WEIGHT INFLUENCE ON HANDICAPPING

[duckhunter3]

I started a thread about who was the best (Z or RA) and got some interesting comments and a couple of smart ass comments. I mentioned that THEORETICALLY 2 lbs of extra weight in a handicap race was equivalent to spotting the field 1 length. Yes, that was mentioned by Gary Stevens, a former jockey, as I recall.

Zenyatta had 16 lbs more than the rest of the field yesterday.

One member here said NO WAY. with no explanation. Just no way.

Well, let's have a meaningful discussion here, and also include the reasons for our very "strong opinions".

1. How much weight WILL equal 1 length disadvantage?
2. Is there any way to quantify it or is it too nebulous and too dependent on too many other factors?
3. How do you deal with extra weight when you are analyzing a race?
4. Under what circumstances do you think extra weight is important?

Let's have some meaningful discussion. If there are former jockeys out there, like Gary Stevens, let's hear from them, especially.

And of course we want to hear from all of the computer gurus who think that crunching numbers is the end-all to handicapping.

Seriously I want to learn. But I find dismissive comments not very helpful, and actually destructive of the true purpose of this board.

Waiting to hear from the experts on weight.
duck

[andymays]

I think it means something at one mile and one eighth and longer. Look for weight swings between contenders that faced each other in the previous race.

Sometimes two horses will come out of the same race and when they face each other in the next race one will pick up 4 pounds and one will drop 4 pounds. An eight pound swing is significant in this instance. The swing in weights could be because of the conditions of the race or the switch to an apprentice jockey.

Weight isn't as big a deal as many novice handicappers think it is unless it fits the conditions I layed out above.

Good Luck!

[duckhunter3]

Thanks for the reply. AT LEAST you gave some reasons for your opinion. I am challenging those here who choose to be dismissive in my previous post about who is better, RA or Z, and when I mentioned the tremendous weight differential Z carried. I want to hear from them. Hope I do.
duck

[andymays]

Thanks for the reply. AT LEAST you gave some reasons for your opinion. I am challenging those here who choose to be dismissive in my previous post about who is better, RA or Z, and when I mentioned the tremendous weight differential Z carried. I want to hear from them. Hope I do.
duck


You can't tell much from yesterdays races when it comes to the weights because one has won more races than the other and is older. The race conditions were different as well.

[sjk]

I use .22 pts per lb, so at 1 1/8 miles a length is 1.75 pts or 8 lengths. I got the .22 through calculation but I have read similar values elsewhere.

[fmolf]

I use .22 pts per lb, so at 1 1/8 miles a length is 1.75 pts or 8 lengths. I got the .22 through calculation but I have read similar values elsewhere.
weight begins to matter somewhere after 8f.I believe it is very hard to quantify because you are trying to weigh the disadvantage of added weight against what should be a sharp in form horse.i agree with andy that weight swings/differentials are more important then actual weight carried.

[098poi]

I think weight has been studied statistically with regards to racehorses and if I remember correctly I don't think it is anything you should pay too much attention to. In fact if you focus on the higher weights in a race you are more likely to find the winner because they were assigned higher weights because of them being higher "class", older or better PP's. I think "2 lbs. to a length" is way off base. Unfortunately I can't remember my source for this info!

[Charlie D]

Simple beaten length formula

# of Beaten lengths * 15/ Distance

So a horse beaten 1 length over 5f is 1*15/5 = 3lb, over 8f = 1.875lb and so on.

[duckhunter3]

I, who started this thread, never pay any attention to it, unless it is a close call in a route and one contender has more than 5 lbs extra over the rest of the field. Even then, it is a minor issue, as I think most of you agree.

But still waiting to hear from the "Weight Experts" who were so dismissive of Gary Stevens' comments about 2 lbs costing a horse 1 length. I agree, that sounds far out. But he is a former jockey, and a good one.

Any former jockeys out there who want to weigh in? I just get so disgusted with the arrogance of some people on this board. They may know a lot (probably more than me), but LET'S HEAR THE BASIS of their "expert" opinions.
duck

[duckhunter3]

Simple beaten length formula

# of Beaten lengths * 15/ Distance

So a horse beaten 1 length over 5f is 1*15/5 = 3lb, over 8f = 1.875lb and so on.

