Eclipse Stakes

thing is you can cherry pick races forever and a day

the first race i checked was the Eclipse where the belief is that 3yo's are at a disadvantage..they aren't in reality

the sussex stakes does have a lot of 3yo winners..is that because all the best older milers have retired or moved up in distance?

i'll have a look..then again..i seem to be doing all the work..those with a belief that wfa is changing races unfairly really ought to be demonstrating it

either way..cherry picking races proves bugger all imo...but obviously many people believe the cherry pick over larger samples.,,we all different
 
Last edited:
Individual races have far too small a sample sizes to draw conclusions over WFA allowances from really, winners records aren't enough and are statistically unsound. Also, the top races are often missing the better older horses as they've been packed off to stud as 3yos. Looking at all 3yo+ races across a long period is much sounder.

Number of rivals beaten is also the most accurate way of analysing it rather than winners but I have better things to do than spend my time crunching those numbers.
 
WFA is only one factor in all this. I'd think twice about backing any 3yo for the Eclipse but not really because of the WFA, because unless they had run in the Jockey Club the race would be their first attempt over the distance.
 
Gamla Stan said:
Individual races have far too small a sample sizes to draw conclusions over WFA allowances from really, winners records aren't enough and are statistically unsound. Also, the top races are often missing the better older horses as they've been packed off to stud as 3yos. Looking at all 3yo+ races across a long period is much sounder.

Number of rivals beaten is also the most accurate way of analysing it rather than winners but I have better things to do than spend my time crunching those numbers.
Click to expand...

i already put figures up for all 3yo+ races

i have also made that point about mile races like the sussex being a bit thin on the ground of older horse quality..retiring moving up in distance etc

its just a chestnut to me..we'll get it again with the Arc..if a 3yo wins..its wfa unfair advantage..if older horse wins..nowt said for another 12 months
 
EC1 said:
The WFA issue is just a racing urban myth...there are no months that favours 3yo's any more than others in reality..imo
Click to expand...

A 3yo is at a big physical disadvantage at this stage of the season against older horses. Those 3yos that do succeed in races such as the Eclipse are exceptional. In the past 25 years just six 3yos have won the Eclipse as opposed to 18 in the Arc, for example. This is because they are still physically developing until they are four (as any vet will explain).

To say ‘The WFA issue is just a racing urban myth’ is akin to Nick Mordin’s statement that weight doesn’t matter (which he subsequently retracted).
 
Hamm said:
If you think weight doesn't matter you belong in the pre-enlightenment era...
Click to expand...

I know we've done this to death before :D

It does matter to an extent but the notion that two pounds will always equate to one length over a mile for example given the vast multitude of other variables occurring at any one time during a horse race is laughable. Weight is currently and always will be the most accurate way of handicapping racehorses but it is far from an exact science.

I personally would much rather concentrate on the other variables which are much more ignored by the market.
 
SteveM said:
A 3yo is at a big physical disadvantage at this stage of the season against older horses. Those 3yos that do succeed in races such as the Eclipse are exceptional. In the past 25 years just six 3yos have won the Eclipse as opposed to 18 in the Arc, for example. This is because they are still physically developing until they are four (as any vet will explain).

To say ‘The WFA issue is just a racing urban myth’ is akin to Nick Mordin’s statement that weight doesn’t matter (which he subsequently retracted).
Click to expand...

Can you supply analysis which supports your view Steve?

EC has provided some pretty heavy, albeit not perfect statistics which show that 3yos are not disadvantaged or advantaged by WFA. They might not be perfect but they are far better than a sample size of 25 which you have quoted.
 
Gamla Stan said:
I know we've done this to death before :D

It does matter to an extent but the notion that two pounds will always equate to one length over a mile for example given the vast multitude of other variables occurring at any one time during a horse race is laughable. Weight is currently and always will be the most accurate way of handicapping racehorses but it is far from an exact science.

I personally would much rather concentrate on the other variables which are much more ignored by the market.
Click to expand...

We have an I'm not saying it makes x difference or more or less but it does make a difference, that is all I am saying can't be argued.
 
Hamm said:
We have an I'm not saying it makes x difference or more or less but it does make a difference, that is all I am saying can't be argued.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it's how much it makes a difference which is the tricky question to answer. Therefore I personally prefer to focus on other variables.
 
you seem to be suggesting Steve that i don't understand that 3yo's are not grown fully yet Steve...wtf?...not sure where you have got that from..your comparison with the weight doesn't matter thing is a total boll*x.

you say that 3yo's are at a big disadvantage now...but then in September onwards have a massive advantage..want to show how you come to that conclusion or just ignore the ask?

