weight, who is right?

[Saddlecloth]

ok, new topic I guess.  Been struggling with weight (on and off the track, lol).  I never really factored it in under the theory that a few pounds is not going to mean much to a 1100 pound horse, but have been reconsidering under two premises.

1) If I and a buddy run a mile and I have to carry a 5 pound weight on my back and all other things being equal I will lose that race.  Body weight and dead weight or two highly different things.

2) If weight was meaningless then why is it every \"bug\" seems to win at a high percentage, and get very live mounts.  Trainers who know more about this game than anyone obviously think its important as they use these apprentices all the time.  Look at Mick Ruis, he has not won a race since losing his \"bug\" and has gone from 5 live mounts to 1 longshotper day.

So I guess what I am getting at is I am seeing things a bit different, but not a 100% sold.

[miff]

On weight which do you believe:

1.The science which proves that moving objects go slower as weight is increased.

2.The opinion of Allen Jerkens that certain horses \"shoulder\" the impost better than others and that certain horses can carry say 118lbs or 122lbs and run the same final time(contrary to science)IHO.

3.Jerry Bailey was quoted as saying, when two horses are exhausted and head to head in deep stretch, heart and will matters, not a few pounds,IHO.

4.TG says that 5lbs equal one length etc. I\'sure JB has some science behind that or it would not be part of the overall formula making  the figs.

5.Many knowledgeable people who feel that   a few pounds on a 1000+ pound horse does not affect the final time a horse will run.

6.After watching many races, about 80k, I\'m of the opinion that weight counts for sure, but how much I really don\'t know.I have seen a more profound effect on a horse when they get to carrying the 123- 126 lb range.

[Thehoarsehorseplayer]

