Weight?

[Shammy Davis]

My memory is failing. I've been reading about weight on the Thoroughbred as it relates to handicap racing, but for the life of me I can't remember the formula normally used by the racing secretaries to assign weight to a horse. I can't find a specific reference to it either. As I recall it was something like 1 lb equaled 1/5 of a length or something like that. I know it is not the same as the age to weight scale. Can someone refresh my memory for me?

[majxmom]

I think it is 1 pound = 1 length. The 1/5 that you might be thinking of is a length = 1/5 of a second.

[Shammy Davis]

I think you are right. Thanks.

I've recently come into the possession of a book by Irene McCanliss titled WEIGHT ON THE THOROUGHBRED RACEHORSE. It is extremely tedious but interesting reading. She discusses the history and issues surrounding weight as it relates to age. As far back as the reign of Charles II weight was an issue. Historically, the English understood that horses did not mature until the age of six and thus did not race them until then. In a treatise in 1599 the following is noted: Horses are fit for the saddle at 4, for the wars at 6, for the races at 8, and for hunting and extreme matches at 10 or 11. It was not until the late 1700's that racing juveniles and the "weight to age" scale became significant. Interestingly enough, no where in this book is there a reference to all age handicap weight as racing secretaries use today. I may go to the Handicap Section and ask the same question though I think you are right. This is a very interesting topic as many on this site a concerned with the health and welfare of our horses.

When Sunny Jim Fitzsimmons was training the great Nashua (circa 1955), he used long slow gallops to condition and the rider up weighed about 130 pounds. With tack/saddle Nashua carried about 145. Asked about this conditioning regimen by a NY Times reporter, Mr. Fitz was quoted, "I never like to run them fast in the trials (gallops) with that weight on. Speed is what wrecks horses." At face value, it appears that Mr. Fitz was saying that speed wrecks a horse, but if you evaluate his statement in more depth, he was really saying that speed in combination with weight destroys horses.

[zinn21]

I have a 3 yold getting 7 pounds (124 vs. 117) from older maidens (mostly 4 yolds) this weekend. I thought that was a pretty fair weight concession for mid April. Anybody think differently?

[Shammy Davis]

zinn21 offered:

I have a 3 yold getting 7 pounds (124 vs. 117) from older maidens (mostly 4 yolds) this weekend.

I don't know what the distance is but according to the scale it looks consistent with age. Seven pounds is great in anybody's book. I've just started really looking at this. Is the rider an apprentice? What is the distance? Good luck.

[zinn21]

Journeyman rider going a flat mile. He's training very well but only one start under his belt. I like him and he's in with a bunch of professional maidens..

[geowarrior]

zinn I think that although the overall weights aren't high as compared with the 'glory' days of the past, they are significant and 7lbs over a flat mile is an excellent weight concession. Best of luck.

[Shammy Davis]

I found the answer. Had to go back to an old handicapping book published in 1965, but I knew I had seen the formula somewhere. Maybe my memory isn't as bad as my wife says it is.

Here it is.

SPRINT RACE (5-7f) 5LBS= 1 LENGTH =1/5 SEC= 1 PT SPD RATING.

ROUTE RACE (1-1 1/16M) 3LBS=1 LENGTH=1/5 SEC=1 PT SPD RATING.

ROUTE RACE (1 1/8-1 3/16M) 2LBS= 1 LENGTH=1/5 SEC=1 PT SPD RATING.

ROUTE RACE (1 1/4 - UP) 1LB= 1 LENGTH= 1/5 SEC= 1 PT SPD RATING.

geowarrior responded:

zinn I think that although the overall weights aren't high as compared with the 'glory' days of the past, they are significant and 7lbs over a flat mile is an excellent weight concession. Best of luck.