Great, Charlie. Sounds like you and Gary Stevens agree essentially. I personally don't know. And would not presume to refute a former jockey on this.

But others who made fun of his comments (see the post on who is the best, RA or Zenyatta) need to give the basis for their dismissive comments, if they want to be credible for me.

I don't know about your math. But you and Stevens agree and have AT LEAST given an explanation for your position.
duck

[duckhunter3]

I use .22 pts per lb, so at 1 1/8 miles a length is 1.75 pts or 8 lengths. I got the .22 through calculation but I have read similar values elsewhere.

Man, we have opinions ALL OVER THE PLACE ON THIS ONE.
duck

[duckhunter3]

You can't tell much from yesterdays races when it comes to the weights because one has won more races than the other and is older. The race conditions were different as well.

True, but I am trying to flush out the BASIS for the dismissive comments by others on the who is best, RA or Z thread? They seem to know it all, but don't tell the rest of us.

Now we have many, many different opinions on this thread, and I appreciate all of them, because I want to learn.

Thanks for everyone responding so far saying something substantive instead of just something dismissive, which is so, so destructive of the purpose of this board.
duck

[duckhunter3]

I think weight has been studied statistically with regards to racehorses and if I remember correctly I don't think it is anything you should pay too much attention to. In fact if you focus on the higher weights in a race you are more likely to find the winner because they were assigned higher weights because of them being higher "class", older or better PP's. I think "2 lbs. to a length" is way off base. Unfortunately I can't remember my source for this info!

Once again, I agree. But where are the "experts" on weight who laughed at Gary Stevens' comments about the effect of 16 lbs on Zenyatta? the ones who were very dismissive in the rachel or zenyatta thread?

I want to know the basis for their laughing and dismissiveness.

Haven't heard yet.
duck

[DeadHeat]

I believe I remember Professor Frank George in his book A Better Bet say that 3 lbs in was equal to 1 length, or 1/5th second at the finish. I really don't even know if that is accurate but just something I remember from the 80's.

DH

[Charlie D]

duckhunter

Should have stated.

The formula comes from a book called Horseracing, AGuide To Profitable Betting by Peter May ( 2004) which includes Chapter on such things as Race Profiling, The Effect of Weight in Flat handicaps, Trainer Trends and Computer Modelling.

[duckhunter3]

duckhunter

Should have stated.

The formula comes from a book called Horseracing, AGuide To Profitable Betting by Peter May ( 2004) which includes Chapter on such things as Race Profiling, The Effect of Weight in Flat handicaps, Trainer Trends and Computer Modelling.

Sounds good, Charlie. At least you give me a BASIS for your opinion, which is helpful and I appreciate it. Very close to what Gary Stevens said, if I understand correctly.

Still waiting to hear from those who only thumb their noses.
duck

[Charlie D]

I not sure of exact formula, but i believe the UK/ Irish/ US and World Ranking handicappers use a similar formula for their beaten lengths. Timeform also use a pounds beaten length scale in thier assessments of horse races.

[cj]

duckhunter,

I didn't mean to come across as a smartass. If I did, I apologize. From your initial post I took it to mean you didn't really believe it either.

I have done extensive studies on the effect of weight and how it relates to figures. I have read many studies by others as well. Nick Mordin is probably my favorite on the subject. I've read most of what Jerry Brown and Len Ragozin have to say on the subject and the Peter May book as well.

After gathering all the information I could and testing things out on a big database, I came to a few conclusions. First, I agree with Nick and others that weight changes at very low weights mean little. If a horse goes from 105 to 110, it doesn't run any faster. The point where weight seems to start to matter is around 115-117 pounds. If a horse drops from 126 to 110, only about 10 pounds seem to matter.

Around that range and above, I found that extra weight carried slows horses about one Beyer point for every three pounds. Since the Beyer scale varies by distance, you have to convert to lengths. For example, if a horse dropped from 126 to 120, he would lose 6 pounds and should be expected to run about 2 Beyer points faster. At 6f, that is one length, while at 1m 1/2 it is about two lengths.

