i've been playing around with a theory that explains battle hardened, i'll have another, and algorithms' wins beyond the standards of "they are just better," "pedigree," and "distance limitations" etc.
what do all three of these horses have in common?
they were all the lowest or near lowest weights in their respective races:
battle hardened, 116 lbs, state of play gave him 6 lbs, reveron and prosepctive gave him 4 lbs
algorithms, 117 lbs, hansen gave him 6 lbs, my adonis gave him 4 lbs
i'll have another, 118 lbs, liaison gave him 5 lbs
what do all of the beaten favorites in these races have in common?
they were all the highest weights in their respective races.
i know the significance of weight in racing isn't new or earth shattering, but it is almost never spoken about, and perusing the various pontificators from haskin, to watchmaker, to siegal to all the sundry anonymous posters around the web--i haven't seen anyone discussing it other than a brief little blurb by plonk.
taking occam's razor to the outcomes of these races, where every high weight favorite fell to every low weight new comer, the most obvious explanation isn't breeding (after all these horses are so inbreed it really is almost pointless to focus on breeding as determinative, if the distance is one that is within the expected range based on their pedigrees, and all of these horses should be able to get 1 to 1 1/16).
it also doesn't really help to focus on distance as determinative (especially if the horse in question has already shown it can go the same distance or longer than the race it just lost, which all of the high weights have already shown).
before i continue: i am not saying breeding and distance are moot, i am saying that they don't really help explain this particular phenomenon.
it seems that usual, non-occamish way of explaining how every high weight lost to every low weight involved convoluted explanations about 2 year old prococity, a lack of 3 year old progression, combined with 3 year old regression, and a magic trick that keeps all of the good horses from multiple owners and trainers from debuting until january, topped of with a dash of pedigree/distance limitations that equally effected all of these colts exaclty the same way despite different pedigrees, different trainers, different owners, diifferent race tracks, and different racing conditions...
this is not very satisfactory.
so this is my theory--weight is particularly uncomfortable for young horses and has more pronounced effect on them than it does on mature horses (thus hansen felt his 123 lbs a lot more in the holy bull than GOD felt his 123 lbs in the santa antonio).
ok, so how does this affect handicapping the ky derby?--if my theory is right, then no two young horses' performances can be accurately compared until they have run the same distance under the same weight. wins by horses carrying significantly less weight are meaningless, but the quality of a loss by high weight horse in relation to the amount of weight given can be very instructive. the better horses isn't the won who won but who handled his weight the best.
track surface is less important in my theory than weight, but carrying weight on a harder surface is likely to be more uncomfortable, and thus more troublesome, for young horses, than carrying weight on a yielding surface is, so a horse that handled weight well on a yielding track can be deceptive of the horse's true ability to handle weight (this helps to explain the collapse of the liaison, rousing sermon, and sky kingdom). however, i also feel that carrying weight too soon leads to injury, so the determinative races are the 2nd (and on) races under a given weight at a given distance--they might run well once under weight but then be pretty much washed up due to the effort..
those horses that show they can carry weight repeatedly are your derby picks.
a note about alpha--alpha was the only high weight to win, but he was also the lowest of all the high weights, at only 120 lbs, and the last time he raced at 123 lbs, he came in 11th. also the level of competition still matters--hansen, highest weight of all so far, was still able to hold off 4 other much lower weighted horses. according to my theory, barring injury or illness, a horse is unlikely to beat a horse at the same distance at equal weight, if it has already lost to that horse at a much lower weight. likewise, a horse is very unlikely to beat another at a higher weight, if the horse that beat it previously at a higher weight, now carries less weight than it does. (i know this isn't earth shattering--i'm just spelling out my conditions for myself really, so i can test it).
last thought--i think the 126 lbs of the ky derby is really underrated as a crucial factor in both the race outcome and the amount of injuries sustained--some of these horses graduate from 116 straight to 126--it shouldn't surprise if they don't run like they did under 116, or come awaywith badly bucked shins or worse.
aside: i also think weight is the real culprit behind the devastating effect that running in the bcj tends to have on 2 year olds--i don't think it is the distance or the speed, i think it is the 123 lbs imposed on horses that are actually still yearlings (most non-racehorses are not even ridden until late 3 years, and 4 years is the recommended age--a horse's skeleton doesn't finish growing until age 6).
all right--tear it apart