Weight is interwoven into the logic of horse racing as fat is into a quality piece of meat.  And just as one can enjoy a great steak without once thinking about how the marbalization of the fat is creating the taste, obviously one can pick winners without giving too much thought to weight.
Still, there is not a great chef in the world who would not be particular about the texture of the fat in the meat he chooses. And I suspect there are very few handicappers able to prepare a bet more sophisticated than a \"box lunch\" who are not aware of weight.
But you\'ve already asked the important question, I always ask when people tell me weight is meaningless, \"And what\'s the other reason, trainers use apprentices?\"
Obvioulsy, weight means something.  But like many other handicapping variables, learning  when and how much to emphasize weight is an art rather than a science.
Now I can offer you some general principals.  But as I do I must tell you that I\'m an anolgue handicapper rather than a digital guy.  That is I do my handicapping by reading the Racing Form, assigning values to individual variables by how they relate to other variables, rather than relying on a \"digital\" number.
This is not a judgmental statement.  I certainly see the advantages of a numerical approach to a race, especially if you\'re happy breaking even, but I\'m much more comfortable making bets after asking myself these questions, \"What is the horse being asked to do today?  Is he in condition off his last race to do it?  And/or, are the connection making the adjustments necessary for him to win today.  (And by adjustments I mean, of course the whole litanty of a trainer\'s oeuvre, changing distance, changing equipment, changing surface, putting the proper works needed into him, etc,etc,etc.)
Which means utimatley I handicap intention.  You know horse racing is a three-headed beast. If we say, it\'s a sport, it\'s a game and it\'s a business, then we can describe hanicapping as trying to figure out which of these three heads is the dominant factor in any given race.  The sport guys believe the fastest horse always wins, the game guys believe the competitive horse at the best price is the way to riches.  And the business guy is always looking for the connections to pay their bills by putting one over.  And, of course, that\'s an oversimplication, since most of us are always looking at races from more than one perspective.  And yet, I would guess that after all the balls we are juggling settle on the ground, they end up in one of these three camps.
And I\'m an intentions guy. How this relates to weight is that I think a trainer is much more likely to ask his horse for a maximum effort under light weights.
And I\'m going to digress again for a moment, but it seems to me that one of the problems with relying on numbers is that they presume a maximum effort was exerted.  And I just don\'t think that is even almost always the case.  Trainers use races to work their horses out, or to prepare for another race all the time, and I really don\'t know how relevant a number earned under those conditions can be. Was the horse, bouncing or breezing?
But back to intentions and weight.  Because I think a trainer is much more likely to ask his charge for a maximum effort under light weight I always want to be aware of when horses are taking weight off.
And therefore weight off means so much more to me than weight on.
My experience is that horses in good shape have no problem carrying added weight.  I do believe that carrying weight can be enervating, can induce a bounce, and I am certainly wary of what I call \"accumulated enervation.\"  That is I am wary of horses who have been carrying a lot of weight, under ardous conditions, for a very long time (Did somebody say Lion Heart?) but as a genral rule weight on is not a problem for a fresh horse.
And yet, I\'ll say it again, weight off can be a big advantage to a horse.  Not only, because maybe the horse feels a little friskier, which afterall is pure anthropomorphic conjecture, but because it might indicate the trainer is going to ask the jockey to ask the horse for everything today.  Or to be more cynical, is going to put the juice in today. So we have the apprentice on phenomona, but we also have the little price reductions in the claiming races.  You know the $50,000-40,000 race, that everybody is entered for $50,000 except for Trainer x\'s at $45,000 which entitles him to a 2lb break.  Now maybe he\'s just looking to induce a person to buy his horse cheap, but I\'ve seen to many of these horse win, or place at great prices (and not get claimed) not to think those two pounds meant something performance wise to the trainer.
And again to all those who would insist that 2lbs can\'t possibly mean anything to a 1500 lbs animal, I would simply say that becoming a good hanicapper is not about insisting that horse racing conform to your sense of logic, but is learning how to play into the logic of the game.  And I know that this still comes as a big surprise to people, despite having read condition after condition, but the logic of horseracing as a handicapable game is predicated upon the influence of weight upon horses.  And it\'s only been that way for, well,  big surprise here, since the game began.
But as I said to start this posting, weight is so marbalized into the texture of racing that it\'s possible to cash tickets without realizing it\'s there.  And yes, I have heard people say, \"Well, I don\'t care about weight, but I love to bet apprentices.\"  And does it matter, if the apprentice wins, that the bettor didn\'t consciously factor weight into his decision?  But many such ironies, we know, are build into the handicapping game, dooming most bettors to lose for lack of knowing why they won.
In summation, I just want to say I think weight off is more advantageous than weight on is disadvantageous.  And that I do think trainers use the condition book to manipulate weight, like they manipulate class and distance, to set horses up for big efforts.



Post Edited (09-10-04 18:56)

[Saddlecloth]

wow, well stated

[twoshoes]

If I ever buy a horse I may name it Anthropomorphic Conjecture... moving like a winner.

[Furious Pete]

Just wanted to share with you this fantastic piece by Thehoarsehorseplayer, stumbled upon it while doing some searching for discussions about the weight-presumptions in the TG-figures ! Really, really good read.

[Leamas57]

Wonderful,stuff!  Thanks for sharing. My only comment is that the apprentice can cost you lengths with a bad ride. A guy or gal who has the discipline and the mental stopwatch to ride for the track or the pace is worth a lot. But I love your use of the word \"intention\" because I look for it in workouts, too.  For example, a work on the grass or a work at the distance. It never occurred to me that weight could reveal it, too.

Leamas

[smalltimer]

Can use only 18 letters.

[TGJB]

A passing comment:

People don\'t realize how small an adjustment we make for weight, and how small the differentials are we\'re talking about in general when we measure anything in this game. If you use 1:40 as the time for a mile (because it\'s 100 seconds, which makes the math easy), a full second is one percent of the time. We\'re talking about FIFTHS of seconds, each one five hundredth of the final time, and four pounds having that effect.

Would you notice a difference running if something affected your time by 1/500th? Probably not. But that doesn\'t mean it\'s not happening.

[dcost328]

This was a great read. Thanks for the thoughts hosrse and JB. Very interesting stuff.