How much is too much weight?
By guest contributor Todd Burmester
Weight may stop a train, so they say, but I think that applying this saying to horse racing, truly is over rated. Sure, I have seen some instances where a lighter weighted horse has gotten the better of its more heavily weighted rival but I would suggest to you that on a whole, topweights are a very good bet and in a lot of instances do not carry enough weight.
Think back to some recent examples where our topline horses such as Hay List and Black Caviar have been asked to carry heavy weights in The Newmarket Handicap and done it successfully, yet in the lead up to the race, most of the talk was about “the weight” and for that reason, more value was on offer in the price they started.
Sure, most horses are not of the quality of those two – but a closer look at some statistics tells me they don’t need to be in order to still carry the weight and win. Weight is one of the clearest indicators of class. The weight allocated by the handicapper is in response to the horses proven record – so therefore it simply makes sense, that those carrying more weight, have more ability.
Getting to the numbers – I looked at a sample of 71136 top weights, which produced a strike rate of 19% winners, however looking at that group and taking only those that were allocated at least 3kgs more than the second highest weighted runner, increased the strike rate to 22%. Interesting isn’t it?
Whilst some would be put off by the weight, particularly in relation to the rest of the field, this actually turned out to be a positive factor in terms of selecting more winners. Putting this into perspective in terms of what it means from a return on investment point of view – the group of “all topweights” returned 75% at level stakes SP, where as the group that were allocated at least 3kgs more than their rivals returned 78% at level stakes SP. Obviously both groups are a long way from “break even” but, you are always going to apply other form factors and filter rules to determine your selections.
There is also a direct correlation between TAB numbers and strike rates. From a sample of over one million runners, TAB number 1 produced 15.6% winners, and this gradually declined for each TAB number, down to a 5.4% strike rate for those runners with TAB number 10 or above. From a return on investment point of view the number 1 TAB numbers in the sample returned 72% at level stakes SP, right down to the number 10 and above group which only returned 55% at level stakes SP. The strike rate and return on investments for the each TAB number follows a linear relationship from TAB number 1 right through.
Uncanny really, isn’t it? Simple, but true. This does, in my opinion, put a strong case forward, that weight may stop a train, but it does not stop racehorses.
Now of course, I am not suggesting to simply look at backing all top weights or all TAB number 1′s, you still need to do the work to assess the horses chance of winning taking into account the other prevailing form factors, but the next time you are put off by a big weight, think twice before writing the horse off.
Top weights in general, are getting in light!
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Weight is interesting when looking at horses that move between WFA and handicap races. With Hay List for example, much was made of him carrying a big weight in the Newmarket, when he was in fact only carrying the same weight he has carried in numerous G1 WFA races. Some from the horses perspective, there is no difference. The question wasn’t would the weight stop Hay List, but would the lighter weights of the other runners make them run any faster…. it didn’t.
Totally agree with the observation that a top weight is there for a reason… it is the class runner in the field
Fangus recently posted..How much is too much weight?
Using such raw statistics may provide some insight, but the full story is never told. I suspect that the shorter the race, the less relevant weights are. The big research project is to compare the effect of weight from race to race e.g horses A, B & C have raced against each other and back up two weeks later in another race with changed weights. How does weight affect that outcome? Other variables like improvement, barrier, course, track condition, rider and distance come into play, so thousands of examples would need to be analysed to draw any sensible conclusions. My guess is that the longer the distance and heavier the track, the more weight comes into play. I also think that it’s foolish to put on a claiming apprentice in a sprint in lieu of an experienced rider who needs to carry less lead.
Do you still use the old Don Scott bible as a basis for rating a race? If so, it strikes me that an analysis like this would fundamentally shake the entire foundation. How do you marry the two?
Very interesting article by Mr Burmester and logical arguments by the members who provided their comments.
I read something similar in articles in the Sportsman , written by Zenon Greko, who also pointed out that in Hay List’s last run and despite a 6kg advantage over Foxwedge, it got beaten by that horse. Maybe the problem with its feet (or foot) was a contributing factor to the defeat.
By the way I am sad that the champion horse has run into a lot of bad luck recently, with a surgery for colic and a serious knee injury that may end its career, as you reported in your newsletter.
