be some brilliant physics professor who can come up with empiracal data(by testing) to confirm that 2 additional lbs slows down EVERY horse. No single horse who ever lived was capable of carrying 2 more pounds and run just as fast as when carrying 2 pounds less.This according to Sheet theory.
What JB and others cannot get their hands around(and avoid it like the plague) is that every horse is NOT of equal weight carrying ability. A formula that adjusts EVERY horse by one length per 5 lbs(distance aside) is assuming that ALL horses are of equal strength and are ALWAYS affected by precisely one length per 5 lbs of spot.
I would love to bet that all horses are not of equal strength and any formula using that assumption is scientifically flawed.
Mike
Yes, compiling data and looking at the results is not science. Miff is a genius!!
Are you under the impression that horses \"carrying\" weight is like humans carrying weight, involving arm strength, a strong back, like that? Regardless, the idea that a certain amount of weight would make a difference and a lesser one would make none (as opposed to even just saying one too small to measure) makes no sense. How would you come up with it mattering at 10 pounds? Why not 20? Horses spotting 10 pounds win all the time, doesn\'t that mean it didn\'t matter?
Miff wrote:
\"A formula that adjusts EVERY horse by one length per 5 lbs(distance aside)\"
Good Lord.
Have we learned nothing from the Casey Anthony trial. Define inference: an educated guess. Inference was not enough to convict her,but this game is all about the percentages as Moosepalm said. We use inferences every time we handicap a race and the more information we have that is valid and based on scientific data the better. I\'ll take my chances with TG\'s data any day of the week and 87 stakes winners validates that confidence. I have not heard a single viable alternative to what info we are working with now. Why not give this thread a rest and let\'s go hunt for Casey Anthony, sell her location to the media and make a million dollars. Now that\'s a sure thing.
JB,
Firstly,there is no knock on the reasonableness of the formula that \"sheets\" use in coming up with a figure.That was never my intent,it\'s just not science. There is way too little \"racing science\" about weight, as it relates to race horses carrying it.The finish of the BL/HDG race may have been decided by the 2lb weight spot...or not!
Surely,you have been around animals with VERY different physical attributes and if measurable,different levels of strength.I know you are aware that strength/ power/balance/athleticism/desire are key attributes of fast horses.
Strength translates to the ability to comfortably shoulder different weight imposts.You cannot believe that a slight 3 yr old filly is as strong as a stout 3 yr colt or that every single 3 yr old colt is precisely affected,final time wise, by 2 lbs or 5 or 10.How is that possible, surely some are stronger than others.
The game was filled with great weight carriers, were they all only equal to their peers in strength,I don\'t think so.
Mike
P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Moose,
> I didn\'t say it doesn\'t matter. I\'m saying 2 pds
> isn\'t going to sway me if the price is right.
>
> Alm,
> You can agree with Jones all you want. You have no
> idea whether that 2 pds made a difference. If you
> think all horses are created equal, and that
> weight affects them all equally, you are well
> within your rights. It\'s possible that if made a
> difference, and it\'s possible it didn\'t. If all
> of the amateur scientists on this board want to
> ramble on about physics, more power to them.
I didn\'t say anything about physics nor do I think all horses are created equal...I\'ve bred about 65 myself and know what we are dealing with here. What I did say was Larry Jones knows his horse better than any of us...he is accomplished in the field...more so than most...his pre-race comments harken back to how a lot of the greatest trainers sounded when handicap racing was more prevalent...and I trust that his fear was realize when his filly lost by a hair.
I didn\'t bet this race, but if I was going to bet it I would have leaned towards Blind Luck, based upon Jones\' fear. That\'s logic. That\'s common sense. THat\'s not science, except if we are considering the science of the human mind. That\'s what I meant by my comment.
Rich,
Again you chose to dissect.There are people inside the game longer than you, and with far greater knowledge, that believe that a spot 5 pounds at 6f does not have the same affect as 5 lbs at 8f, while others believe it has the same affect at all distances.Personally, don\'t fall on either side.
Just opinions,Rich, no science. Whats yours? Guess you don\'t have one.
Mike
Is it ok if I jump in here? I know this has gone on ad nauseum following your comment, Jerry, but apart from agreeing with you about carrying weight (it\'s a simple argument...elegant and accurate...that it has to make some difference) one aspect of the animal that has been left out of the conversation is conformational balance.
A racehorse that is put together well, with great balance, can handle more of every stress of racing than one that is not perfect. Weight carrying is one such stress (but there are many others.)
I am going to guess one could examine Blind Luck and find that she is extraordinarily well put together and able to handle weight better as a result. However much it slows her down, it slows her competitors down more, because they are likely to make miniscule stride adjustments that are not natural to them. The reason some milers and sprinters can become great sires of distance running horses is because they are able to transmit conformation and balance through their genes. They may not transmit the internals, which can come from the mare anyway, but if they give a great skeletal configuration to a horse, they enable him or her to carry their game further than they otherwise might.
A study of body weight to weight carried might be far less meaningful than a study of conformation to weight carried. And as you know, but perhaps not all who post here, there are people out there in the field who do indeed study this stuff...and are very good at it. For my part, I start breeding decent horses from the same stock that produced mediocre horses before I began using a couple of these people to suggest matings, based on......balanced conformation.
Hopefully everyone realizes we are talking about 2-10 pounds ON TOP OF the 115 or so the horse is alreay carrying ON TOP OF its own 1,000. There is absolutely no sense to the idea that one horse or another will be \"better\" able to carry that 2-10 pounds out of 120 or 1120, depending on how you look at it, just as there is no sense to the idea that it will have no effect. The effect of the weight, as I have said here, is minor, when measuerd in terms of percentage of time running-- but not minor in terms of the outcome of races between evenly matched competitors.
