The Effect of Weight Carried

barjon

barjon

Rookie
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
3,890
Interesting article from the DrawBias site:

“Weight is the basis around which both handicapping and traditional form study is based. The well-established principle is that 3lbs = 1 length, or put another way if a horse loses to a rival by a length, if the rival is raised by 3lbs in the handicap and the horses subsequently meet again, that the result should be a dead heat. But is this actually true and can you gain an edge by better understanding the effect of weight on a racehorses performance.

In my own form study I actually totally ignore weight carried, undoubtedly there must be some effect of weight but in my opinion its impact is too minimal to materially affect the result. The reason horses stop winning when they go up in the handicap is in my opinion due to them having to go up in grade and race against better horses, not due to the weight they carry, A telling statistic is that in UK racing top weights win 27% of races, which is far more than they should statistically if weight had the effect it is meant to.

To put this into perspective. Horses are large animals, the average weight of a thoroughbred is around 550 kg's. Two kilograms(5 lbs) represents 0.36% of the horses body weight. Let's translate this illustration to human terms. Two 90kg athletes compete with athlete A narrowly victorious over athlete B over 200m. Same conditions 1 week later this time athlete A must carry 0.36% of his body weight strapped to his back as a penalty. This equates to 330 grams or about the size of a family block of chocolate.
Do you think that the 330 gram penalty will stop a powerful finely tuned athlete from repeating the win? Or will a 2kg weight turn around impede the winning chances of a 550 kg thoroughbred? “
 
Last edited:
Broadly agree with the article, but some good trainers set their clock by weight carried, so I'll listen to anyone who can give a logical reason why?
 
"There must be some effect of weight but in my opinion its impact is too minimal to materially affect the result"

The reason it doesn't work out everytime like you expect is that adding weight to a horse like Frankel will slow him down.

On the otherhand reduce the amount of weight carried by a slow horse won't make him go faster by ratio and the handicap has never been invented to bring the two together.

Arkle was a good example. He carried 12stone 7lbs in the Gallacher Gold Cup and beat Candy and John O'Groats both carrying 10stone by a fence and then some

Stick 16 stone on Arkle's back and they would get closer to him because you will slow him down, but leave his weight as is and give them 7stone to carry and he would still beat them by a fence +.

Any racing expert worth his salt will tell you the lack of weight at a certain point doesn't make a slow horse go any faster.

The handicap has it's limitations in how it affects the result dependant on the horses involved. Which makes it very difficult to find the winners in h'caps
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
Fvck me, there are more holes in that argument than in a cheese grate.
Click to expand...

I've mentioned Roman Warrior a couple of times on here down the years.

I recall backing him for a G1 based on his defying top weight and a high OR in the Ayr Gold Cup and telling my father about why the rating would be good enough to win an average G1 sprint.

However, he scoffed at the idea, saying, "Look at the horse. It's a monster. Weight doesn't stop it but taking weight off it won't make it quicker. These other horses today are quicker. He won't be able to compete."

And, of course, he was right.

Thinking back, if that was the mid-1970s, I would have been around 20 or 21 years old and he around 55. I'm turning 67 soon and I'd like to think I'd be able to pass on that level of insight to some aspiring form student.

However, the likes of Roman Warrior would be more of an exception to the basic physics of handicapping.
 
Tanlic said:
"There must be some effect of weight but in my opinion its impact is too minimal to materially affect the result"

The reason it doesn't work out everytime like you expect is that adding weight to a horse like Frankel will slow him down.

On the otherhand reduce the amount of weight carried by a slow horse won't make him go faster by ratio and the handicap has never been invented to bring the two together.

Arkle was a good example. He carried 12stone 7lbs in the Gallacher Gold Cup and beat Candy and John O'Groats both carrying 10stone by a fence and then some

Stick 16 stone on Arkle's back and they would get closer to him because you will slow him down, but leave his weight as is and give them 7stone to carry and he would still beat them by a fence +.

Any racing expert worth his salt will tell you the lack of weight at a certain point doesn't make a slow horse go any faster.

The handicap has it's limitations in how it affects the result dependant on the horses involved. Which makes it very difficult to find the winners in h'caps
Click to expand...

Yes a really good post this.

Reading this through I see the logic perfectly. Well explained, Fist.

I remember a forumite from The Racing Forum called Rob North and I think DO aswell at the time who pointed out to me that a top weight can still be well handicapped in a class 3 race if it is actually a class 2 horse for obvious reasons.

These days I look for consistency in lower weight horses.

I.E I would rather back a flat horse with 8 stone if its form figures were 212321 than 104692!

Same for the jumps.

If their overall profile shows some consistency I feel they have more chance of exploiting a lower weight against higher rated animals.
 
Last edited:
Marb said:
These days I look for consistency in lower weight horses.
Click to expand...

I think that's risky, Marb, although the risk is mitigated to a degree by the consistency element.

While I'm a great believer in the handicapping system being the best possible fit for our racing, it isn't perfect but only a small percentage of handicaps are genuinely truly run. The percentage is far greater than non-handicaps but there are still only a couple of handicaps per day that are true-run. (I base this on time ratings but sectionals tend to back up the opinion.)

So where a race is slower than true-run the classier horses, ie those near the top of the weights, will have the basic pace to finish the race off better.

It's actually a principle that's built into the game of Totopoly. I played the game an awful lot in my younger days and while I managed to win a few times with a lightweight, I always preferred having a top weight.
 
Yh don't get me wrong I am happy to back higher weighted horses too, the consistency element is one I factor in if I am considering a lower weighted horse.
 
Agree with some of Fist's logic, but he's basically saying that extra weight slows horses down.
Why then, do some trainers bridle at a few extra pounds on a 1/2 ton horse, even around sharper tracks such as Goodwood or Lngfield?
 
Depends on size of horse, distance of race, going, whether or not horse takes to claiming riders but as horses are not mathematicians weight differences should not affect horses as much as mathematicians think it should.
The amount of lead should also be a factor but Brown Lad won too many races carrying Tommy Carberry and three stone of lead on heavy ground over extreme distances to make me think twice !
 
whether or not horse takes to claiming riders QUOTE]


How does a horse know if it's a claiming jockey?
 
Back
Top