1. What is Paddock Review?
2. Why did B2yoR develop its own system?
3. Why bother with Paddock Review at all?
4. B2yoR Paddock Review Explanation
• (SIZE)
• (BUILD)
• (GEOMETRY)
• (ATHLETICISM)
• (TOGETHERNESS)
• 50-90 RATING SYSTEM
• OTHER REVIEW ITEMS
• NODDING
5. Dos and Don'ts
6. Get onto the racecourse and get reviewing
7. Virtual Paddocks

Paddock reviewing refers to assessing the abilities of 2yos by visual inspection at the racecourse. By the use of a well defined system to describe and rate the 2yos as physical specimens it is possible to produce the following information after a single inspection:-
 

These ratings and descriptions can then be used, both on the day and in future, to provide assessments of a horse's chances in a particular race. Using the paddock review information of all horses in a race is also useful in assessing the quality of a race and its likely future influence.

The other sections in this page give an outline of the system which B2yoR uses for Paddock Review and why it developed. It also, hopefully, makes a strong case that the use of Paddock Review is open to everyone and is not confined to use by a small group of self perpetuating insiders.

Back to Top of Page

The development of the B2yoR system for Paddock Review grew out of two main areas of dissatisfaction with the existing Paddock Review information which was available. The main unsatisfactory items were :

• There was very little Paddock Review information available and it did not cover most races. The information that was available was vague, imprecise and was not based on a well defined set of criteria for assessing and rating horses. Without the explanation of the basis for assessing the horses and without quantified ratings as output any Paddock Review information is of little use.
• The Paddock Review information tended to target details of appearance and conformation such as coat appearance, sweating, feet size, hip to hock length, etc. Experience suggested that these items were secondary details, at best, in assessing a 2yo as a physical specimen. This amounted to concentrating on the final 10-20% which goes into assessing a 2yo without looking at the overall framework first.

What grew out of this dissatisfaction and trial and error experience was a system to assess and rate 2yos targeting the main items that affect a horse's athletic ability. The system defines what factors are important and uses a consistent set of descriptive language and ratings. This means that the success of paddock reviews can be continually reviewed to identify any problems and improve the system.

For example review has shown that B2yoR used to under-rate smaller, but strong, 2yos. Also, horses with white feet were often given too high ratings for athleticism (a classic case of reacting to 'go-faster' stripes) because they appear more active. Having a defined format and going back to check ratings has enabled these biases and other issues to be identified and corrected.

At the top level the approach can be encapsulated as assessing the factors in the statement at the top of this page =  (SIZE and BUILD) as assisted/hindered by (GEOMETRY and ATHLETICISM and TOGETHERNESS). "Is that it?" you may well be saying, followed by "there must be more to it than that!". Experience has shown that people expect to be drizzled with conformation details and horsey jargon by those they believe to be 'paddock experts'. But the same experience has shown that this expectation is wrong and you need to avoid getting bogged down in details and jargon and look at the overall framework first.

The details are important when you are buying a horse because you need to assess whether a yearling will survive the training regime and be able to run a reasonable number of times on the racecourse. The big advantage when you are doing paddock review is that the 2yo will already have been through the initial training regime. If they have survived the training and are on the racecourse then they haven't got a defect which will stop them running at all.

Back to Top of Page

Have you ever watched a 2yo race and found yourself frustrated as the odds-on favourite, with a splendid pedigree, from a top trainer  gets beaten? That was going to be you banker (sole?) winner of the day. Have you ever found yourself mouthing "How are you supposed to find that?" as the 2yo race is won by an unconsidered long-shot? Almost certainly the answer is "Yes".

Is there any way to improve your chances of identifying these traps before you fall into them? If you only use form analysis, previous statistics, pedigree analysis, listening to pundits, etc. then, unfortunately, the answer is "No". You will be climbing out of traps for the rest of of your racing and punting career. There is one good way to avoid a lot of the traps - Paddock Review.

There are four major reasons why someone should try their own Paddock Reviewing:-

• It works well.
• It is probably the best way to get a real understanding of how racing 'works'. Everything that you see in daily racing - beaten favourites, long-priced winners, horses achieving winning sequences, horses failing to stay, etc. - is the result of the capabilities of the horses and how they have been prepared. As you develop your knowledge of physical types you can look at results of races and understand why the outcome occurred. The really clever bit is then to develop further so that you expect 'surprise' results.
• It is personally very rewarding developing a real understanding of racing. It is also very revealing once you have enough knowledge to be able to identify the experts and pundits who really aren't worth listening to.
• If you are primarily interested in betting then Paddock Review is an excellent way to get a real 'edge' for betting. The majority of widely available information (previous form, statistics, etc.) will have been assessed by many individuals and groups. Most with more time and resources than you have so it will be extremely difficult to find that 'edge'. But your Paddock Review is your own opinion and you will find opportunities where it is obvious to you that the betting market is wrong. Additionally the understanding of racing gained will enable you to interpret the usual information sources, such as previous form, more efficiently.