I agree but, historically, we know that before records were kept, the imposts carried may have been highly exaggerated. As true open handicap races are few and far between, the weight to age scale truly is the standard. Besides horses like John Henry, Cigar, Kelso, and Seabiscuit are history and to carry high weights, the horse had to run in an open handicap. Interestingly, in the 1954 age to weight scale the high weight for a 3 year old was 123 at a mile. From 1941 - 1953, it was 120. In 1901, the high weight was 113. In 1919, the Jockey Club established the standards we use today. The scale has been revised upward as you can see, but this information certainly debunks the idea that some board posters suggest of the bygone era and the old tough war horses that "inbreeding" has destroyed. Apparently, the racehorses of by-gone eras were not carrying the often suggested 130 or 140 lb weights.

[geowarrior]

Very interesting Shammy, quite a debunking of the old myths for regular races, and I appreciate the correction of my erroneous impression regarding weight. But in a sense for those open handicaps where your research suggests confidence that horses did carry very high weights, your information almost enhances those legends. Think of Ta Wee for example, a little mare carrying 140 lbs. She must have been quite a horse, if in fact such weight carrying was as rare as your research indicates.

So the question is does your research suggest that our best handicap horses of today could compare with the weights carried by Seabiscuit, or Ta Wee, or do we simply not have any of those kinds of races left? I don't pay that much attention to weights so I truly don't know the answer to this.

Also, on this topic, it surprised me that when Curlin won his prep race in Dubai that although the weight he carried was quoted, no-one made much of the fact that he was listed as having carried 132lbs in that prep., giving about 15 lbs to his nearest rival. I don't remember the last time I saw a 4yo carry 132 lbs. I'd be curious about your thoughts on all this, Shammy.

Zinn, despite my erroneous impression of non-handicap races of olden days, I don't think I'd change my opinion that a 7lb advantage is a good one under the circumstances you describe.

[Shammy Davis]

geowarrior: I think the answer to your question is that from the 1920's through the 1950's the Handicap Division had more races and there were more racetracks. Prior to 1919 each track actually had its own age to weight scale although they were fairly standard across NA. I was reading last night about the handicap division of that period and their were numerous horses and mares that carried 132 and above. As I responded earlier the age to weight scale has increased so I think that suggest that horses can carry more weight. Or at least, the racing industry thinks they can. Remember, historically prior to 1850 and the Civil War, though juveniles were raced, only mature horses competed. It was the thinking of horsemen that juveniles could not carry weight.

Like you, I just never thought too much about it. In recent times, handicappers usually phrase their feelings about weight like this: "Some horses carry weight well. Some don't. Don't worry about considering it when betting." I haven't and as a bettor who normally is selective about gambling, I don't bet stakes or handicap races. I feel more comfortable at the allowance and claiming levels, where weight is normally not much of a concern.

Zinn21's horse is getting 7 pounds. He'd get 12 with an apprentice. I'm still reading and researching so I can't tell you whether today's racehorse is comparable. My opinion is that they are. On this subject, the book I'm reading has a full chapter with footnotes and bibliography on the subject of WEIGHT AND MATURITY. I think that is the key. I started out in the horse business as a farrier and I can tell you that physical maturity is evident in the hooves of a horse, particularly in regard to strength and flexibility. I've been breeding for a number of years for hunt, point to point, and now steeplechase and I'm more convinced that physical maturity is the issue. Any good horseman or horsewoman sees it everyday in the physical development of their horses.

In regards to the formula for handicap division imposts, I've come across another more specific explanation of the 1 Point Speed Rating and how the Racing Secretary applies it to horses in the handicap division. I've not really had any time to study it, but my initial impression is that it is based on stakes/handicap wins, their divisions, and the amount of time that has passed since the last win. The consideration of impost is really more involved with the speed rating scale than with any subjective decisions on the part of the Racing Secretary or handicapper. That debunks the idea that Racing Secretaries are smarter than the average horseman, handicapper, or bettor.

I'll try and do some research regarding specific races and weights as they apply to certain periods of time. We tend to lump all handicap horses into the same conversation and I'm not sure that gives us any real insight into the capacity of the Thoroughbred to carry heavy weights in competition. One issue that is truly interesting is the fact that mares carry less weight than colts or horses. Why? A horse is a horse is a horse. Yet, the distaff side usually runs 2 to 5 pounds lighter. It's a human thing I'm sure. I've got a couple mares here that can stiff a good running colt even on their worst days and have.