I initially tried using different adjustments for different distances, but the Beyer scale seems to handle this nicely.

Also, have patience! Though I post a lot, it doesn't mean I sit around watching the board for new posts just waiting to reply when people ask.

[duckhunter3]

CJ, I sincerely appreciate your very straightforward response. At least now I know you have a basis for your opinion, based on research, study, etc. And your opinion is probably a very good one. I have never studied this and have never really paid attention to weight, except maybe in a close race with a 5 lb differential in a route. I could be all wet, but I doubt the issue has cost me much money (if I am on the wrong side of it).

I had absolutely NO BASIS for challenging the comments of a former jockey, Gary Stevens. You may very well have a basis based on your study.

But now we are on the right track. We are discussing reasons behind our opinions.

Once again, I appreciate your kind response, especially since we are both in Oklahoma, only about 20 miles apart.

All the best. I have always enjoyed and appreciated and learned from your posts.
duck

[duckhunter3]

And yes, CJ, you are right. I was amazed when Stevens said 2 lbs on a a 1200 lb monster would make that much difference. I found it hard to believe, but also found it hard to believe he would just be making this up. What do you think was going on here?
duck

[duckhunter3]

[QUOTE=cj]duckhunter,
Around that range and above, I found that extra weight carried slows horses about one Beyer point for every three pounds. Since the Beyer scale varies by distance, you have to convert to lengths. For example, if a horse dropped from 126 to 120, he would lose 6 pounds and should be expected to run about 2 Beyer points faster. At 6f, that is one length, while at 1m 1/2 it is about two lengths.}

So, if I understand correctly you think Zenyatta's weight differential would mean something less than 6 lengths, but significant? Just trying to learn.
duck

[cj]

Well, the lowest weighted horse in the field was 111. If you use the cutoff I do of 117, meaning the other 6 pounds don't matter, she was spotting her 12 lbs of weight, or by the adjustment I use about 4 Beyer points.

Zenyatta was only picking up 3 pounds, or 1 Beyer point. Hot N' Dusty carried 124 last time, so dropped 7 by my adjustments, or about 2 Beyer points. Even this huge spread was in no way going to bring those two close enough to be competitive. The handicap system for stakes has never really done that, and today racing secretaries don't assign high weights anyway so the point is usually moot.

[CBedo]

I read somewhere today that Mike Smith had made the comment that he believed the extra weight affects a horse's late turn of foot more than anything, and that was why he had tried to keep Zenyatta somewhat closer to the leader yesterday. He figured that she wouldn't have as explosive a late kick.

[Robert Fischer]

kind of an odd memory as a kid but I remember Pat Day had a meet the public thing. In the question/answer segment my father asked him something about weight and the natural weight of the jockeys. Day's response had something to do with that (all things equal) for the naturally heavier jockey actually had some advantage over the lighter jockey because he distributed the weight while the lighter jockeys required that more "dead weight" be used.

never put that to any use, nor have I thought too deeply about it's truth, but file it in the "believe it or not fun fact physics of racing" dept.

[Bison]

Each horse is different, and accordingly so are their thresholds for carrying weight. To try and say that a horse loses X number of lengths per extra pounds carried is dubious at best.

[Turfday]

That there was a difference between the horse carrying "live weight" (the jockey) and "dead weight" (lead in the saddle).

Shoe said it was easier for horses to carry live weight because the jockey could distribute his weight on the horse, especially on the turns. And that horses were used to carrying even heavier "live weight" in the mornings with their exercise riders inevitably weighing more than the jockeys that rode them.

In addition, one thing not even considered in this thread is that some horses are BUILT better to carry weight than others. They have wider bodies or they are simply bigger horses who can cope with more weight on their back.

Doesn't it stand to reason that a bigger man is able to carry more weight on his back than a smaller man ? Wouldn't the same physics apply to horses?

[cj]

Each horse is different, and accordingly so are their thresholds for carrying weight. To try and say that a horse loses X number of lengths per extra pounds carried is dubious at best.