If you have seen and rated a field of 2yos before a race you will probably find that the long priced winner was among the better physical types. Again, the SP is probably wrong because of external factors, most notably with unfashionable trainers.

Paddock Review will remove the majority of these 'surprises' and offer good betting opportunities as it does so.

Back to Top of Page

This site is advocating ignoring standard 'wisdom' and doing personal research and therefore is not going to say you should do A, then B, then C. Instead it aims to give you the underlying strategy to apply paddock reviewing and the confidence to try. Also, it is advisable to use a simpler description and rating system to start with than the detailed system that B2yoR currently uses. (B2yoR also needs to keep some inside information for itself.)

To explain the B2yoR system the best place to start is by considering the capitalised items in this statement :-

(SIZE and BUILD) as assisted/hindered by (GEOMETRY and ATHLETICISM and TOGETHERNESS)

These are suggested the main areas that someone should target when trying an initial "80-90%" summary of a 2yos physical make-up and likely ability. Remember that each one of these areas interacts with the others to produce the final ability that a horse shows. So that a full Paddock Review involves

• identifying and rating the important factors within each of these areas for the 2yo
• then producing a final overall rating and summary by considering the 5 main area ratings as a whole.

With experience you should be able to split the 2yos into three initial categories - too small, acceptable, too large (and usually not well developed enough to carry their size). Within the largest group (acceptable) you should prefer bigger horses so long as they have acceptable characteristics in other areas.

The smallest 'acceptable' horses will have limitations on their ability and usually their distance aptitude. Other than in the shortest races (usually 5f) and probably in faster conditions a smaller horse will be outstayed by similar bigger horses. (If you follow human athletics you will probably know that a 60 metre indoor sprint is a very different test from an outdoor 100 metre sprint. The 60m race allow smaller sprinters with fast starts to get a lead early and hang onto it. In the 100m races the bigger runners (with more efficient strides) have a higher top speed (probably around 28mph compared to 26.5mph) and can maintain that top speed for longer. The 100m race therefore allows the bigger runners to overhaul the small, sharp starters between 60-90 metres of the race and be going away at the end. To stretch the analogy a little further it is the same reason in rugby why Jason Robinson can run away from anyone in the first 20 metres of a sprint but will be overhauled by bigger 'speed' players in a length-of-the-field chase.)

Back to Top of Page

As with the (SIZE) estimates you should relatively quickly be able to separate horses in three initial categories. Too lightly built, acceptably built and too heavily built (and therefore probably not developed nor strong enough to carry their weight). The main task of reviewing is then to assess the relative merits of the largest ('acceptably built') group who will range from relatively lighter builds to heavier than average builds.

This will develop with experience but the following basic points should be borne in mind. Horses, like humans, can have two types of muscle mixed as part of their bulk. They will have some proportion of what is commonly known as 'fast-twitch' muscle. This is the heavy, well defined muscle associated with sprinters and weight lifters. This muscle type is poorly adapted for long-term, efficient energy usage which is why horses with a high percentage of this type of muscle will be sprinters and not stay longer distances. The second type of muscle is termed 'slow-twitch' and, as you have probably guessed, is good at long term use of energy but poor at short term and explosive energy release. So horses with a high percentage of slow-twitch muscle will be stayers. Most 2yos will have a mix of these muscle types so it will need experience to categorise them.

A heavily built 2yo which shows enough maturity and development has the capacity to show above average improvement though the season. As a specific example the trainer BA McMahon often has this heavily built sprint type and they can show solid improvement through the season. In the 2004 season both of his representatives (Pivotal Flame and Hidden Jewel) in the Doncaster October Sales race stood out from the rest as the field as more muscular and well prepared sprint types. They finished first and second but, interestingly, Hidden Jewel was 100/1 because he has run four poor races previously. This was a good example of how Paddock Review 'works well'. If you had looked at the field for that race with no knowledge of form then Hidden Jewel would have been one of the best physical specimens. If you had then been told he had run four poor race rating in the 50s you would have said that he might have another problem (possibly between his ears) because he was better than that as a physical specimen. That he runs well in the race is not a surprise to you, the fact that he's 100/1 would be.

Back to Top of Page

• It is only necessary to describe features which are notably good/bad, out of proportion and so forth. No note for a particular part can be taken as meaning the area is normal and unremarkable.
• While it is possible to identify good features, such as above average depth of the main body it is not possible to specify what is the exactly correct length or shape for many of the parts.. This is because all of the parts interact so that a 'good length' in one horse may not interact as effectively in a horse with a different set-up in other areas.