What surprises me the most is that I've had to go back to references dated in the 50's and 60's to get information on this subject.

Like you, I wish Zinn21 the best. I'd certainly be interested in other thoughts on this issue, particularly allowances for the distaff side.

[Whirlaway]

An additional link regarding weight you might find useful ...

http://www.chef-de-race.com/articles/timeform_highweights.htm

[geowarrior]

Shammy. A very interesting and thoughtful discussion. I'm particularly interested in what you say about physical maturity. I have a horse from the Seattle Slew line through A.P. Indy and those, from what I can gather anecdotally tend to mature slowly to a large size. My horse had 'big ankles', and developed at least one osselet while he was racing and by the time I acquired him and hauled him here, the ankles seemed to be fine (and he's very active in the paddock now, so unless there is some very subtle thing that could only be revealed by -x-ray or by putting him back into training, I think the appearance of soundness is not an illusion). I concluded, given the fairly rapid recovery of the ankles, that concussion, frequent run-backs, and obviously the carrying of weight concomitant with all of that were largely responsible for the ankle problems. I find it interesting you should mention feet, though. When the horse arrived, his feet were ragged and he was very footsore, so we put front shoes on him for the winter, and through the winter I don't think he has grown but I do think he is in better proportion and more mature. We will see more when we get all the fur off and start groundworking him. However the foot issue also seems to have resolved. Thus my own, admittedly anecdotal experience seems to parallel your much greater body of information.

I think there are pedigree lines that one should be very careful about managing early, although a great deal depends on whether the sire stamped his offspring. However I would take a careful look at A.P. Indy descendants, as well as Tiznow progeny and would, if they appear to be a certain physical type, not race them at all as two year olds and bring them on quite slowly as three year olds.

My horse will not be going back to racing, but I strongly believe that he talent he showed early on might have been conserved and he could have been a good horse had he been left to physically mature. Instead his ankles swelled, he got sore, he dropped down the claiming ranks and down to the small tracks, and eventually was considered too injured to run at even those. Which is how I acquired him. I often wonder when I see him now, if a different management style based on an understanding of the principles you have outlined might have resulted in a much different racing career.

The only prominent trainer I can think of (no doubt others can chime in with examples) who has very obviously real paid attention, and with considerable success, to this issue of physical maturity is John Sherriffs - in particular with Zenyatta, now successful, sound in her races so far but not started until some way through her three year old season.

[Shammy Davis]

geowarrior commented:

The only prominent trainer I can think of (no doubt others can chime in with examples) who has very obviously real paid attention, and with considerable success, to this issue of physical maturity is John Sherriffs - in particular with Zenyatta, now successful, sound in her races so far but not started until some way through her three year old season.

My favorite trainer on this issue is Woody Stevens. His work with Conquistador Cielo was the highest example of care and patience. John Sherriffs is another. Woody always said, "If you look after the horse, he'll look after you." Your comments about your horse bring to mind my feeling that young horses who are given relief from the daily track regimen have a good chance of resolving their problems. Osselets in simple terms is early on-set post-trauma arthritis. Clearly you have taken the appropriate measures to care for the problem, but as a horse ages, just like with humans, the problems can become difficult to control because of the lack good blood supply to the affected area. I recommend you read "Training The Racehorse" by LtCol P. D. Stewart that was first printed in 1952. The author was one of the founders of the British Horse Society. He was a very outspoken critic of trainers who did not make equine physical well-being as their top priority. He suggested the technique of long reining juveniles as a better method to prepare them for racing. There are few, if any trainers, who would even considered this method, because with the size of racing stables and the limited time available to work with each horse, the concept is not efficient or cost effective. IMO that trainers know the horses will be discarded if they don't meet expectations.

