Re: Newbie query: why required weight?

[Teddy Lancaster <Teddy@runningbear.com>]

Tom: Comments?

K S Swigart wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Teddy Lancaster wrote:
>
> > I must vehemently disagree with you. Weight carried by a horse,
> > especially over long distances has been proven over and over again to be
> > a MAJOR decided factor in the outcome of ANY race.
>
> Show me the statitics.  The only studies I have ever seen where anybody
> actually tried to figure out what the effect of weight carried had on
> outcome of an endurance competition came to the statistical conclusion
> that weight of the rider (and all its tack) is "insignificant."
>
> Now this may not be meaningful since the avialbility of data for endurance
> is pretty poor.  However, data has been collected for TB racing for a
> century, and if you take all that data, you will find that there is NO
> correlation between weight carried and outcome of the race.
>
> > The 165 pound rule is
> > only a MINOR attempt to make the competition fairer for all.
>
> It is this perception that addin g weight to 165 lbs is "Minor" that makes
> people engage in it at all; however, adding as much as 40 pounds of
> useless weight (and where you put it) is not a MINOR thing at all.  And to
> think that you can make things "fairer" by measuring static weight by
> making riders get on a scale shows a substantial lack of understanding of
> the dynamics of weight carrying of objects in motion.
>
> > Horse-racing has handicapping...can you imagine the problems that would
> > cause for us?
>
> And the 165lb minimum weight requirement is a "handicap" for lighter
> riders.  It is, in essence, saying that smaller riders, because of their
> stature, are more physically suited to the sport and therefore should be
> handicapped so that riders who are less physically suited to the sport can
> compete.  And you are right, this handicapping causes problems for the
> riders who have to deal with it and the officials who have to deal with
> it.
>
> > Why do you think AERC has weight divisions?
>
> The AERC has weight divisions (which actually substantially FAVOR heavy
> weight riders) because people like you think that weight ought to make a
> difference.  Because of the poor way that the weight divisions are
> specified (to the extent that there are virtually no HW riders) all a
> heavy weight rider has to do is stagger across the finish line to finish
> first in his/her division.  The light weight division (not the feather
> weight) is the most hotly contended division, if for the simple reason
> that most people fall in this division.  In fact, many lightweight riders,
> ride as featherweights because they don't want to have to compete with all
> the lightweight riders, they would rather give weight away and compete in
> a smaller division.
>
> > Think about it...
>
> Think about it.  It has long been believed that weight of the rider (and
> all his tack) OUGHT to make a difference in the outcome of a race.
> However, no data has ever been collected to prove this out.  WHatever the
> effect that weight carried has on the outcome of an endurance event, it is
> far too complicated to think that you can "equalize" it by making riders
> get on scales.
>
> kat
> Orange County, Calif.
>
> p.s.  It might be quite difficult to get any data for endurance to
> demonstrate that weight makes a difference, since many heavy riders are
> heavy because they are fat, and one could reasonably make the contention
> that fat riders don't do well in competition, not because they are heavy,
> but because they are unfit for an endurance event.  To demonstrate that
> weight has an impact on outcome (as in actually weight carried vs.
> fitness level of the rider), you would have to control for fitness level
> of the rider...and, BTW, you would have to control for gender if you
> wanted to be totally accurate.
>
> Note that there are MANY successful HW riders in the AERC, and these
> riders almost always have one thing in common, which is that they are fit.