The truth about top weights in the National

[Gingertipster]

Have updated my study in to top weights, both the top weight and those carrying 11 stones and above. From 1985 to 2007 (22 Nationals). Of the 853 runners: Only 117 (13.7%) carried 11 stones or more. 736 (86.3%) carried less than 11 stones. Of the 88 horses who finished in the first 4: 16 carried 11 stones or more. 72 carried less than 11 stones. So 18.2% of those placed in the first 4 carried 11 stones or more and 81.8% carried less than 11 stones. This means 13.7% of those carrying 11 stones or more were in the first 4 (16 Divided by 117). 9.8% of those carrying less than 11 stones were in the first 4 (72 Divided by 736). Of the winners: 2 carried 11 stones or more. 20 carried less than 11 stones. 9.1% of winners carried 11 stones or more. 90.9% of winners carried less than 11 stones. 1.7% of those carrying 11 stones or more won the race (2 Divided by 117). 2.7% of those carrying less than 11 stones won the race (20 Divided by 736). In 1997 only 1 horse Master Oats carried 11 stones or more. 3 times only 2 carried 11 stones or more. 4 times only 3, 4 times 4. On 11 occasions less than 10% of the field carried 11 stones or more. On 4 occasions there was an automatic top weight from Czechoslavakia etc. at 100/1 or more. A 1 point each way bet on all well fancied top weights (those at an SP of under 12/1) would have shown a 2.5 point profit. Of the last 119 horses to have taken part. If just 7 particular horses did not run, then 3 top weights would have won in the last 4 Nationals. In 2004 take out the first three home Amberleigh House, Clan Royal and Lord Atterbury, plus Le Coudray (top weight). Monty's Pass would have won as top weight. In 2005 take out Hedgehunter and Le Coudray. Royal Auclair would have won under top weight. In 2006 take out Numbersixvalverdie and Hedgehunter would've won again as top weight. So: In the last 22 years those carrying less than 11 stones have only a 1% better record of winning the National than those carrying 11 stones or more. But those carrying less than 11 stones have almost 4% worse record at finishing in the first 4, than those carrying 11 stones or more. Those top weights with a good chance on form actually have a decent record in the National. My conclusion is that it is probably a coincidence a top weight has not won the National since Red Rum. The record of those carrying 11 stones or more being placed, suggests it is mere coincidence they have not won the race more times. Although one reason could be the best horses do not take part until exposed, so are easier for the handicapper to judge. Capable of being placed but not winning. Horses like Halcon Genelardais and Miko De Bauchene are not allowed to take part until later on in their careers. Unexposed horses higher up the weights are worth considering just as much as those lower down. Ginge

[billy the punter]

Re: The truth about top weights in the National I agree with a lot of what you've written. I've always said you can ran well with a lot of weight in the National, and it isn't impossible to win it. I'm convinced Suny Bay would've had the ground be soft or better, not heavy. I backed him that day and I backed Royal Auclair, but obviously they did find a better handicapped rival - that is always the worry. That is what stopped them, not the weight as such. In recent years I believe it's become easier on the heavyweights, and it will continue to get easier. It's my opinion that in ten years time the 'weight stat' will be redundant. After all the bottom weights this year have 10st6lb - the top weights are not giving away 24lb away anymore and it's a matter of time before they make their presence felt more than usual.