I'd love to see a graph of your view of 3yo development...think it would have a few peaks and troughs...i don't personally believe it does..thats the crux of the matter in reality

at no point do you ever back up your arguments..which makes discussing an issue with you akin to a discussion with a 70's betting shop regular

I'm out of this discussion now...i've wasted enough time on it
 
Last edited:
Gamla Stan said:
Can you supply analysis which supports your view Steve?

EC has provided some pretty heavy, albeit not perfect statistics which show that 3yos are not disadvantaged or advantaged by WFA. They might not be perfect but they are far better than a sample size of 25 which you have quoted.
Click to expand...

25 years of strikingly different relative results in two races such as the Eclipse and the Arc, should be enough to alert anyone that something basic is going on. This together with the rationale for the physiology of the 3yo racehorse being underdeveloped at this stage of the season against older horses is enough to base a rational view. Those who want more detailed exposition should refer to Appendix A of the Rules of Racing and Instructions issued by the JC for a table of adjustment made between January and December for horses of different age, as a justification of this approach to WFA.
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
you seem to be suggesting Steve that i don't understand that 3yo's are not grown fully yet Steve...wtf?...not sure where you have got that from..your comparison with the weight doesn't matter thing is a total boll*x.

you say that 3yo's are at a big disadvantage now...but then in September onwards have a massive advantage..want to show how you come to that conclusion or just ignore the ask?

I'd love to see a graph of your view of 3yo development...think it would have a few peaks and troughs...i don't personally believe it does..thats the crux of the matter in reality

at no point do you ever back up your arguments..which makes discussing an issue with you akin to a discussion with a 70's betting shop regular

I'm out of this discussion now...i've wasted enough time on it
Click to expand...

I’m suggesting that the advantage changes between now and the end of the season enough to make a clear difference, but would resist using words like “massive” to pull the discussion out of context. I’m unclear as to what you either know or don’t know has a bearing on anything.

To say that I never back up my arguments is clearly designed to get a response. Regulars of this forum will see straight through that for the flat lie that it is.
 
flat lie..lmfao

no ...no response was needed..bar some actual facts to back up what you keep repeating year in year out

i'd read your last few posts on this thread..that's not backing up..its generalised padding with nothing clarified at all

i'll pass ....bit bored with it tbh
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
flat lie..lmfao

no ...no response was needed..bar some actual facts to back up what you keep repeating year in year out

i'd read your last few posts on this thread..that's not backing up..its generalised padding with nothing clarified at all

i'll pass ....bit bored with it tbh
Click to expand...

That’s rich... For someone who’s a bit bored with it you do an awful lot of flapping and then run for cover claiming it’s beneath you after you have raised it... man up about it at least! You are the most tedious of individuals at times. :(
 
i don't really see any need for that tbh..quite unnecessary

never said anything is beneath me..just bored with the same old same old thats all.

tedious?...mmm..don't think i'm alone there
 
Last edited:
SteveM said:
To say that I never back up my arguments is clearly designed to get a response. Regulars of this forum will see straight through that for the flat lie that it is.
Click to expand...

You haven't backed up your argument, you've cited 25 datapoints which only look at the winners. That's using a poor statistical tool on a small sample size!
 
Gamla Stan said:
You haven't backed up your argument, you've cited 25 datapoints which only look at the winners. That's using a poor statistical tool on a small sample size!
Click to expand...

I was talking historically. But in this instance those data points, plus the published rationale for WFA in connection with the physical development of the 3yo, plus Newton’s Law of General Relativity (the bit on universal gravitation) is enough for me to not need to go further in this instance.
 
Using just the Eclipse to measure whether 3yo's are at a disadvantage over the last 30 years

approx 30% of the total runners are 3yo
approx 36% of the runners are 4yo

3yo have won 9 times = 30%
4yo have won 10 times = 33%

3yo's supply 30% of the runners and same amount of winners..4yo near enough the same.

I'm not seeing the WFA making any difference..its certainly not disadvantaging 3yo's anyway
 
has anyone noticed how 4yo's are favoured in the King George these days..they have won 9/10 times;)

should we make the wfa more generous for 3yo i wonder

ah..but then again in the previous 20 years..3yos won it loads of times

interesting isn't it how patterns chop and change?..with all the different international targets we have these days
 
has anyone noticed how the November Handicap seems to be difficult for 3yo's to win these days?

in the last 10 years 3 have won..none have won in last 6 years

but in 80's & 90's we had loads of em win..5 on the bounce...3 on the bounce..pairs

strange one
 
Back
Top