The issue of physical maturity has long been debated in the horse world. We in NA are probably unaware of The Act of 1740 passed by the English Parliament which set weights for racehorses. This was government intervention at its worst. It stipulated that 5 year olds would carry 140, six year olds would carry 154, and 7 year olds would carry 168. It further stipulated that no horse under the age of 5 would be considered a racehorse. This act actually caused great debate in English racing because even for the mature horse these weights were considered extremely burdensome and likely injurious. Parliament repealed the act in 1745 as a result of the anger the act caused. In 1751, 4 year olds were permitted to run in the Kings Plates carrying 126. 154 became the high weight until the English JC, formed circa 1750 took control of weights. Within about 20 years the English JC had reduced weights for all divisions. Irrespective of Parliments intervention, the instances of horses being raced under the age of 5 are historically acknowledged. Anyone looking at the history of racing and weights would be foolish to believe that juveniles were not being raced. I guess it would be fairer to say that the public standards were a matter of record. The historical accounts of juveniles racing were a matter of gossip.

I've always thought it interesting that it was laminitis and founder that took the great Secretariat at age 19. He was a powerful, heavy, larged boned horse with relatively small hooves. His racing prowess not withstanding, there is no doubt in my mind that considering his weight and the power of his stride that he suffered trauma to the laminae during his juvenile seasons. As he didn't run at 4, we'll never know if running in the handicap division for a few years would have been injurious. Seattle Slew, another Bold Ruler line colt, in my eye lacked the weight that Secretariat carried as a juvenile. He lived a long healthy life and as I recall his front hooves turned out slightly. I might add that stallions like Secretariat are very well fed to keep up appearances and its possible that there may have been other causes for the founder, but in my mind, related to the physical maturity issue, juvenile trauma is a consideration.

Whirlaway: Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

[Shammy Davis]

Whirlaway: Went to your suggested site. Very interesting. The information dates to the mid-1940's and there are less than a hundred horses listed that carried extremely high weights. That's not many when you consider the hundreds of thousands of horses that have made appearances on the track during that period. There were none recently that carried extremely high weights like Sea-Bird II. Although I don't know if it is a complete list of high weight horses, I assume it is. Timeform is a very good source and its research is normally complete. I haven't come up with any conclusions but on the surface it appears that all the noise made in NA about high weight is somewhat exaggerated because the Timeform information clearly shows that the assigned imposts were predominately in Europe. Of interest to me, considering the current thread about inbreeding, is the number of Phalaris line horses that carried these weights and survived. Thanks.

[Shammy Davis]

Earlier geowarrior wrote:

. . . I appreciate the correction of my erroneous impression regarding weight. But in a sense for those open handicaps where your research suggests confidence that horses did carry very high weights, your information almost enhances those legends.

It is interesting to find out where and how impressions concerning weights arise. We often hear about the colts and fillies that carried high weights as juveniles. One such example is MAN O'WAR. I too believed for many years that in early American racing that juveniles were carrying high weights. Well, impressions can be true. There was a period of time when colts and a few fillies did carry the high weight of 130 lbs. The period was 1891 to 1932 and weight scales, for the most part, were apparently a local racing association determination. After 1932, through the involvement of the JC the weights were reduced. The most conspicious of the races for juvenile high weights during this period of time was Saratoga's Hopeful Stakes. The following horses won or placed in the Hopeful carrying 130 lbs: MOHAWK II, PETER PAN, NOVELTY, DOMINANT, CAMPFIRE, SUN BRIAR, MAN O'WAR, MORVICH, MASTER CHARLIE, LADYSMAN, SWEEP, PAPP, KAI-SANG, BLUE LARKSPUR, JAMESTOWN, FAYETTE, PEBBLES, AND ZEV. Interestingly, at Sarotoga over half the winners between 1905 and 1924 carried 130 lbs. The famous filly ARTFUL carried 130 in a race a Belmont. References indicate that the majority of the 2-year-old races were run at 7f or less.

So, when we think of juveniles and weight, our impressions are obviously founded, if not somewhat dated. An interesting point made in my reference was the fact that tack and jockey equipment was not weighed when imposts were assigned. It is quiet possible that these juveniles were in fact carrying up to 10 lbs more than the weight assigned.