King George

EC1 said:
if the allowance was removed the Arc would be a g2 in 10 years;)

look at how many races a middle distance 3yo can aim at late season..here and abroad...Arc would never see another 3yo for certain

also look at how it might also persuade owners to stick at 10f races for their 3yo..no incentive to stay 12f anymore really

you could completely destroy a race like the Arc imo
Click to expand...

I don't believe it would. But keep it in place for the Arc if you so wish, just give us another race in which the best horse in training wins taking on all comers at level weights.
 
Last edited:
10 confirmed. Prices I'd go on the right.

3/1 Nathaniel 3/1
3/1 Sea Moon 2/1
7/2 SNA 9/2
7/1 Dunaden 9/1
10/1 Danedream 8/1
20/1 Deep Brilliante 16/1
20/1 Reliable Man 16/1
33/1 Brown Panther 100/1
40/1 Masked Marvel 100/1
250/1 Robin Hood 1000/1
 
I'm sure I've pointed out this before, but Timeform's WFA scale is different from the official one - particularly when it comes to 2yos - but agrees on 8lbs as being the figure over 1m4f in early October.

As far as I know, their WFA scale is the product of actual research, so I think I'll take their word for it over a single "stat" from an intrinsically biased set of data involving just a single race.
 
Euronymous said:
10 confirmed. Prices I'd go on the right.

3/1 Nathaniel 3/1
3/1 Sea Moon 2/1
7/2 SNA 9/2
7/1 Dunaden 9/1
10/1 Danedream 8/1
20/1 Deep Brilliante 16/1
20/1 Reliable Man 16/1
33/1 Brown Panther 100/1
40/1 Masked Marvel 100/1
250/1 Robin Hood 1000/1
Click to expand...

Why so big on SNA? Is this the lack of confidence in the market or because you don't fancy him?
 
Gareth Flynn said:
I'm sure I've pointed out this before, but Timeform's WFA scale is different from the official one - particularly when it comes to 2yos - but agrees on 8lbs as being the figure over 1m4f in early October.

As far as I know, their WFA scale is the product of actual research, so I think I'll take their word for it over a single "stat" from an intrinsically biased set of data involving just a single race.
Click to expand...

The BHB scale of course is also based on research and is modified from time to time in accordance with this and with feedback from authorities and trainers, etc.
 
SteveM said:
Not abolished for all races. But perhaps tweaked for those races that come at the end of the season (to reflect that the 3yos are closing the gap). It is actually modified from time to time as it is.

In addition I would like to see it abolished for a couple of Group 1 races, so the true champion horse of the season taking on all comers at level weights can emerge.
Click to expand...


Fair enough if you think wfa scale should be tweaked. I don't know whether it should or not, but I would like some data to see if you are right. As you say above it is constantly evolving, and I would be interested to read if it has gone out of joint. Say if 3yo horses are more mature now relative to older horses than was the case years ago. Either from genetics or improved training methods.

My opinion is that your idea of abolishing 3yo allowances in races like the Arc to find a true champion is flawed on many levels. 3yo horses wouldn't enter these races being the major rationale.
 
Last edited:
SteveM said:
The BHB scale of course is also based on research and is modified from time to time in accordance with this and with feedback from authorities and trainers, etc.
Click to expand...

Right. So we have two independent scales based on actual research which agree on what the WFA should be for the Arc. But you think they're both wrong.
 
SteveM said:
Apologies to those who are becoming sick and tired of this... Weight-for-age is a scale not a theory (and not mine). The WFA scale introduced by Admiral Rous in the mid-19th century (albeit subject to subsequent revision and modification) appears biased toward the three-year-olds in races such as the Arc. This is fine as long as we want to hand the 3yos a concession, but not fine if we want to call it a championship race.
It is expressed as the number of pounds that it is deemed the average horse in each age group falls short of maturity at different dates (i.e. it changes throughout the season) and distances.

Since 1990 17 three-year-olds have won the Arc. WFA is not the only thing determining this but is clearly the main reason, as if they had carried the same weight 17 3yos would not have won.
Click to expand...

I'm not sick and tired of it. Far from it in fact. I know exactly what WFA is but it is your theory (that it "appears biased towards the three-year-olds in races such as the Arc") which is interesting but difficult to attach any credence to without the necessary supporting evidence. Saying that 17 3yos have won since 1990 tells us nothing about whether they are favoured by the WFA scale.
 
SteveM said:
Why so big on SNA? Is this the lack of confidence in the market or because you don't fancy him?
Click to expand...

It's partly that lack of confidence but the main reason is because I just think Nathaniel and Sea Moon are better horses, expecially on this track.
 
