Horses weight as handicapping factor

[traynor]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

If the weight of the horse becomes part of the past performances, any handicapping edge that might be associated with it, will eventually disappear.

The same could be said for any other data in the past performances. As Katherine Jung has pointed out on a number of occasions, the value of information varies inversely with the number of people who have that information. If that information is readily available to all (or a large number) its value will rapidly diminish. Any edge associated with that information will disappear much faster than the term "eventually" suggests.

None of which is comment on the possible value associated with knowing the weight of race horses--only that the ready availability of information tends to diminish its value in gaining an edge in wagering.

[green80]

Originally Posted by luisbe

Is there publication depicting horses weight before a race?
The reason I asked is the fact that any athlete with either under or over weight will not perform at its best.
I know this is only for 5yo and up.
I.e.: just suppose trainer JohnDoe starts a horse weighing 80 pounds lighter (or heavier) than the weight showed during its peak performances, would you still consider it a contender?

I'm sure all horses are weighed before a race, how long before?

I have been racing horses for over 30 years and have never seen a horse weighed before or after a race. Never saw one weighed at the track even.
Although the info may be helpful, I have not seen it disclosed anywhere.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by green80

I have been racing horses for over 30 years and have never seen a horse weighed before or after a race. Never saw one weighed at the track even.
Although the info may be helpful, I have not seen it disclosed anywhere.

Did you consider a horse's weight significant?

If so, how did you weigh them or did you use an alternative method?

[green80]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Did you consider a horse's weight significant?

If so, how did you weigh them or did you use an alternative method?

Their weight is not significant. A change in weight most times is. Any trainer worth his salt should be able to look at his horses and tell which ones are gaining or losing weight. Losing weight is not a good sign, usually the horse is hurting or sick. There is never a standard in racing. I once knew a trainer that fed his horses lightly, they all looked underweight but he held his own in the standings and his horses won at an average rate.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by green80

... A change in weight most times is...Losing weight is not a good sign, usually the horse is hurting or sick...

This is why I consider weight important but, given the lack of available info I'm unable to incorporate it in my handicapping.

It may be one of my missing links.

[sammy the sage]

Originally Posted by green80

Their weight is not significant. A change in weight most times is. Any trainer worth his salt should be able to look at his horses and tell which ones are gaining or losing weight. Losing weight is not a good sign, usually the horse is hurting or sick. There is never a standard in racing. I once knew a trainer that fed his horses lightly, they all looked underweight but he held his own in the standings and his horses won at an average rate.

total BS...it F'g a does MATTER....esp in BIG races...take the Triple crown for instance...everybody KNOWS after THE fact of course that Super Savor lost 100lbs...

I then posted a thread here later...http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ghlight=weight

and DESPITE the fact that I pm'd him THE proof...was never unlocked or no apology offered...oh well

it was later CONFIRMED by news sources that 2 of the 3 mentioned DID in fact lose considerable weight....

but if you don't think weight matters...damn GLAD you're IN THE pools!

[Tom]

Sammy, read his post.
That is exactly what he said.

Where's his apology?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

The paddock analyst from the Hong Kong crew, Jenny Chapman, mentions the weight changes all the time when discussing the fitness and appearance of the horses in the walking ring. There's no doubt in my mind it's a serious handicapping factor. From what I can tell so far, significant weight changes (+ or - 25 lbs) usually means a poorer performance.

I'd be so bold as to speculate that the main reason we don't see weights for horses in North America is the patterns would correlate with performance, and would be more drastic than what you see overseas - because of drugs.

[luisbe]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

I'd be so bold as to speculate that the main reason we don't see weights for horses in North America is the patterns would correlate with performance, ...

Thank you! That's why I started this thread. Days between races would be fine, a drill once a week, etc. but what if I was 10% trainer that want to make my income larger? the weight of my horse can make it happen.

[davew]

It would be interesting to watch weight gain during 2 year-old and early 3 year-old campaigns. I am not sure how it would help pick the winner in the Kentucky Derby.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by davew

It would be interesting to watch weight gain during 2 year-old and early 3 year-old campaigns. I am not sure how it would help pick the winner in the Kentucky Derby.

To me the weight factor has multiple dimensions.

The probable most important of which is fitness. Is the horse's at the correct body weight for its fitness to perform at its optimal level?

The second dimension is twofold. Is the horse's over weight or under weight?

The last dimension is what is the weight of horse and can it generated enougjh force from its energy to overcome the inevitable external speed retardants and win?

Therefore it becomes. clear that weight plays an intergal and important part in both assessing and predicting the horse's race performance.