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

I would just like to repeat that I think it is legitimate to ignore weight-for-age (as opposed to weight) in form and time figures - not that I do - though any organisation judged on top-rated winners and the like is unlikely to do so for commercial reasons.

If you ignore it then you need to work in some sort of allowance for maturation or accept the limitations of the ratings without such an allowance.

Some people sneer at the idea of a one-size-fits-all approach to racehorse development while conveniently ignoring the fact that many ratings organisations do treat progress on an individual basis (think of the "p" and "P" symbols).

A wise bird once suggested to me that weight-for-age should really work hand in hand with weight-for-experience, and I think he was right.

[QUOTE="J Alfred Prufrock, post: 2261094, member: 65386"] I would just like to repeat that I think it is legitimate to ignore weight-for-age (as opposed to weight) in form and time figures - not that I do - though any organisation judged on top-rated winners and the like is unlikely to do so for commercial reasons. If you ignore it then you need to work in some sort of allowance for maturation or accept the limitations of the ratings without such an allowance. Some people sneer at the idea of a one-size-fits-all approach to racehorse development while conveniently ignoring the fact that many ratings organisations do treat progress on an individual basis (think of the "p" and "P" symbols). A wise bird once suggested to me that weight-for-age should really work hand in hand with weight-for-experience, and I think he was right. [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?