I find it works pretty well. Perfect, no, but until they start reporting horse weight and weight carrying ability, it certainly beats nothing.

[duckhunter3]

Well, the lowest weighted horse in the field was 111. If you use the cutoff I do of 117, meaning the other 6 pounds don't matter, she was spotting her 12 lbs of weight, or by the adjustment I use about 4 Beyer points.

Zenyatta was only picking up 3 pounds, or 1 Beyer point. Hot N' Dusty carried 124 last time, so dropped 7 by my adjustments, or about 2 Beyer points. Even this huge spread was in no way going to bring those two close enough to be competitive. The handicap system for stakes has never really done that, and today racing secretaries don't assign high weights anyway so the point is usually moot.

CJ, to get to the bottom line, then, what do you say the weight differential meant in terms of lengths "spotted" by Zenyatta (theoretically)? I just want to be sure I understand your approach.
duck

[Cadillakin]

That there was a difference between the horse carrying "live weight" (the jockey) and "dead weight" (lead in the saddle).

Shoe said it was easier for horses to carry live weight because the jockey could distribute his weight on the horse, especially on the turns. And that horses were used to carrying even heavier "live weight" in the mornings with their exercise riders inevitably weighing more than the jockeys that rode them.

My memory is that Shoe said exactly the opposite..

Bill was a natural lightweight.. the lightest of all the great jockeys. The great horses he rode were many .. He, more than any other jockey proved that carrying weight in the saddle was not at all a disadvantage.. Before his ascendancy, most thought it was better to have a heavy jockey and less weight in the saddle... Shoemaker stated that stationary (dead) weight was superior.. and he proved it too.. He tacked somewhere between 103-106.. so when he rode the greats like Ack Ack and Forego, he often had more than 25 lbs of dead weight added to his saddle..

Red Smith discusses it here;

"Shoemaker hadn't been around long before horsemen had to discard a belief that had been handed down for generations. It was an article of faith that "live" weight was easier on a horse than "dead" weight; a man whose horse had drawn a heavy load from the handicappers shopped around for a big jockey who needed no ballast.

Then along came Shoe weighing well under 100 pounds with all his tack. With enough lead in the saddle pockets to sink a battleship, he won every stake in sight, and that took care of that old husband's tale."

[cj]

Well, in this case, for the horses with 116 and below, I use 117. So she spotted those horses 12 pounds, which is 4 Beyer points. At the distance, that is about 2 lengths.

[CBedo]

kind of an odd memory as a kid but I remember Pat Day had a meet the public thing. In the question/answer segment my father asked him something about weight and the natural weight of the jockeys. Day's response had something to do with that (all things equal) for the naturally heavier jockey actually had some advantage over the lighter jockey because he distributed the weight while the lighter jockeys required that more "dead weight" be used.

never put that to any use, nor have I thought too deeply about it's truth, but file it in the "believe it or not fun fact physics of racing" dept.....so we have been overestimating the true ability of the lighter jockeys all this time?......:lol:

[zerosky]

This Guide from the Singapore Turf Club is a decent primer on Handicapping with weights.

http://tinyurl.com/mjfqx4

[jcrabboy]

To me the subject of weight comes down to trainer intent. Few on this board believe weight matters. The collective wisdom of trainers suggests otherwise. I pay attention to weight when I see 7 or 8 lb variances, even in sprints. Doesn't mean I will bet them, but combined with other positives it will often point to a score.

For richer races this doesn't seem to apply unless the race is more than 9 furlongs and then weight off can be a deciding factor.

I think it is difficult to incorporate weight into a speed or pace figure as has been suggested in other posts on this thread, but as an indicator of intent I think it has value.

Jimmie

[trigger]

"One juror said the judge did what the jury was going to do anyway," Greenberg said. "The methodology used by the investigators was terribly flawed and inaccurate" in that they never took into account equipment, such as the helmet and safety vest, that is not meant to be included in the assigned weight. "
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09182007/sports/fat_jockey_case_kod.htm

It appears that the assigned weights are off anyway in that some of the "equipment" carried by the jockey is not included. Accordingly, at least to the extent the weight of this "equipment" may vary among jockeys, this unreported difference could affect a horse's performance.
Besides the helmet and safety jacket, does anyone else know what else may not be counted in reported weights?