Back to the subject of weight, do you think that there is such a thing as “Weight Carrying Ability”? Some horses may be ok carrying 59kg and winning, whereas others may not win when carrying more than 58 for example. Any research done on this part of the argument?
Thanks
I’ve always used the 1.5 kg = 1 length formula regardless of distance and track condition, but I suspect that Lester Jesberg might be on the money by saying that weight becomes more significant the longer the distance and the heavier the track.
The question then becomes HOW MUCH more significant. And what is the parity mark? Could it be a 1400m race on a good 3? If so, our 1.5 kg becomes less significant in a 1000m race, but more significant on a slow 6. I suppose, to get it right, you’d need to draw up some sort of table.
But there will always be horses who will defy theories. There will be champions who can carry the grandstand over any distance on quicksand and make you look like a fool. And a bigger horse will probably be less affected by weight than a smaller horse.
But I think it’s a bit foolhardy to dismiss weight as a factor in form analysis. Official handicappers have been using weight since the year dot and there must be a good reason for that. Otherwise they would have given the weaker horses a head start like they still do in some harness racing events.
Hi all
Great to see some great debate. To further add to my position on this in regard to some points raised.. In relation to relative weights and form lines I do subscribe to the 1.5kgs equates to 1 length. Where I think this is most evident is from race A to race B when the same horses face one another but with a difference in weights. As pointed out already though, this did not play out when Foxwedge recently beat Hay List. There will always be exceptions to any rule, and this was one of them. Perhaps due to Hay List being under an unknown injury cloud or perhaps due to another factor such as Foxwedge having reached peak fitness or the change of venue to Moonee Valley. In general however I feel the 1.5kg rule is a pretty fair measuring stick. In relation to my original piece particularly on top weights however, what this is suggesting to me is that the handicapper is often underestimating just how many lengths difference in ability the top weight has over those lower in the weights, and the stats seem to back this up.
As for whether various horses have a certain weight carrying ability, I think that purely depends on the opposition in the race – as a slightly exaggerated example, Black Caviar would probably give a maiden field 20kgs and a beating, where as she may not beat a fit Hay List with that same differential.
I am currently sourcing some data in relation to the impact weight has over various distances.
Todd
Hi all
Further to previously – in a sample of over 80,000 races
33491 were run at 1200m or less, in which topweights had a 17.5% win strike rate, and a return at level stakes SP of 73%
7099 were run at 2000m and above, in which topweights had a 17.4% win strike rate, and a return at level stakes SP of 81%
This suggests to me that “group think” is that topweights are more negatively impacted over distance, and thus allow them to drift out further in the betting, but in fact, on overall raw numbers, they present a better betting proposition (despite a very similar win strike rate).
one should stick to the 1.5kg. = 1 len.
it is only an average , but its the only relaiable rule we have .
all distances are really like running a 1200 m race , they cruise and then sprint at longer ,
plus distance races is more about stamina ( need 5 runs / spell. )
In a sprint it a sudden accelleration with not much criuse time .
When the horse is class or in form it moves up the weights , that why the classer ones or the
in form horses are up in the wts. the out classed are on the limit .
the hardest thing is finding the rating for tomorrow – not the weight .
In the wet , see how it ratings go in the wet .
There is and can be no quantitative amount of weight that can affect the result, statistics are quite misleading on this subject as the more stats you have the more misleading they can be
Let me explain, you have to know something about the Thoroughbred, to be specific the geometry of the thoroughbred, weight is carried on the shoulder, the better the horse, the better the shoulder, meaning the best horses can carry weight more effectively than lesser horses regardless of the opposition, ie a Champion can give a top class horse a lot of weight, where as if you take stats from ordinary Saturday class horses giving weight to midweek class horses it is considerably more difficult and the further down you go in class the harder it is to give away weight to the opposition, even if the opposition is weaker still
so if you have stats covering 1000′s of races most of it will be in lower class races, compare apples with apples,
it is about the horses involved, if you don’t know the horses how can you say X = Y
If you asked a Jockey to lift 80kg’s and then asked Dean Lukin to lift 100kg’s who would you back? they are both men? horses are the same in being none are the same