Horse racing and Handicap

Amp34 · 30 Jun 2012 at 13:48

After a discussion with a friend yesterday I'm a little confused with this subject.

He suggested that horses had weights added to them to slow faster horses down and make the competition more even, which kinda defeats the whole object of something like the Grand National... I knew they had weights added in saddle bags but assumed it was to give every horse an even minimum weight (remove the Jockey weight from the equation). Looking it up this morning it appears that some horse races are handicapped, but not all. Am I right in thinking that the lesser races with more minor trainers are handicapped but the larger, more "profession" races aren't?

SexyGreyFox · 30 Jun 2012 at 13:54

I remember an Australian horse having the maximum handicap but he still beat everybody.
I think they made a film about him.

Efour · 30 Jun 2012 at 14:46

Hooficapped, Not to offended any special horses.

G18241 · 30 Jun 2012 at 14:49

Amp34 said:
After a discussion with a friend yesterday I'm a little confused with this subject.

He suggested that horses had weights added to them to slow faster horses down and make the competition more even, which kinda defeats the whole object of something like the Grand National... I knew they had weights added in saddle bags but assumed it was to give every horse an even minimum weight (remove the Jockey weight from the equation). Looking it up this morning it appears that some horse races are handicapped, but not all. Am I right in thinking that the lesser races with more minor trainers are handicapped but the larger, more "profession" races aren't?

The grand national is handicapped

Some horses are just much better runners than others so it tried to even the field out, sometimes you will get a top handicapped horse still odds on, as even with the extra weight it should easily be able to beat the rest in the race

kaiowas · 30 Jun 2012 at 14:58

Amp34 said:
which kinda defeats the whole object of something like the Grand National...

The whole object of horse racing as a sport and the Grand National in particular is for the bookies to make money. Whether the horses are handicapped or not isn't going to affect that.

semi-pro waster · 30 Jun 2012 at 15:00

Dimple said:
I remember an Australian horse having the maximum handicap but he still beat everybody.
I think they made a film about him.

You're probably thinking of Phar Lap and there was a film made about him, I don't know about the handicapping that he would have had though.

Seabiscuit is another you could have been thinking about as he is arguably more famous and again was racing during the Great Depression, he also had a a film made about him but was an American horse.

SexyGreyFox · 30 Jun 2012 at 15:03

semi-pro waster said:
You're probably thinking of Phar Lap and there was a film made about him, I don't know about the handicapping that he would have had though.

Seabiscuit is another you could have been thinking about as he is arguably more famous and again was racing during the Great Depression, he also had a a film made about him but was an American horse.

It was Phar Lap and if I remember right they bought him to America.

Amp34 · 30 Jun 2012 at 17:00

G18241 said:
The grand national is handicapped

Some horses are just much better runners than others so it tried to even the field out, sometimes you will get a top handicapped horse still odds on, as even with the extra weight it should easily be able to beat the rest in the race

In which case horse racing isn't a competitive sport. Thanks for clearing that up!

el_dazza · 30 Jun 2012 at 17:04

Amp34 said:
In which case horse racing isn't a competitive sport. Thanks for clearing that up!

I.. er.. you.. say WHAT!? Justify that?

semi-pro waster · 30 Jun 2012 at 17:15

Amp34 said:
In which case horse racing isn't a competitive sport. Thanks for clearing that up!

Why does that not make it a competitive sport? If anything it's an attempt to level the field and make it more competitive by challenging the best horses with additional burdens.

I can see an argument that it unfairly penalises success to a certain extent but not that it's not competitive, if the handicapper gets it right then the races should be much closer.

el_dazza · 30 Jun 2012 at 17:42

semi-pro waster said:
Why does that not make it a competitive sport? If anything it's an attempt to level the field and make it more competitive by challenging the best horses with additional burdens.

I can see an argument that it unfairly penalises success to a certain extent but not that it's not competitive, if the handicapper gets it right then the races should be much closer.

Correct, if anything it's MORE competitive due to the handicapping system. All horses have official ratings based on performances and are handicapped accordingly based on the class of the race they previously won and the race they're entered into. Almost all handicap races are very tight in the betting as they're meant to be as even as possible.

dowie · 30 Jun 2012 at 18:16

kaiowas said:
The whole object of horse racing as a sport and the Grand National in particular is for the bookies to make money. Whether the horses are handicapped or not isn't going to affect that.

It is to some extent - handicapping might well add uncertainty for sharp betters, allow the bookies over round to stay wider and keep things interesting for square betters...

T345 · 30 Jun 2012 at 18:17

Efour2 said:
Hooficapped, Not to offended any special horses.

lol, I find it hard to believe horses that race are handicapped.

Amp34 · 30 Jun 2012 at 18:21

el_dazza said:
I.. er.. you.. say WHAT!? Justify that?

semi-pro waster said:
Why does that not make it a competitive sport? If anything it's an attempt to level the field and make it more competitive by challenging the best horses with additional burdens.