[robert99]

My memory is that Shoe said exactly the opposite..

Bill was a natural lightweight.. the lightest of all the great jockeys. The great horses he rode were many .. He, more than any other jockey proved that carrying weight in the saddle was not at all a disadvantage.. Before his ascendancy, most thought it was better to have a heavy jockey and less weight in the saddle... Shoemaker stated that stationary (dead) weight was superior.. and he proved it too.. He tacked somewhere between 103-106.. so when he rode the greats like Ack Ack and Forego, he often had more than 25 lbs of dead weight added to his saddle..

Red Smith discusses it here;

"Shoemaker hadn't been around long before horsemen had to discard a belief that had been handed down for generations. It was an article of faith that "live" weight was easier on a horse than "dead" weight; a man whose horse had drawn a heavy load from the handicappers shopped around for a big jockey who needed no ballast.

Then along came Shoe weighing well under 100 pounds with all his tack. With enough lead in the saddle pockets to sink a battleship, he won every stake in sight, and that took care of that old husband's tale."

"before horsemen had to discard a belief that had been handed down for generations"

That is a problem with racing - few employed in it have any scientific qualifications or understanding and veterinarians who have are not so much interested in these aspects as the medical ones. Myths get handed down as facts from generation to generation.

The international pounds per length came from UK experiments in the 1850s by Admiral Rous who timed cavalry horses carrying gun carriages of different weights. Nothing much to do with horse racing but the data is still religiously used in racing today and is just about 100% wrong. Horses can lose 30-40 pounds of body weight between races, so does an extra 5 pound in the saddle slow it or not?

If you study Hong Kong racing you have all the data: horse body weight, weight carried , race pace, track correction, identical track layouts, wind strength, sectionals to make a scientific stab at understanding independent weight effect. For USA, the relative weight difference, pace and track changes and flat tracks etc are too small to make a great deal of difference and putting the wrong cause to the observed effect throws you for later races.

So you might best ignore the effect. That is not saying the effect does not happen, but that you are as likely to be wrong as right if you take it into account too simplistically. Some partially "scientific" US studies have "shown", for example, that you have to remove two pounds to speed up a horse by an amount that one pound would slow down that same horse by the same value ie nonsense.

[so.cal.fan]

Robert99


I don't believe you can make a cheaper horse equal with the likes of a Zenyetta with any weight break.
I've seen horses in the old Starter series on the Santa Anita turf course, at distances up to 1 3/4 miles, carry 130 lbs and win going away, because they so outclassed the field.
One was a horse trained by Ron McAnnally, and I can't remember his name, but Ron won several races with him. It must have caused Ron to dismiss the effects of weight, because that summer at Del Mar, he used to use then top class rider, Howard Grant, whose weight was (at least) 122 lbs, he would put him on horses who had the lowest weight condition, say 114. Ron would enter them with the top weight condition.....120 ( this is legal) Howard would do 2 lbs over and win the races more often than not.
Another time at Santa Anita, I saw a top French jockey here for a vacation, he was given a mount on a horse running 6 1/2 furlongs down the hill on the turf. They listed the horse as carrying 4 lbs overweight.....124lbs.
The clerk of scales turned his head from the real number on the scale that afternoon which was 130lbs. The horse won easy. Go figure.

Frankel once commented that he thought weight effected horses coming out of the gate.
The only thing I've noticed, in races of horses all about the same class, a horse that runs on the front end, will benefit from lower weight.
I never like to see come from behind horses with apprentice allowance, it doesn't hurt them, but it doesn't help either.
A bug boy on a speed horse, probably has an edge.
At Santa Anita Sunday, 7lb bug boy, C. Santiago Reyes won on Sovigner Slew going 1 1/16 going wire to wire, just hanging on.
So.......there you have it......tough handicapping factor that I don't personally pay a lot of attention to, except in the above example.

