Donn McClean on the WFA scale

Nulty

An excellent piece IMO

Level playing field for championship races


It is around about this time every year that the weight-for-age scale comes up for its annual NCT. You know the process by now: three-year-old wins top all-aged race, three-year-old is acclaimed as high-class, entire three-year-old crop is mooted as better than average, weight-for-age scale comes under scrutiny. Invariably, the scale passes the test. Over 130 years later, with just some minor modifications to the weight-for-age table that is attributed to Admiral Henry John Rous, and it is still on the road.

You can understand the rationale behind the perennial questioning. In an extensive analysis of the weight-for-age scale presented in these pages last Friday, the difficulty in coming up with a universal linear scale – what with horses being living breathing creatures and all, subject to varying degrees and rates of development – was highlighted. Of course it is impossible to come up with a scale that will work for all horses. You cannot determine that all three-year-olds are at a 10lb disadvantage relative to their elders in a race run over a mile at the end of June, but only at a 6lb disadvantage by the end of August.

That said, there were some interesting observations. Racing Post Ratings guru Sam Walker suggested that, according to Racing Post Ratings, three-year-olds should receive 6lb from their elders in the Sussex Stakes, not 8lb, as is the case under the current scale. Roger Varian’s revealed his policy – inherited from his highly astute mentor Michael Jarvis – of generally being happy for his three-year-olds to take on the older horses from July onwards, but not beforehand, believing that the current scale confers an advantage on Classic generation from midsummer.

You can also understand the momentum that the argument has gained this season, with some of the top all-aged Group 1 races going to three-year-olds – Dream Ahead, Nathaniel, Frankel – and the three-year-old theme continued through the weekend with Excelebration winning the Hungerford Stakes, and Census and Brown Panther filling the first two places in the Geoffrey Freer.

Swallows and summers. Just because the Classic generation appears to be rampant this season, it doesn’t mean that the weight-for-age scale is wrong.

However, there is a chance that all this intense analysis of pounds and ounces and rates of development misses the point. Shouldn’t a championship race be exactly that, a championship race? Shouldn’t the object of a championship race be to determine who is the fastest competitor? Shouldn’t the winner of the race be the best contender in it? And therefore, shouldn’t all contestants compete on identical terms?

Of course a weight-for-age scale for the vast majority of all-aged races makes sense, but for a select number of championship races, which could be hand-picked, why couldn’t all horses carry the same weight? A young golfer in a championship event doesn’t tee off from the yellow tees, a young athlete doesn’t receive a 10-yard start, so why should a young racehorse receive a weight allowance?

It is a peculiarity of thoroughbred racing that a significant proportion of the great racehorses of the modern era staked their claim to greatness as three-year-olds. We remember their successes, their performances, we don’t generally think of the weight concession that they enjoyed. Yet when Galileo beat Fantastic Light by two lengths in the King George, he was in receipt of 12lb from the older horse. When Sea The Stars won the Arc, beating Youmzain by two lengths, he was in receipt of 8lb from the runner-up. When Giant’s Causeway won the Eclipse, he was in receipt of 11lb from Kalanisi, and he beat him by a head.

Of course, it is impossible to tell what effect a weight concession has, how much more three-year-old winners had in hand than that which they were required to produce, and it is fanciful in the extreme to suggest that Youmzain would have beaten Sea The Stars in the Arc if both horses had carried the same weight. But it would have been nice to have found out for certain.

There is the chance that identical weights for all horses in a championship races would make those races less attractive for connections of three-year-olds than they are at present, and the King George in particular has struggled of late to attract the Classic generation. But there are other factors at play in the King George, and other all-aged championship races do not suffer similarly. In the last eight renewals of the Arc de Triomphe, for example, the race that is now generally recognised as the all-aged middle-distance championship race of Europe, 52 three-year-olds have taken part as against 67 older horses. Seven of the last eight winners were three-year-olds, and that doesn’t seem right.

Conversely, there is a chance that the race would be more attractive for three-year-olds. The prestige and the consequent stud value of a three-year-old who could beat his or her elders at level weights should soar. It might prove to be a rare occurrence, but that should only add to the perceived magnitude of the feat and the consequent commercial value of the horse.

And if it was a rare thing that a three-year-old beat the older horses in a championship race, it should also result indirectly in more high class horses remaining in training as four-year-olds than is currently the case, and that could only be a good thing.

© The Racing Post, 16th July 2011

http://donnmcclean.com/2011/08/18/level-playing-field-for-championship-races/

hucklebuck

I agree, they should get rid of the allowance, good read thanks Nutly

ArmaniJeanss

More contradictory and clueless nonsense from McClean.

EDIT :

McClean wrote:

There is the chance that identical weights for all horses in a championship races would make those races less attractive for connections of three-year-olds than they are at present

Thats my favourite bit. 'There is a chance'. Like a 99.99% chance. Clown.

Nulty

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

More contradictory and clueless nonsense from McClean.

EDIT :


Thats my favourite bit. 'There is a chance'. Like a 99.99% chance. Clown.

I don't disagree with you there but it doesn't detract from the fact that the 3yo weight allowance favours the classic generation in the top class middle distance races. I'd prefer top hear your opinions on the subject rather than on the author of the piece tbh. I don't think they should get rid of the allowance but I think it should be revised. What McClean is saying is that a "one size fits all" approach is being taken that suits the majority of horses, but the best 3yo are the ones that are mature before their time and therefore receive a weight allowance that doesn't reflect their immaturity when compared with 4yo+.

ArmaniJeanss

Nulty wrote: »

it doesn't detract from the fact that the 3yo weight allowance favours the classic generation in the top class middle distance races.

