view raw text
Whats Wrong with the Handicap BY SALVATOR SALVATORIn In a late issue of in Antipodean turf journal there appeared an unusually inter ¬ esting communication from a correspondent signing himself ExTrainer in which the suggestion is made that in handicap races especially famous fixtures a weightlimit should be set above which no imposts should be assigned He also advocates a minimum as well as a maximum scale and advances the opinion that if weights were assigned between these two extremes for all horses the result would be much better races In particular he thinks that the chances of the heavy weight carriers would be more fair and equitable than otherwise His entire argument is based upon the thesis that the highest weights are entirely too high and on this account that the best horses arc as a rule handicapped out of the big races racesSupporting Supporting his contention he cites the re ¬ sults of the Melbourne Cup This event which has become of worldwide fame and may fairly be called the greatest of all han ¬ dicaps alike in value and prestige has now been contested sixtytwo times having first been run in 1861 During this lengthy period it has been won but threa times by horses carrying as much as ten stone 140 pounds The performance of Carbine which success ¬ fully negotiated the Cup distance of two and a quarter miles in 1890 with 145 pounds up still remains the greatest of its kind ever recorded In 1862 Archer had won under 142 pounds and in 1920 Poitrel succeeded with flat 140 pounds These three instances were the first two twentyeight years apart the last two thirty years yearsONLY ONLY EIGHT AT 3IORE THAN 12S 12SReducing Reducing the scale by a stone fourteen pounds it is next pointed out that horses carrying 126 pounds or more have won on only eight occasions in the sixtytwo years the three already named and Archer one of them which previous to his victory with 142 pounds in 1S62 had won the first race for the Cup in 1861 with 133 pounds Glen coc 1868 with 127 Malua 1884 with 135 Patron 1894 with 129 and The Grafter 1898 with 128 128Reducing Reducing the burden now to 120 pounds we find only four other winners viz Tim Vhiffler 1S67 with 123 pounds Warrior 18G9 with 122 The Victory 1904 with 122 and The Parisian 1911 with 121 121This This makes a total of but twelve winners in sixtytwo years with 120 pounds or more which seems beyond question to support the contention of ExTrainer that the chances of the top weights in such an event are any ¬ thing but rosy On the other hand the light weights have had a merry time of it on no less than twenty different occasions they have carried off the Melbourne Cup with less than 100 pounds in the saddle The low record in this respect is held by the winner of 1863 Banker with 74 pounds up In 1866 The Bard carried but 85 in 1876 Briseis had 88 in 1881 Zulu had just 80 Since then nothing has won with less than 92 pounds but in the renewal for 1922 so lately contested the first three at the finish carried 99 94 arid 107 pounds respectively respectivelyPOOR POOR TOP WEIGHT PROSPECTS PROSPECTSIt It therefore appears that only an excep ¬ tionally ambitious an extremely game or an unusually optimistic owner or trainer would care to try for the Melbourne Cup with a top weight The chances are all against him A superhorse a Carbine or a Poitrel may succeed but even his suc ¬ cess is scarce to be expected for the his ¬ tory of the Melbourne Cup is replete with instances in which great Antipodean cracks under crushers have failed to connect usually finishing in the ruck ruckAnd And this is the history of great handicaps in England of the Cesareivitch Cam ¬ bridgeshire and City and Suburban and in America of the Suburban the Brooklyn and the Metropolitan An examination oC the lists of winners and placed horses and a j further examination of the complete fields that have started establishes this condi ¬ tion beyond argument The histories of the great English handicaps are so lengthy and involve so many historic horses and inci ¬ dents that it seems inadvisable to attempt any citations regarding them in such sketchy comments as thsse they would require a separate article in order to do them justice But a few facts about our three premier American handicaps abovenamed may be quoted quotedSUBURBANS SUBURBANS TOP WEIGHT WINNER WINNERThe The earliest to be established was the Suburban modeled upon the English City and Suburban It was first run in 1884 and has to date been contested thirtysix times The highest weight ever carried by a winner is 139 pounds by Whisk Broom II in 1913 As has been often observed this heavy weight was assigned Whisk Broom II in the vain endeavor to bring him back to one of the poorest fields that ever toolc the word in a Suburban if not the very poorest as it probably was But even this object was not attained as he simply ran away from the others othersThis This is the only instance in which as much as 130 pounds has been successfully carried in the Suburban Henry of Navarre carried 129 in 1896 and defeated a grand field Sal vator in 1890 won with 127 and Hermfs with the same weight in 1904 as did Ballot in 1908 Adding Kinley Mack 125 pounds 1900 we complete the list of only six horses that have carried as much as 125 pounds successfully Six other horses have suc ¬ ceeded with more than 120 pounds up General Monroe 1884 and Gold Heels 1902 with 124 pounds each Ben Brush 1897 and Beldame 1905 with 123 pounds each and Stromboli 1915 and Boots 1917 with 122 each eachIn In justice to our American handicappers however it is to be accredited to their ex pertness that no horse has ever won the Suburban with less than 100 pounds The closest approach was when Friar Rock a threeyearold with 101 up triumphed in 1916 Stromboli which the previous year had won with 122 tried to repeat with 123 but fell back to third place placeAVERAGE AVERAGE WEIGHT MODERATE MODERATEThe The average weight carried by the thirty six different Suburban winners figures out a fraction over 116 pounds poundsThe The Brooklyn Handicap was established in 1887 an avowed imitation of the Suburban and run earlier in the season with the hope of taking some of the wind out of the earlier events sail which purpose was never real ¬ ized for the prestige of the Suburban has remained unaffected The Brooklyn has now been run thirtyfour times and the last sea ¬ son Exterminator established a highweight record for it by