Equating Weight With Distance

  • Thread starter Thread starter numbersix
  • Start date Start date
N

numbersix

Guest
I would like to know how much a pound in weight equates to in terms of lenghts on the Flat. I know over the jumps as a rule of thumb one pound in weight equals one length.

But presumably it is less on the flat. I was looking at the 1.45 at Chester and trying to fathom how much Doncaster rover could have been expected to have beaten Sally's Dilemma in the Brocklesby had they carried the same weight.

I appreciate it can vary for distance and going, but as a rule of thumb please could you let me know the best way of doing this?

Cheers in advance
 
I lifted this off this forum sometime ago, I can't remember who it was.Different people have different methods.

" How much additional weight it takes to slow a horse by 1 length at different distances

5F = 3.9Ibs
6F = 3.2Ibs
7F = 2.7Ibs
8F = 2.4Ibs
9F = 2.1Ibs
10F = 1.8Ibs
12F = 1.5Ibs
14F = 1.3Ibs
16F = 1.1Ibs
18F = 1.0Ib
20F = 0.9Ibs
22F = 0.8Ibs
24F = 0.7Ibs
28F = 0.6Ibs
4miles + = 0.5Ibs

If you plot them on a graph you'll get a near perfect concave curve. I was hoping to attribute the table to the originator but having spun through a few books it isn't clear whether it Ragozin, Alexander, Beyer or Mordin, all of whom have conducted various degrees of research on the same theme and broadly come to similar conclusions.

The higher the class of horse the more they are likely to be able to lump a bit above these averages. The issue about how much a horse speeds up for a weight reduction is much less clearer, and I've never really satisfied myself on this one. What i will accept (and working in Oxford I periodically get the chance to bump into clever scientists who understand these things, even if they can't explain them to idiots). Is that horses for reasons of cubic capacity and hysterisis don't speed up in the same ratios, and broadly speaking more weight has to come off to achieve the same 1 length result. There is a threshold however, where weight clearly doesn't matter as the curve is not exponential and has a cut off point over which the performance threshold of the horse can't go.

To the best of my knowledge, the official handicapper uses the formula:

15 divided by/ (distance in furlongs)

to calculate how many pounds equal one length

i.e., over a mile, 1 length = 15 divided by / 8 = 1.875 lbs."
 
Thats brilliant Sheikh - just the ticket. However having backed the fav in the end in the 1.45 at Chester it was all academic as she ran like a donkey and the winner looks useful.
 
Those figures have a familiar ring to them :) They actually relate to weight increases and how much a horse slows up based on American research involving thousands of horses who had their burden increased. The issue of how much one slows up for having their weight reduced is much more complicated and open to debate. It's worth pointing out that course topography, different going, and the strength of the wind will also come into play, and this is much more of a guess, as most American tracks are flat.

That horses can carry more weight over shorter distances is no surprise and conforms with the laws of physics. Think of like this.

If I asked you to run for thirty seconds in sand carrying an additional 10Ibs, and after thirty seconds you had to plant a flag to show how much distance you covered. If I then asked you to run with an additional 10 second intervals you would still cover more ground, but ultimately the flags would get nearer to each other as I increased the amount of time it took. What it would demonstrate is that over time the burden would start to take its toll on you.
 
Yes Warbs I recognised that was your post being quoted by Sheikh!
Very useful too, to have it handy for reference, not that I use anything so sophisticated when punting
 
Here's the link to the thread from last month:

http://talkinghorses.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=22729

In addition to the poundage used by the official handicapper that I mentioned there, you can find out what the RP use through their "My Ratings" feature on their website. It works out as something like:

5f = 3.5lbs
6f = 3lbs
7f = 2.5lbs
8f = 2lbs
9f = 2lbs
10f = 1.75lbs
12f = 1.5lbs
 
Guilty as charged, but I wouldn't pretend for one second to be responsible for anything other than a scissors and paste job (it's not my own work you'll be relieved to learn). I can however, vouch for its accuracy as I've used the scale to very good effect in the past, and continue to do so when unravelling handicaps. I have my own theories about weight decreases, but will spare you for the time being :D

If you think about it logically, it stands to reason that horses will perform differently under an additional burden at different trips (they have to), yet it amazes me how many punters seem to think there's a blanket rule of thumb that can be applied regardless of the amount of time a horse is expected to run for with additional weight on its back, and that this is uniform at all trips.

Think about it logically and apply a bit of physics to it, and you'll quickly realise it has to be nonesense.

I'm pretty certain it was Mr Desert Orchid who took it a step further and suggested different courses generated different corrections to this broad scale. I'd agree with him, that also has to be true, as a 6Ib rise at Epsom over 5F's is bound to be no where near as punitive as it would be at Pontefract. It's just that I don't know what the corrections should be. I can however see that if you wished to specialise in a few courses you could sit down and work them out. To cover the UK and provide a definitive list of local corrections though would require about 20 volunteers who would need to then be armed with the methodology as to how these things are calculated (unless there is an application on raceform interactive where you could profile it). It would take about a day to do 2 courses I'd estimate.?

Next time its raining and racing is cancelled sign up folks to the definitive course-by- course great handicap investigation :D
 
The alternative of course is to avoid 2yr old Maidens like the plague and to bet only - or mainly - on races in which you can see whether a horse has form on the track, and at what OR/weight/draw! 'Horses for Courses' is more than just a cliche
 
There's a completely different way of sorting out 2yo maidens and it's proven very lucrative :D

You can only find the right answer if you ask the correct question :suspect:
 
Originally posted by Warbler@May 8 2008, 12:18 AM
There's a completely different way of sorting out 2yo maidens and it's proven very lucrative :D
Click to expand...
In the days when I used to bet on maidens, I found that 2yo maidens were one of my best sources of winners. The trick was not to hear the dogs barking.
 
Back
Top