[duckhunter3]

I have never paid attention to weight except in the RAREST of circumstances, or in particular the situation mentioned by the So. Cal fan immediately above this post.

But I started this thread because the Zenyatta situation brought it to mind. I know many winning players who still think that more weight is better most of the time, because the better horses are not weighted down enough to make any difference. And some here on this thread have confirmed that idea.

Moreover, it is such an impossible factor to really consider as having a big impact MOST OF THE TIME. There are so many things that can happen to a horse carrying lower weight or one carrying a higher weight. Such a random thing.

And there have been so many different answers here to how you calculate what extra weight really means in terms of lengths, etc., it seems that overall it is a "throwout" issue and one no one really has a handle on.. Not in ALL cases. But in the vast majority.

I have enough to worry about in handicapping a race without including this conundrum.

That is how I have always felt, how I was taught, and how I still feel. But it has been a fascinating discussion, even though none of it changed my mind. Whew!!!!
duck

[fmolf]

I have never paid attention to weight except in the RAREST of circumstances, or in particular the situation mentioned by the So. Cal fan immediately above this post.

But I started this thread because the Zenyatta situation brought it to mind. I know many winning players who still think that more weight is better most of the time, because the better horses are not weighted down enough to make any difference. And some here on this thread have confirmed that idea.

Moreover, it is such an impossible factor to really consider as having a big impact MOST OF THE TIME. There are so many things that can happen to a horse carrying lower weight or one carrying a higher weight. Such a random thing.

And there have been so many different answers here to how you calculate what extra weight really means in terms of lengths, etc., it seems that overall it is a "throwout" issue and one no one really has a handle on.. Not in ALL cases. But in the vast majority.

I have enough to worry about in handicapping a race without including this conundrum.

That is how I have always felt, how I was taught, and how I still feel. But it has been a fascinating discussion, even though none of it changed my mind. Whew!!!!
duck
i believe i am using someone elses theory here i just do not know where i read it.but i do believe it and that is that every horse has its own threshold on what it can carry successfully.So if i see a horse that has carried 117 and won a few times at this weight and now he jumps up and has to carry 126 i may pass the bet.

[applebee]

It depends on how much weight :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN2bG90Qxdc

[Cratos]

"before horsemen had to discard a belief that had been handed down for generations"

That is a problem with racing - few employed in it have any scientific qualifications or understanding and veterinarians who have are not so much interested in these aspects as the medical ones. Myths get handed down as facts from generation to generation.

The international pounds per length came from UK experiments in the 1850s by Admiral Rous who timed cavalry horses carrying gun carriages of different weights. Nothing much to do with horse racing but the data is still religiously used in racing today and is just about 100% wrong. Horses can lose 30-40 pounds of body weight between races, so does an extra 5 pound in the saddle slow it or not?

If you study Hong Kong racing you have all the data: horse body weight, weight carried , race pace, track correction, identical track layouts, wind strength, sectionals to make a scientific stab at understanding independent weight effect. For USA, the relative weight difference, pace and track changes and flat tracks etc are too small to make a great deal of difference and putting the wrong cause to the observed effect throws you for later races.

So you might best ignore the effect. That is not saying the effect does not happen, but that you are as likely to be wrong as right if you take it into account too simplistically. Some partially "scientific" US studies have "shown", for example, that you have to remove two pounds to speed up a horse by an amount that one pound would slow down that same horse by the same value ie nonsense.


You have said it quite well, I hope it is undrstood as well

[Pell Mell]

I remember being at MTH many years ago and saw Decathalon break the track record for 6f packing 138 lbs. Secretaries have been trying to even things up since forever by adding weight but I've never seen any stats that would show that they have had much success. Most of this weight talk concerns stakes and handicap races anyway and the highweight is usually regarded as much the best anyway.

In everyday races like claimers it's a different picture. Horses are penalized by added weight because of winning.

As another poster indicated, it doesn't really matter what we think, it's what the trainer thinks. If some trainers perceive weight as important then we, as handicappers, must respect the fact that a lot of them aren't going to go for the money without being lightly weighted. Another thing they seem to do when running in restricted claimers is to run the horse out of the conditions it's eligible for in order to get weight off.

