122

[Blenheim]

I was wonderin’ why and just couldn’t help but try to figure out how so many favorites lost their Derby preps. I’m thinkin’ I may have found the answer.

While reviewing the past performances I couldn’t help but notice that most of the horses running a route on dirt while moving up to 122 pounds for the first time lost that race: Anthony’s Cross, Archarcharch, Astrology, Mucho Macho Man, Nehro, Shakelford, Silver Medallion, Soldat, The Factor, Twice the Appeal, Twin Spires and Watch Me Go. Now I’m no expert, I don’t expect to get it all right and I may have missed one or two, but that is almost half of em’. Of particular note is Florida Derby prep favorite Soldat – he runs lights out at 120 pounds and less but just can’t win at 122 pounds. Another is Arkansas Derby prep favorite The Factor - he wanted nothing to do with 122 pounds in the Arkansas. Mucho Macho Man moved up to 122 pounds in the Louisiana and lost but of course, he had that shoe excuse. No excuses for Silver Medallion in the Lexington. I didn’t review all of em’ but it seems a few extra pounds made a big difference when going two turns with this group, particularly on dirt.

I also noticed some of the horses that ran under those conditions that returned to racing had to change their running style - it seems they couldn’t run on the pace with the additional weight. Some the race knocked completely off form which makes me kinda wonder about Mucho Macho Man, Pants on Fire, Nehro and others coming to the Derby off a tough effort under similar high poundage. Sadly, some that raced under those conditions will ever be the same.

Those few hosses’ winning under those conditions - Dialed In, Midnight Interlude, Pants on Fire and Toby’s Corner won by narrow margins, Uncle Mo being the only exception.

What say you? Am I reading too much into this thing or has weight brought em’ all together? Will the ability to carry weight be the decisive factor in this Derby or should I overlook the weight factor altogether? At the least, I’m thinkin’ them horses with proven ability to carry the highest weight successfully, I’m givin’ them the nod. What makes the weight angle seem so right on track is when I use it to handicap this wide open any horse can win Derby, it isn’t so wide open anymore.

[Tread]

Put it to you this way....

You are going on a hike. You have 20 lbs of gear in your backpack and try to cover a mile of ground.

Next day you put 21 lbs of gear in your backpack and try the same thing. Might your time be a second or two slower? sure. Do you "dislike" the extra weight or suddenly become unable to perform less because of it? Not likely.

[Blenheim]

How can you compare humans with horses and expect to get any kind of definitive answer? How fast do humans walk carrying 21 pounds and how fast do horses run carrying 22 pounds? How much force is generated by a 1200 pound beast on a small hoof when compared to the force generated by a 175 pound human on a large foot!

I guess we could ask the horse how it feels . . .

Come on!

[eastie]

weight is among the most irrelevant factors around

[Blenheim]

"Weight is among the most irrelevant factors around."

When the late Ben Jones trained for the mighty Calumet Farms, he kept his horses out of countless races in which they would have been freighted with a few more pounds than he liked. His son and successor, H. A. "Jimmy" Jones, allowed the great Citation to carry as much as 130 pounds only four times. The horse lost all four races and never won with more than 128 throughout his career (Ainslie 1986).

Still think weight is the most irrelevant factors around? I figured if a few pounds up made a difference to the Great Citation, it surely would make a difference to this sorry lot.

[turninforhome10]

"Weight is better carried in the jock than in lead in the saddle". Charlie Whittingham

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by eastie

weight is among the most irrelevant factors around

weight means plenty the further you travel around the track. in sprint races it means very little though.

[sammy the sage]

and one BIG reasons this sport is DYING...because nobody's honest...you DON'T know the size and weight of the horse your betting...and YOU DON'T his weight from the PREVIOUS race....

[Tom]

Originally Posted by eastie

weight is among the most irrelevant factors around

That coming from Haystacks Calhoun!
Good one.

[gm10]

I think weight is important. Trying running up the stairs with a bottle of coke on your back, and then without it. You'll notice it all goes a fraction less easy when you're carrying the extra weight. Someone who is usually one step slower than you might now just about be your equal.

An old rule of thumb is that 15/(distance in furlongs) in lbs = 1 length.
So over 5 furlongs, 3lbs = 1 length, and over 10 furlongs, 3 lbs = 2 lengths.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by gm10

I think weight is important. Trying running up the stairs with a bottle of coke on your back, and then without it. You'll notice it all goes a fraction less easy when you're carrying the extra weight. Someone who is usually one step slower than you might now just about be your equal.

An old rule of thumb is that 15/(distance in furlongs) in lbs = 1 length.
So over 5 furlongs, 3lbs = 1 length, and over 10 furlongs, 3 lbs = 2 lengths.

This may be true in Europe where courses are not perfectly flat and no race day medication is allowed, but how many pounds does a horse on Lasix piss out before running? Probably more than enough to throw and couple pounds here or there way out of whack if it were true in the first place.

[cj's dad]

I just find it hard to grasp that a 1.000 lb. animal notices an increase of 2 lbs.

Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing, just skeptical.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

This may be true in Europe where courses are not perfectly flat and no race day medication is allowed, but how many pounds does a horse on Lasix piss out before running? Probably more than enough to throw and couple pounds here or there way out of whack if it were true in the first place.

There's still a difference between dead weight and body weight.

I am not saying weight is THE crucial aspect of the game, even in Europe most would agree that weight is only 60% as effective as it theoretically should be, but it's still a variable that can decide a race.

It also helps explain certain 'facts', such as apprentice jockey's winning more before losing their allowance, because their horse can reach full speed a bit sooner and slow down a bit later; 3yo's winning less often than they should against older horses at the start of the year because they don't get enough weight allowance; etc etc.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by gm10

There's still a difference between dead weight and body weight.

I am not saying weight is THE crucial aspect of the game, even in Europe most would agree that weight is only 60% as effective as it theoretically should be, but it's still a variable that can decide a race.

It also helps explain certain 'facts', such as apprentice jockey's winning more before losing their allowance, because their horse can reach full speed a bit sooner and slow down a bit later; 3yo's winning less often than they should against older horses at the start of the year because they don't get enough weight allowance; etc etc.

No, they win more before they lose the allowance because trainers that believe that weight matters that much give them better horses. 3yos are still immature and untested early in the year, so not sure dropping the weight any further will help them much

[Tom]

When does weight matter?
When the trainer thinks it does.