AGAIN-- as I have said, what we use is an estimate. Yes, I think it\'s quite possible the effect on an 800 pound filly will be different from a 1200 pound colt. But only on a percentage basis-- not one can \"handle\" it, the other not.
Miff wrote: \"What JB and others cannot get their hands around(and avoid it like the plague) is that every horse is NOT of equal weight carrying ability. A formula that adjusts EVERY horse by one length per 5 lbs(distance aside) is assuming that ALL horses are of equal strength and are ALWAYS affected by precisely one length per 5 lbs of spot.\"
Miff wrote: \"There are people inside the game longer than you, and with far greater knowledge, that believe that a spot 5 pounds at 6f does not have the same affect as 5 lbs at 8f\"
Yep. You need to read the Thoro-Graph introduction because you do not understand how TG adjusts for weight.
Good one Rich, but before you ever heard of Thorograph,I was buying NY TG sheets every day on 86th Street in Brooklyn. Quite familiar with TG adjustments although I can\'t write it chapter and verse.
Now, whats your opinion on anything about racing, guaranteed you don\'t have a clue. Let me dissect it,be a sport.
Mike
Miff,
You are confusing your nihilism with taking a stand.
I\'ve been defending fixed terrain: Race Shapes, sheets weight adjustment.
I don\'t fancy the chances that you will get my point, but there it is.
And now a non-racing opinion: \"I Wanna Marry You\" is Springsteen\'s most underrated song--a buried gem to end all gems.
OK, discussing weight has grown tedious, and points of agreement are obvious to most, but the assertion that Curtis has no opimions has to be the funniest comment I\'ve read here in the post-Chuckles era. I went to law school with people who had fewer opinions than Curtis, which is no small feat, and in this game, I have never met anyone whose opinions are more carefully calibrated, and substantiated by fact and logic. What is apparently the rub here is his ability to unmask opinions of others which are built on hearsay or other unsupported assertions.
alm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it ok if I jump in here? I know this has gone
> on ad nauseum following your comment, Jerry, but
> apart from agreeing with you about carrying weight
> (it\'s a simple argument...elegant and
> accurate...that it has to make some difference)
> one aspect of the animal that has been left out of
> the conversation is conformational balance.
>
> A racehorse that is put together well, with great
> balance, can handle more of every stress of racing
> than one that is not perfect. Weight carrying is
> one such stress (but there are many others.)
>
> I am going to guess one could examine Blind Luck
> and find that she is extraordinarily well put
> together and able to handle weight better as a
> result. However much it slows her down, it slows
> her competitors down more, because they are likely
> to make miniscule stride adjustments that are not
> natural to them. The reason some milers and
> sprinters can become great sires of distance
> running horses is because they are able to
> transmit conformation and balance through their
> genes. They may not transmit the internals, which
> can come from the mare anyway, but if they give a
> great skeletal configuration to a horse, they
> enable him or her to carry their game further than
> they otherwise might.
>
> A study of body weight to weight carried might be
> far less meaningful than a study of conformation
> to weight carried. And as you know, but perhaps
> not all who post here, there are people out there
> in the field who do indeed study this stuff...and
> are very good at it. For my part, I start
> breeding decent horses from the same stock that
> produced mediocre horses before I began using a
> couple of these people to suggest matings, based
> on......balanced conformation.
Good post, Alm, but I don\'t think anyone would say that BL is well put together. Instead, most would say she\'s a rat (in looks only, not heart and talent). Remember that she was bought for a pittance, and she would\'ve brought a very nice sum for her sire if she had outstanding conformation.
All this said, it\'s still possible that she possesses good weight carrying ability without being much to look at.
Miff - this shows how difficult it is to design a scientific study, if nothing else. There are very few absolutes, even in science.
If the basic question is, what is the impact of weight, for me, if the TG database and observations gives it a number and says 5 pounds is a point, I can use that. If it\'s a system you can use it as an internal adjustment within the system. I don\'t see anything inherently wrong with that.
Of course there are horses that do a better job of carrying weight...but if you need a rule of thumb this is pretty good. There are SO MANY variables and this is just one of them. I\'ve found it useful in my handicapping and I see some of the exact same potential flaws that you do in blindly applying it. But until I see something better, I will use this when I look at the TGs. It\'s not a BAD rule of thumb. HP
I do appreciate your comment, but it misses my point a bit...large or small may have less to do with weight carrying ability...conformation and balance may have more to do with it. Small horses generally sell for less at sales, regardless of how they are put together. If you are interested start reviewing Equix Biomechanics\' website and branch off from there for other material on this subject. This is not the be-all and end-all of understanding horses, but it\'s a good piece of insight to have into just how the smallest piece of bad conformation can compromise a horse\'s stride. This stuff won\'t help you make better bets, but it\'s interesting beyond that.
alm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do appreciate your comment, but it misses my
> point a bit...large or small may have less to do
> with weight carrying ability...conformation and
> balance may have more to do with it. Small horses
> generally sell for less at sales, regardless of
> how they are put together. If you are interested
> start reviewing Equix Biomechanics\' website and
> branch off from there for other material on this
> subject. This is not the be-all and end-all of
> understanding horses, but it\'s a good piece of
> insight to have into just how the smallest piece
> of bad conformation can compromise a horse\'s
> stride. This stuff won\'t help you make better
> bets, but it\'s interesting beyond that.
I don\'t disagree with what you\'re saying except how it relates to Blind Luck as I feel confident she\'s not a case of the well-conformed horse whose only fault is being small.