REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

the scottish National/welsh national have a similar record with top weights..should not that be altered as well?..especially now that the GN has 3 times a many 11.05 winners. should we also allow the lower horses the same concession to balance it up?

in fact..not much point decent horses going for the scottish one now..its easier at Aintree.

i can't see how a handicapping system can only apply to one band of runners but ignore the rest in the same race..or other races where it looks hard to carry weight

i've also not seen any evidence that would show a change to weight for distance handicapping is needed. Big handicaps anywhere are tough to win with any weight..throw in 40 runners and its not surprising that top weights only win once in a blue moon.

Its a bit like saying..over the last 30 years only one horse has carried exacly 10-8 to win a race..there must be something wrong with that weight...until you factor in that with 40 runners you could go years without any winner with that weight..just due to weight of numbers in a race.

There is a difference in these two stats although they both concern top weights..top weights win once every 30 years in race A..top weights win once every 15 years in race B

in race A there are 40 runners each year..in race B there are 20 runners each year

the weight is not deciding the outcomes in both examples..the number of runners in the field is

<blockquote data-quote="EC1" data-source="post: 2520076" data-attributes="member: 65360">the scottish National/welsh national have a similar record with top weights..should not that be altered as well?..especially now that the GN has 3 times a many 11.05 winners. should we also allow the lower horses the same concession to balance it up?in fact..not much point decent horses going for the scottish one now..its easier at Aintree.i can&#039;t see how a handicapping system can only apply to one band of runners but ignore the rest in the same race..or other races where it looks hard to carry weighti&#039;ve also not seen any evidence that would show a change to weight for distance handicapping is needed. Big handicaps anywhere are tough to win with any weight..throw in 40 runners and its not surprising that top weights only win once in a blue moon.Its a bit like saying..over the last 30 years only one horse has carried exacly 10-8 to win a race..there must be something wrong with that weight...until you factor in that with 40 runners you could go years without any winner with that weight..just due to weight of numbers in a race.There is a difference in these two stats although they both concern top weights..top weights win once every 30 years in race A..top weights win once every 15 years in race Bin race A there are 40 runners each year..in race B there are 20 runners each yearthe weight is not deciding the outcomes in both examples..the number of runners in the field is</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EC1, post: 2520076, member: 65360"] the scottish National/welsh national have a similar record with top weights..should not that be altered as well?..especially now that the GN has 3 times a many 11.05 winners. should we also allow the lower horses the same concession to balance it up? in fact..not much point decent horses going for the scottish one now..its easier at Aintree. i can't see how a handicapping system can only apply to one band of runners but ignore the rest in the same race..or other races where it looks hard to carry weight i've also not seen any evidence that would show a change to weight for distance handicapping is needed. Big handicaps anywhere are tough to win with any weight..throw in 40 runners and its not surprising that top weights only win once in a blue moon. Its a bit like saying..over the last 30 years only one horse has carried exacly 10-8 to win a race..there must be something wrong with that weight...until you factor in that with 40 runners you could go years without any winner with that weight..just due to weight of numbers in a race. There is a difference in these two stats although they both concern top weights..top weights win once every 30 years in race A..top weights win once every 15 years in race B in race A there are 40 runners each year..in race B there are 20 runners each year the weight is not deciding the outcomes in both examples..the number of runners in the field is [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?