In any case, it's more important how weight is perceived rather than what the actual effect is. That's just my opinion.

[fmolf]

I remember being at MTH many years ago and saw Decathalon break the track record for 6f packing 138 lbs. Secretaries have been trying to even things up since forever by adding weight but I've never seen any stats that would show that they have had much success. Most of this weight talk concerns stakes and handicap races anyway and the highweight is usually regarded as much the best anyway.

In everyday races like claimers it's a different picture. Horses are penalized by added weight because of winning.

As another poster indicated, it doesn't really matter what we think, it's what the trainer thinks. If some trainers perceive weight as important then we, as handicappers, must respect the fact that a lot of them aren't going to go for the money without being lightly weighted. Another thing they seem to do when running in restricted claimers is to run the horse out of the conditions it's eligible for in order to get weight off.

In any case, it's more important how weight is perceived rather than what the actual effect is. That's just my opinion.
these maneuvers are how trainers race their horses in to shape.they do the racing secretaries a favor by helping with field size and when they really are trying they can get a few pounds off because of past races they did not win!here is where it helps to follow one or two tracks and get to know the trainers their maneuvers and preferences.

[Skanoochies]

I seldom, if ever incorporate weight into my handicapping,except when a horse is on a winng streak, getting added weight each time,(particularly stakes races) and believe there must be a threshold somewhere, that will beat them.

But the one thing that makes me wonder is trainers.
Let`s say for example a race is for $65,000, if for $62,500 allowed two pounds, I see many top trainers go for the two pounds off like it meant something.
And I doubt if it is anything to do with being claimed. If someone were going to claim a horse for $62,500 I doubt they would not because of an extra $2500.

Just seems to me they want every weight break they can get.

[Cratos]

I started a thread about who was the best (Z or RA) and got some interesting comments and a couple of smart ass comments. I mentioned that THEORETICALLY 2 lbs of extra weight in a handicap race was equivalent to spotting the field 1 length. Yes, that was mentioned by Gary Stevens, a former jockey, as I recall.

Zenyatta had 16 lbs more than the rest of the field yesterday.

One member here said NO WAY. with no explanation. Just no way.

Well, let's have a meaningful discussion here, and also include the reasons for our very "strong opinions".

1. How much weight WILL equal 1 length disadvantage?
2. Is there any way to quantify it or is it too nebulous and too dependent on too many other factors?
3. How do you deal with extra weight when you are analyzing a race?
4. Under what circumstances do you think extra weight is important?

Let's have some meaningful discussion. If there are former jockeys out there, like Gary Stevens, let's hear from them, especially.

And of course we want to hear from all of the computer gurus who think that crunching numbers is the end-all to handicapping.

Seriously I want to learn. But I find dismissive comments not very helpful, and actually destructive of the true purpose of this board.

Waiting to hear from the experts on weight.
duck

Robert99’s post #25 is an excellent summary of the misunderstanding of the impact of weight and I will not go into a restating of what he has said.

However to further illustrate the point I calculated the impact of weight with the following assumptions:

1 – Using Secretariat’s 1973 KY Derby fractions (incidentally any horses’ fractions could have been used)

2 – Calculated the kinetic energy Secretariat expended to run each quarter

3 – Used the weight (mass) as the body weight of Secretariat plus the assigned weight which was 1200 Lbs (body weight) and assigned weight (126 Lbs)

4 – Recalculated using a 6 Lb drop in weight with the body weight remaining at 1200 Lbs and the new assigned weight being 120 Lbs.