I can see an argument that it unfairly penalises success to a certain extent but not that it's not competitive, if the handicapper gets it right then the races should be much closer.

Well if you started a running race in the olympics with someone getting a head start there would be uproar.

I'm fine with something like golf where score and handicap can go hand in hand but something like that is less a case of best horse wins but defined in part by how bad they are.

el_dazza said:
Correct, if anything it's MORE competitive due to the handicapping system. All horses have official ratings based on performances and are handicapped accordingly based on the class of the race they previously won and the race they're entered into. Almost all handicap races are very tight in the betting as they're meant to be as even as possible.

It may be closer but that doesn't mean it is a better competitive sport, which to me means the best/fastest horse wins, not a combination of speed and how much extra weight they have to carry.

SexyGreyFox · 30 Jun 2012 at 18:43

Amp34 said:
It may be closer but that doesn't mean it is a better competitive sport, which to me means the best/fastest horse wins, not a combination of speed and how much extra weight they have to carry.

I was having this argument in the 70s but if no horse was handicapped then betting on horses would virtually stop overnight because no bookie would give you odds and people would get bored of going to the races to see the same horses win.

semi-pro waster · 30 Jun 2012 at 18:47

Amp34 said:
Well if you started a running race in the olympics with someone getting a head start there would be uproar.

I'm fine with something like golf where score and handicap can go hand in hand but something like that is less a case of best horse wins but defined in part by how bad they are.

Try the New Year Sprint which has a Race For All that is based on a handicap system that assesses on ability/form. It's not as common now as it perhaps was but non-scratch races have been going on for a very long time. I don't claim to know much about golf but I thought in PGA tour events there was no handicap system i.e. all competitors play off scratch, while it tends to be at the lower levels of competition that the handicap system is used?

I don't think that handicapping makes it uncompetitive, it does however mean that the very best will receive more of a challenge due to effective penalties placed on them so it tends to make for a much closer race than it would otherwise be.

Amp34 · 30 Jun 2012 at 19:13

Dimple said:
I was having this argument in the 70s but if no horse was handicapped then betting on horses would virtually stop overnight because no bookie would give you odds and people would get bored of going to the races to see the same horses win.

Exactly, that's not sport, that's business. For all the football fans out there it would be like saying Chelsea could only play with 9 men when playing Bolton Wonderers as it would make it a closer match... Why no Handicap in the FA cup for example?

semi-pro waster said:
Try the New Year Sprint which has a Race For All that is based on a handicap system that assesses on ability/form. It's not as common now as it perhaps was but non-scratch races have been going on for a very long time. I don't claim to know much about golf but I thought in PGA tour events there was no handicap system i.e. all competitors play off scratch, while it tends to be at the lower levels of competition that the handicap system is used?

I don't think that handicapping makes it uncompetitive, it does however mean that the very best will receive more of a challenge due to effective penalties placed on them so it tends to make for a much closer race than it would otherwise be.

I think that is the case, but the point is in the lower levels you have two winners regularly, the scratch winner with the lowest hits in the round and the Handicap winner. You can't really have that in a race with weights. You could if you took time off the handicapped horses at the end however.

I should have instead said the Grand national wasn't a competitive sport. Horse racing without handicaps will still be a competitive sport in my books.

As for the new year sprint, that's not the Olympics. I just don't get how something can be competitive if one person can win it by being basically "best improver".

Another example. A straight A student and a straight C student go to their final exams. The straight C student has to get 60% to pass while the straight A student has to get 80% to pass. Fair? Especially if the Straight C student then got in to university because they were "cleverer"...

SexyGreyFox · 30 Jun 2012 at 19:25

Amp34 said:
Exactly, that's not sport, that's business. For all the football fans out there it would be like saying Chelsea could only play with 9 men when playing Bolton Wonderers as it would make it a closer match... Why no Handicap in the FA cup for example?

Because it's animals.
I have a mate who is a jockey (in fact his Brother In Law is a member here) and he rides horses for trainers.
The way he explained it is that a horse just goes flat out no matter who is on it and the jockey makes zero difference - he just sits on it.
All the best jockeys in history got the best horses and the horses weren't favourites because of which jockey was on them.
Humans on the other hand have feelings and can be totally different every time they walk out to play sport.
Horses have it in their DNA to run in a pack and to try and run the quickest so they don't get caught where humans do it for the money and know they don't have to put 100% in.

Amp34 · 30 Jun 2012 at 19:49

Horses don't have feelings? Animals do and will perform differently depending on how they are feeling, just like the species called Homo Sapiens.

Energize · 30 Jun 2012 at 19:58

Handicapping is why I can't take races like the grand national as serious credible sporting events. Can you imagine adding weights to the runners at the olympics?