Its not a fact, its at best a flawed opinion.
Theres 120 years of evidence to the contrary that all it does is even up the playing field.

This happens to be a year where the 3 year old generation is ahead ; there have been plenty of years where the Daylamis, Singspiels, DubaiMs, Montjeus etc where the ones cleaning up the summer racing schedule as 4yos+. During this time it would have been equally invalid to suggest giving the 3yos an extra half a lb a mile a month.

If this was brought in there would be zero 3 year olds going up against their elders. None whatsoever. There was a time when there was no fillies allowance either and there was a couple of seasons in the 70s when not one filly took part in a Group1 race against colts.

If UK racing did it in isolation there would either be a mass exodus of top 3 year olds to Ireland or France or the US, or else UK racing would have to have a series of 3yo only GroupOne races during the second half of the season, effectively reducing the quality of all Group1s.

To be honest it's hardly worth debating - it is never ever going to happen as the people who run racing aren't so utterly clueless.

tryfix

Flat racing is all about the classic generation, and if they get an advantage that gives us a chance to see them take on the older generation that's great. Without that advantage we would be stuck with the 3y olds avoiding the older generation and racing would be the poorer for it.

Emulous bucked the trend this evening, so it's not all one way traffic how far would she have won at level weights

Nulty

Ok Armani, like I said I'm not entrenched in one camp or the other and EVERYTHING is 'worth debating' at one level or another.

How about revising the concession given to 3 year olds in the top class middle distance races. Is there any part of the WFA scale that you think could be improved?

smartaform

In other countries, there's no debate on the WFA scale, its just the way it is AND most entires race on after their 3year old campaign. Personally, I'm in the column of don't change

ArmaniJeanss

Nulty wrote: »

How about revising the concession given to 3 year olds in the top class middle distance races. Is there any part of the WFA scale that you think could be improved?

You could theoretically take a horses month of birth into account, as you know a 3yo foaled in February is different to a 3yo foaled in June. So maybe the earlier a horse was foaled the lesser allowance it gets.
It might cause knockon problems though as suddenly an April foal becomes more valuable than a March foal and certain skullduggery might go on !!

To be honest I think the wfa scale is self regulating - if 3yolds were at a huge advantage then even the 'slightly below best' would be taking their chances in these races, but as we know plenty of the all-aged G1s take place without any 3yolds at all or just one standout contender.
Conversely if 3yolds were at a huge disadvantage then I'd surmise that none of them would be running at all, but clearly they do run in these races regularly.

Admiral Rous was a smart oul fella and his scale has stood the test of time; tweak it by all means as the evidence arises, but four or five cherry picked races over one summer is not evidence.

sting60

<snip>.Why does the worst track in the country get top dates ,fridays,sats,suns.I am talking about Kilbeggen ,money talks full stop.Roscommon is the best track outside the big tracks yet the clowns will not support it but top trainers run top 2yr olds there?????It is the Windsor of Ireland[mondays only].John Oxx has said Roscommon is the third best track in the country for 2yr olds[it teaches them to turn hard and the long uphill finish]

Harry Angstrom

I think Armani is spot on. This happens to be a year when the 3 year olds are about as strong as I can ever remember. It's a bit silly for Donn McClean to be arguing for a change in the WFA scale on the basis of what's been happening this season. The 3yo's might be rubbish next year and the older horses might very well have the upper hand over them irrespective of whether they're giving them weight.
There's been plenty of 3yo's (Derby winners among them) who've been soundly beaten in races like the Eclipse and the King George over the years, even when they're getting a generous weight allowance from the older horses.

ArmaniJeanss

Bump.

A 12 month-old-thread but worth a bump I think if just to indicate how wrong McClean was to think thats one seasons evidence somehow indicates that a 100+ year old wfa scale needs dismantling.

Harry Angstroms prediction for this seasons 3 yearolds was very spot on.

shaggykev

Just like one seasons great 3 year old batch is not reason enough to abandon WFA, one poor seasons batch of 3 year olds is not reason to maintain it in it's current form.

The Arc is the biggest middle distance race of the season & 7out of 8 3 year old winners or is it now 8out of 9 is too big.

I certainly would be in favor of ditching WFA come September/October

Sea the Stars- most racing fans have already forgot him now that Frankel is the greatest. It shows 2 things, race on to 4 to prove the horses true worth & Sea the Stars victory in the Arc & every 3 year olds win in the Arc has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Remove the allowance & if they win, they're true champions & they're stud value will soar.

The notion that 3 years olds will just avoid race won't hold water as if they avoid the big races, the owner/breeder cannot retire the horse for huge stud value

Harry Angstrom

shaggykev wrote: »

Sea the Stars- most racing fans have already forgot him now that Frankel is the greatest. It shows 2 things, race on to 4 to prove the horses true worth & Sea the Stars victory in the Arc & every 3 year olds win in the Arc has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Remove the allowance & if they win, they're true champions & they're stud value will soar.

The notion that 3 years olds will just avoid race won't hold water as if they avoid the big races, the owner/breeder cannot retire the horse for huge stud value

Sea The Stars was a true champion, irrespective of whether he was getting weight-for-age in the Arc. I don't think it did his stud value any harm because he won it as a 3 year old, rather than winning it as an older horse and having to give weight. I doubt it made any difference to his stallion fee, one way or the other.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

hucklebuck

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It is well know Sea The Stars idled in front, he would have won the Arc even without WFA

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

hucklebuck

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, in my opinion, he picked up again if anything got to him and on ratings he should beat Youmzain of level weights too.