Possibly a stupid question about racing weights...

[khalswitz]

Ok, so I've been watching racehorse movies again... been an epic day of Secretariat, Seabiscuit and Phar Lap one after the other...

HOWEVER, being interested but not particularly knowledgable about racing, I wanted to ask about weights. Phar Lap running with 10st 10lb of weight in the 1931 Melbourne Cup was seen to be a disgusting handicap weight and they all worried about him breaking down, and he had his worst finish since he'd first won a race.

To me, that doesn't seem like much weight at all - I'm sure the Grand National horses whenever I've bet have been carrying 10 st plus, and certainly the last few winners in excess of 11! How come this was such a big deal for Phar Lap? Just comparative to what other horses where carrying at the time, or is there a difference as a flat racer?

Plus would like to feel a bit less of an elephant on my ex-racer if 10st 10 is seen as impossibly heavy... So excuse my ignorance I'm just genuinely interested.

 

[Jaycee]

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, I always understood that flat race-horses carried less weight as they are more finely built and flat races are run over shorter distances and are all about speed more than stamina.
(My horse was NH ex-racer and I certainly didn't feel heavy riding him at 10st - in fact sometimes I wished I'd weighed alot more - might have kept him on the ground at times! lol)

Phar Lap was heavily handicapped in an attempt to slow him down as he was taking a hefty toll on the betting scene, always being the winner they took a heavy loss each time he ran.

 

[Elf On A Shelf]

Flat horses have a weight range of 7st7lbs to 9st7lbs on their backs. Jumpers have 10st to 11st12lbs. Not including any conditional allowances.

The theory behind the handicap system is to allow each horse its best chance so the better horses carry more weight, the lesser horses less so that, in theory, they all cross the line together. They reckon a lb = a length.

So in Phar Laps case they reckoned that he would win by 17lengths if all carried equal weight so to give everyone a chance they lump the weight on to slow them down.

Some cope with it, one wee mare I ride is 15.1hh and VERY dainty yet she regularly lumps round 11st+ over 3miles in a bog (go figure?!? Lol!) and yet a big strapping 17hh chunky beast struggles to carry that weight roubd and finish a race. Phar Lap didn't cope with the vast weight on his back compared to what he was used to. Plus back in his day flat weights were much less than they are now - they are trying to keep jockeys healthier and have increased the minimum weights.

 

[khalswitz]

Riiiight, ok. Thanks very much! So he was carrying quite a weight then in comparison to the other flat racers! Poor boy. That explains it, thank you very much!

Silly bookies, you'd think they'd just refuse to take bets on him?

 

[Mithras]

Try to imagine the 1500m final at the Olympics. All the runners are in fine shape, carrying no extra weight. Except one, who is approximately 2 stones over the weight he was when he qualified. How do you think he will fare?

 

[khalswitz]

Try to imagine the 1500m final at the Olympics. All the runners are in fine shape, carrying no extra weight. Except one, who is approximately 2 stones over the weight he was when he qualified. How do you think he will fare?

Sorry, I didn't clarify - I understand the idea behind the weight handicapping system (and having been a coxswain myself I can sympathise with jockeys who have to keep their weight down!), it was just that I had seen heavier weights carried in the Grand National, and wondered why 10 st 10 was considered enough to be a risk to the horse's welfare. But if flat racers carry significantly less weight anyway, the horse wasn't used to carrying such weight, and 70 years ago the weights were less than they are now that together explains it.

But thank you