Re: Newbie query: why required weight?

["Joe Long" <jlong@mti.net>]

On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:21:35 -0600, Jerald Thiessen <thiesj@tdbank.ca>
wrote:

>No matter how you look at it the weight is a big factor.If you wish to test this
>theory go for a run , add 20 pounds run the same distance , add 40 pounds and do
>it again.Then tell us that weight is not a disadvantage.

No one disputes that weight is a factor -- the questions are how big a
factor, and what should we do about it?

We have good evidence that weight carried makes less of a difference
to a horse than to a human runner.  We have a lot of experience with
heavy riders winning major events.

Handicapping is practical on the track because the races are run under
relatively consistent conditions -- a short distance on a groomed
level surface.  The experience of thousands of races under such
conditions allowed the development of a handicapping system.  The
system is not done to assure that the "best horse" wins but to aid
parimutuel betting.  It is impractical to develop any fair and
reasonable weight handicapping system for endurance rides, with their
extreme variations in surface, grade, elevation, and weather.  Keep in
mind that dead weight affects a horse more than live weight under most
conditions.

A minimum weight carried (typically 165 pounds) is used at many
"premier" events and international events, whereas the AERC uses
weight divisions.  I believe experience has shown the wisdom of the
165 pound amount, but I believe the AERC has too many weight
divisions.  I think we were better off with three -- that seemed to
work out just about right.  But then, more divisions means more "First
Place" winners, more people with braggin' rights -- no matter that
they did it against a smaller field.

-- 

Joe Long
jlong@mti.net
Business Page  http://www.mti.net
Personal Page  http://www.rnbw.com