winning under 135 pounds The previous record was 130 pounds held jointly by Fitz Herbert and Whisk Broom II winners in 1910 and 1913 1913Five Five other horses a total of eight hava won with 125 pounds or more viz Cudgel in 191S with 129 pounds Tenny 1891 with 128 pounds Ornament 1898 with 127 pounds King James 1909 with 126 pounds and The Bard 1888 with 125 pounds Two other horses have won with more than 120 pounds Delhi 1905 with 124 pounds and Kinley Mack 1900 with 122 pounds poundsThe The Brooklyn has once been won by a horse carrying less than 100 pounds Super ¬ man a threeyearold in 1907 carry g but 99 Castaway LL in 1890 won with just 100 pounds poundsThe The average weight carried by the thirty four different Brooklyn winners figures out at almost exactly 114 pounds poundsThe The Metropolitan Handicap is the young ¬ est event of the three having been inaugu ¬ rated in 1891 It has been run twentyfour times to date The highest weight ever car ¬ ried to victory in it is 129 pounds by Mad Hatter in 1922 he having also won it in 1921 with 127 pounds In 1908 Jack Atkin had however won under 128 pounds Threa other horses only have won with as much as 125 pounds Ethclbert 1900 and Whisk Broom II 1913 with 126 pounds each and King James 1909 with 125 pounds Only two other horses have won with more than 120 pounds up Banastar 1901 and Irish Lad 1904 with 123 pounds each The total number of winners therefore carrying over 120 pounds is eight eightTHREE THREE FEATHERWEIGHT WINNERS WINNERSThree Three times the Metropolitan has been won by horses carrying less than 100 pounds Arsenal a threeyearold in 1902 carried but 90 pounds in 1897 Voter another three yearold carried 99 pounds finally in 1905 Race King a fouryearold with 97 pounds up made a dead heat with Sysonby three years 107 pounds poundsThe The average weight carried by the twenty four different winners of the Metropolitan figures out at a fraction over 115 pounds poundsThe The following tabular recapitulation shows the condensed results attained in these three events Metropolitan 24 24Si Si ibit ban 35 35Brooklyn Brooklyn 34 These figures are I think Interesting and In a way instructive They predicate one positive conclusion that the successful han ¬ dicap horse is the moderate animal The average winning veight in our three prin ¬ cipal handicaps is seen to be from 114 to 116 pounds or a variation of but two pounds for the three events But as the highweight winners are figured in these averages as a matter of fact the majority of the win ¬ ners have carried less than average weight To be exact out of thirtysix Suburban win ¬ ners eighteen have carried less than the average winning weight of 116 pounds of the thirtyfour Brooklyn winners nineteen have carried less than the average winning weight of 114 pounds of the twentyfour fiftytwo or over 55 per cent have carried less than the average winning weight of 115 pounds Thus of the ninetyfour differ ¬ ent winners of these three great handicaps fiftytwo or over 55 per cent have carried less than the average winning weight and must therefore be classified in the distinctly moderate class classIDEAL IDEAL HANDICAP HANDICAPThe The ideal handicap of course is one in which a top weight a middle weight and a light weight finish heads apart That is from the handicappers standpoint as the raison detre of such races is to bring together horses of all classes placing them as nearly as possible on a parity so far as winning chances are concerned concernedHowever However this is only the beautifully ab ¬ stract theory underlying them The bald fact is far from being so admirable The real reason for existence of the handicap is to use another muchquoted Gallic phrase pour encourager les autres to encourage the others Now the ones to be encouraged are not by a long an extremely long shot the owners of the great or super horses capable of carrying high or exceptionally high weights By no means brethren Les autres are the owners of the middle and lower class horses anxious to beat the cracks but unable to do it under weightforage conditions conditionsWeightforage Weightforage conditions were formulated under something the same ideals that actu ¬ ated the framers of the United States Con ¬ stitution and the Declaration of Independ ence Those amiable idealists conceived of all men as born free and equal and simi ¬ larly the weightforage scale was evolved under the belief that all thoroughbreds were born equally fast and stout Both ideas are rather huge jokes but with those horses as to those men which are much less than equal they are considerably worse than jokes jokesThe The lower classes of humanity strive for equality with the upper crust by means of democratic forms of government labor unions et cetera The lower classes of race horses strive for it by means of handicaps And thereby we are treated to the spec ¬ tacle of human lightweights holding down many of tht scats of the mighty at Wash ¬ j I ington and elsewhere while equines of the same category proudly decorate the tops of Suburban summaries summariesIt It is all a part of the great comedy of existence but it isnt at all comic to the owner say of an Isonomy when he sees him trying vainly to give a Chippendale thirtythree pounds in a Cesarewitch It then becomes anything but humorous par ¬ ticularly if those extra unnegotiable pounds on Isonomys back mean a difference of pos ¬ sibly hundreds of thousands of dollars to him Of course all this money is won by the other fellow les autres for whose benefit as we have seen the handicap was invented and the encouragement of those parties becomes thereby extreme Is it strange therefore that they are not only strong for handicaps but insatiable in their Oliver Twistical demands Tor more moreNor Nor by the same token is it also strange that so many owners of truly classic win ¬ ders give handicaps the goby They fail to see where giving Chippendale thirtythree pounds and getting beaten is any fun nor wherein it enhances the value of their Derby Leger or Guineas winners when they go to the stud Hence the Brahmins of the turf affect to look down upon the handicap horse with a lofty condescension if not In truth with a patronizing sneer The Derby and Leger winner is born great they aver while the handicap winner has greatness thrust upon him by the andicap per An Olympian view perhaps and one whose correctness or the contrary the af ¬ fiant will not venture to assert
