THE 6.7 MINIMUM.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Issue 1576, 8 July 1920, Page 14

THE 6.7 MINIMUM.

(To the Editor.)

gj r —My friend “Clubman,” in your issue’ of the Ist July, devotes over two columns in advocacy of a compulsory 7st. minimum. The majorportion of his article is a criticism of the ultra-conservative racing man, with whom he inferentially classes all those in favour of an optional minimum weight, not less than 6.7. However enterprising one may be, it is a sound principle not to finally depart from methods which have proved eminently successful, in order to adopt others you think may be an improvement. New Zealand may fairly claim to be able to put into the field an amateur Rugby football fifteen second to that of no other country in the world. So long as this supremacy is maintained, the conservatism which retains the New Zealand forward formation (the 2-3-2 seven forwards) is surely a virtue. Similarly, the English thoroughbred leads the world. It has been evolved under a lower minimum than 6.7. It is a commendable conservatism which objects to the adoption of a compulsory minimum higher than 6.7 until satisfied that the change is for the better. This by the way.

In your issue of the 26th February last. “Clubman” refers to the Waipa Maiden Handicap. This race was run at an up-country meeting, and the handicapper, exercising the latitude at present granted him under the Rules of Racing, very wisely started his handicap with a 7.5 minimum. There were twenty-four starters —an untoward incident in an upcountry meeting, where jockeys in attendance would necessarily be limited — and “Clubman” complains that the overweights worked out in ten instances at 31b. (twice), 81b., 121 b.. 131 b.. 161 b., 171 b., 211 b., and 311 b. This is quoted by the Dunedin Jockey Club in their circular of May last as a recent published argument in favour .of a compulsory 7.0 minimum. It is difficult to see where this applies. I suggest it is an argument in favour of the present position, which leaves it to the discretion of individual clubs and their handicappers to employ such minimum weights as they 'find most suitable to their circumstances.

“Clubman” suggests limiting the 6.7 minimum to certain important races, and it may be found that this is desirable. But let those clubs who find a 6.7 minimum advantageous in certain of their races retain the right to use it.

In the case of the last three Wellington Cups, collectively, a 7.0 minimum would have reduced the number of horses carrying overweight by one only.

The indifferent horse has already plenty of races he can run for —every race during the three winter months, and during the season proper all welter, hurdle, steeplechase and hack races at the principal meetings, and generally the whole programme at upcountry meetings. I am strongly adverse to prohibitive weights being allotted to first-class handicap horses in the few events provided for them on the programmes of the principal clubs.

The question of overweights generally is a different matter. If a horseman that can go to scale at 7.7 is retained by a stable, he is generally given the mount on the stable horses, even though he has to put up 31b. to 51b. overweight; as it may reasonably be supposed that his knowledge of the horse, and vice versa, will give him that advantage over a strange jockey, probably a slightly inferior jockey. Again, Gray and Deeley would generally be preferred at, say, 31b. overweight to an average horseman. Then a rider who can go to scale at 7.7 is engaged for a horse handicapped at- that weight. Through carelessness, optimism or other causes it is found at the last moment that he cannot get undei- 7.9. So it would seem that a certain number of cases of overweight will always be with us.

It is a puzzle to me how anyone can seriously urge the necessity for a compulsory 7.0 minimum when it is realised that racing clubs have always had the right to use this minimum, and that, though the Dunedin Jockey Club’s Conference delegates have most eloquently urged the advisability of a compulsory 7.0 minimum for at least seven years, not a single other club has been sufficiently impressed by its supposed advantages to practice it, and even the D.J.C. themselves failed to practice their faith for the first four years of their advocacy of it. In a case of this sort, where there is a divided opinion at all, it is desir-

able to leave the matter optional, as at present. With twenty-six of the representative racing legislators voting against the compulsory clause at the last meeting of the Conference, and only eight voting in favour of it, how can it fail to be right to leave the matter optional?—l am, etc., I. G. DUNCAN.