5 – Results for the 1 ¼ mile distance

1st Qtr @ 126 Lbs = 25.20 seconds
1St Qtr @ 120 Lbs = 25.14 seconds

2nd Qtr @ 126 Lbs = 24 seconds
2nd Qtr @ 120 Lbs = 23.95 seconds

3rd Qtr @ 126 Lbs = 23.8 seconds
3rd Qtr @ 120 Lbs = 23.75 seconds

4th Qtr @ 126 Lbs = 23.4 seconds
4th Qtr @ 120 Lbs = 23.35 seconds

5th Qtr @ 126 Lbs = 23 seconds
5th Qtr @ 120 Lbs = 22.95 seconds

Actual time of race with 126 pounds = 1:59.4 seconds
Hypothetical time with 120 pounds = 1:59.13 seconds

The effect of 1 pound = .045 seconds or about .265 lengths (a little over ¼ lengths).

Incidentally, an example of this is that Zenyetta spotted her rivals up to 13 pounds in her victory in the recent Vanity and won by two lengths. This means that by weight she was giving up to 3.4 lengths to her rivals and won by 2 lengths for an impact of 5.4 lengths; a helluva performance.

[jcrabboy]

I think we have established that weight in the big races isn't terribly important. Bottom of the Barrel Claimers won't run to anywhere near those standards and that is the bread and butter for most handicappers.

Six lbs could be the difference between winning and losing to a 10 yr old gelding whose best days have long since passed. Trainers don't make concessions for weight off unless they think the horse has a shot (incompetent trainers excluded).

I think ignoring weight altogether will cost you money in low level affairs.

Jimmie

[Robert Goren]

I in the 60's used a spot play system. Any horse go up in weight after a non winning race was the play. It worked very well back then.

[Cratos]

I think we have established that weight in the big races isn't terribly important. Bottom of the Barrel Claimers won't run to anywhere near those standards and that is the bread and butter for most handicappers.

Six lbs could be the difference between winning and losing to a 10 yr old gelding whose best days have long since passed. Trainers don't make concessions for weight off unless they think the horse has a shot (incompetent trainers excluded).

I think ignoring weight altogether will cost you money in low level affairs.

Jimmie

It doesn’t matter whether it is Grade 1 races or bottom claimers races because weight is not an indicator of load impost, but an indicator of form and conditioning. That is why winning horses are penalized so to speak in claimers and allowance races for winning.

[gm10]

"before horsemen had to discard a belief that had been handed down for generations"

That is a problem with racing - few employed in it have any scientific qualifications or understanding and veterinarians who have are not so much interested in these aspects as the medical ones. Myths get handed down as facts from generation to generation.

The international pounds per length came from UK experiments in the 1850s by Admiral Rous who timed cavalry horses carrying gun carriages of different weights. Nothing much to do with horse racing but the data is still religiously used in racing today and is just about 100% wrong. Horses can lose 30-40 pounds of body weight between races, so does an extra 5 pound in the saddle slow it or not?

If you study Hong Kong racing you have all the data: horse body weight, weight carried , race pace, track correction, identical track layouts, wind strength, sectionals to make a scientific stab at understanding independent weight effect. For USA, the relative weight difference, pace and track changes and flat tracks etc are too small to make a great deal of difference and putting the wrong cause to the observed effect throws you for later races.

So you might best ignore the effect. That is not saying the effect does not happen, but that you are as likely to be wrong as right if you take it into account too simplistically. Some partially "scientific" US studies have "shown", for example, that you have to remove two pounds to speed up a horse by an amount that one pound would slow down that same horse by the same value ie nonsense.

I agree with you when it comes to the effect on raw speed - it's not THAT big and probably wisest to ignore a couple of lbs ... but horse racing is not always decided by raw speed. It's also to do with reaction times, agility, tactical speed. And this is where weight plays an important role. Imagine carrying a rucksack with two heavy books in it, and sprinting up the stairs. It will not be the same as sprinting up the stair with an empty rucksack. Hey I tried this many times at South Ealing tube station - after spending most of my commute thinking about the subject :).

Look at bug jocks for example ... they win a lot of race on the lead, because their horse can move out of the gate just a little bit quicker, and then starts slowing down a fracttion later than usual. But once the bug jocks start losing their apprentice claim, it becomes more and more difficult to win this way.
MOre anecdotally, look at Zenyatta. She def. needed longer to get into high gear last time, and that was imo clearly because of the extra weight.

But this is only one factor ... horse usually carry a higher weight for a reason.