If anyone has raceform Interactive they could supply figures for this

I haven't ..but i have got RSB for 1995 + 1996

these are the results by 3yo in 3yo+ conditions races at 10f+ in those years by month

Jan - Jun:......81/570 = 14% = roi -7%
July:.............24/161 = 15% = roi -36%
August:.........30/175 = 17% = roi -7%
September:....26/195 = 13% = roi -29%
October:........20/150 = 13% = roi -21%
November..........7/91 = 8% .= roi -19%

if wfa was giving an advantage in later months then i wonder why 3 of the worst ROI's are in that area...and also two of the lowest strike rates are also in that area

like i said..anyone with RI can run this test over many more years..but looking at those two seasons actually suggests the wfa isn't enough..it certainly doesn't demonstrate that 3yo's are romping all over older horses later in the year
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
if wfa was giving an advantage in later months then i wonder why 3 of the worst ROI's are in that area...and also two of the lowest strike rates are also in that area

like i said..anyone with RI can run this test over many more years..but looking at those two seasons actually suggests the wfa isn't enough..it certainly doesn't demonstrate that 3yo's are romping all over older horses later in the year
Click to expand...

But is the WFA the 3yo's are getting at that time of year in these ratings as much as they receive in France for the Arc?
 
Euronymous said:
But is the WFA the 3yo's are getting at that time of year in these ratings as much as they receive in France for the Arc?
Click to expand...

its for 3yo+ conditions races...as far as i know all all age races have wfa allowances in line with time of year

so the answer is yes


plus these are for all races of 10f+..so some will get more than the Arc as they are over further
 
all it needs now is someone to spare a full 30 seconds of their time and run it through Raceform Interactive

someone here must have that software

time i spend on here putting stats up which takes me a while to gather and no f00ker can be arsed to run a simple query through RI:(

come on..lets put this wfa thing to bed once and for all..with some facts rather than waffle
 
Last edited:
John Whitley at Racing Research has three-year-olds receiving 7lbs (and four-year-olds 1lb) from five-year-olds and up over 12f in the first half of October. He does everything by computer: "Our w-f-a table is based on an examination of the progressive race performance ratings of tens of thousands of horses. The basis of w-f-a and our treatment of it was discussed in an article in an earlier edition of Computer Racing Form. We would be pleased to send a copy of that article to anyone who has not seen it."

EC, I've got Raceform Interactive but running a query like that would be beyond me. I struggle with the most basic stuff.
 
thanks anyway Gus

that John Whitley stuff is quite old isn't it?

well we have 2 years data to look at and there is no evidence using 10f+ races that wfa is giving an advantage to 3yo's

if it was you would be seeing 3yo's mop up those later season all age events...as it is they actually perform worse than in earlier season all age races

which to me says that in the Arc its simply down to cream of the crop 3yo's being better than the 4yo's that are left over when the previous season's 3yo's have been removed to the breeding house

i can't see why that argument is so hard to get tbh
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
which to me says that in the Arc its simply down to cream of the crop 3yo's being better than the 4yo's that are left over when the previous season's 3yo's have been removed to the breeding house
Click to expand...

That's an old fashioned view. Plenty of top class 3yos have stayed in training over the last twenty years. They just aren't campaigned with the Arc at the forefront of connections mind. Hellisio, Montjeu, Hurricane Run and Bago were all Arc winners who ran in the King George as 4yos but who went nowhere near the race in their Classic season.
 
I hate spoiling this thread with more wfa but here goes-
1. Horses are living, growing creatures, mature at 5 to 6yo based on weight, eruption and wear of permanent teeth, closing of bone growth plates and hardening of bones.
2. Under this age they are immature.
3. Many people here have cited the case for running off classics at 4yo, not3.
Therefore at 3 they must be disadvantaged by immaturity, so wfa is required.
4. As horses mature and get race hardened, for want of a better word, their ideal race distance becomes more obvious whereas at younger ages it is more a process of trial and further trial(trial and error for 47-65 rated!)
Therefore 3yo are by definition racing against older horses whose ideal racing trip is beyond doubt. Thus Admiral Rous and friends, with knowledge of husbandry trying to promote a relatively new breed of animal did what they did to promote the breed.
This might make sense to nobody else but me; at the same time we should not forget that horses are not grand prix cars,so allowances for age and sex are necessary.
 
Peeps, Steve may or may not be talking out of his anus about wfa, but lets be clear, if every theory that a punter, form student or fan of racing had about the game had to be 'proveable' the game would be very dull and boring: And its not a precise science. Strictly speaking you may win an argument as the opposition has a lack of proveable facts or statistics, but that still doesn't mean you're right.

I wish horses could talk, that way we could prove what they were really thinking.:)
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile; back at the ranch...........

With a g/s reading of 5.7 on the round course, the cards look to have fallen heavily in Nathaniel's favour again. However, he comes here from an Eclipse where he certainly wasn't ridden with another day in mind, and JG's probably chancing his arm while the ground's in his favour. Not sure he's good enough, anyway.
SNA needs faster ground, as probably does Dunaden; Danedream's out of form, and (on the little evidence we have) the Jap horse won't last home on it.
Sea Moon needs to improve, but has been given a similar prep to Harbinger, and is almost certainly expected to. 3/1 will do nicely.
 
Back
Top