Back to Top of Page

This area is probably the most difficult to describe and to lay down solid guidelines. The overall athleticism is assessed by judging the horse's walk, how well it carries itself overall and by watching it moving down to post (if possible).

In judging a horse at the walk it is easiest to spot negative factors rather than positive ones. The starting point is to initially judge how well a horse holds and carries itself. This is affected by other areas such as muscle development, geometry and so forth. You should then be looking for how balanced and fluent a walk is and how 'easily' the horse moves. During this part you should be noting any obvious problems with the movement, for example if it is unbalanced or seems forced.

The usual suggestion is that the walk should be judged by assessing how far the hoof-fall of the hind legs overlaps the hoofprints of the forelegs. The general implication is that the more the overlap the better and lack of overlap indicates a poor mover. This criteria has some useful ideas but cannot be interpreted in this simplistic form. For example, the amount of overlap is affected by the relative length of the horse. You could have a small, compact horse which can have a large overlap because it is so compact but it may be a scratchy, quick actioned and a poor mover because of it's size and build. The alternative can be true where a well made, but relatively lengthy horse may not overlap at all but will still be a good, fluid mover (although almost certainly lacking sprint speed). You will also find horse's with a large overlap but they clearly do not have full control of that movement. This type of weak horse will be a poor athlete and usually very slow.

It is suggested that, as with other areas, you split horses into 3 obvious groups relating to the hind leg hoof-fall overlap. The groups would be:-

• Too short, whereby the hind legs are well short of overlapping and the movement behind is obviously too short, inactive, scratchy, etc.
• Acceptable, ranging from not quite overlapping to well controlled overlapping.
• Uncontrolled overlapping.

The issue of Athleticism is considered further in an article on this site on the gaits that the horse uses.

Back to Top of Page

'Togetherness' is the most abstract area in these review summaries but is as important as any of the other areas for overall influence on performance. A horse with good 'Togetherness' can be defined as one that looks in proportion with all of the parts fitting together well and looking balanced. In a system which advocates taking a high level view of horses under review assessing togetherness, both of the horse as a whole and of major 'components' is essential. To use a well know cliché, but an apt one in this case, "if it looks right, it probably is right."

A horse with good 'Togetherness' has the best chance to be able to express the full ability that it's physical type will allow. Conversely, a horse with good points in some areas but does not look balanced and 'right' will be less than the sum of its parts.

Back to Top of Page

B2yoR uses a rating scale between 50 to 90 to assign an expected best performance level rating. Exceptionally poor individuals are occasionally given ratings below 50 and outstanding physical types are, very rarely, rated above 90.

The use of the range between 50 and 90 has been chosen to give some alignment between the rating and the expected 'actual' performance rating of the yearling on the racecourse (as defined by their Official Rating by the BHB 2yo handicapper). This system is still developing and experience has shown that the agreement between review rating and actual performance is best in the 50-72 section of the scale.

If you wish to investigate this further yourself it is suggested you look at fields for nurseries (2yo handicaps) and also older handicappers where the Official Ratings are known. It is relatively easy to see the differences between groups of 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89 rated horses. For example, taking areas such as (SIZE) and (BUILD) the lower rated groups will obviously show some combination of small size and poor muscle. Experience has shown that the differences between a horse capable of rating 90-95 and one capable of rating 100+ are less obvious and much more subtle. This is probably because a horse capable of rating 90+ is already a well above average physical specimen. There is also the problem that there are far less horses in the 100+ rating band so there are less examples to try to learn from.

B2yoR uses a rating of 70 as the benchmark of a yearling that is worth following as a 2yo and has a higher probability of being able to compete well in open maidens. Yearlings with ratings between 64-69 may be competitive in selling, claiming and lower quality auction races. In summary:
 

Rating Range	Likely Racing Performance
50-59	Poorest physical specimens. Those rated between 50-55 are likely to be competitive only in the poorest quality races. Those rating between 55-59 may be capable of competing in selling/claiming races.
60-69	Moderate to average physical specimens. Likely to be able to achieve ratings in the 60s (low 70s at best, probably in early season). Better types should be capable of competing well in sellers, claimers, auction races and lower quality nurseries off light weights.
70-79	Above average physical specimens but not obviously superior runners. Should be capable of competing well in open maidens. Those rated 70-72 likely to be limited to low 70s ratings. Ratings 73-79 will include better types capable of achieving ratings in the 80s.
80-90	Above average and superior physical specimens. Should be capable of achieving ratings in the 80s at least. Better types will be capable of 90+ ratings and be part of the relatively small group of superior 2yo runners.

An example of the use of these performance ratings would be in quickly analysing nursery handicaps. With these performance estimates related to physical abilities available the usual process of form analysis becomes a secondary concern. The first step in looking at the race would be to compare each horse's Official Rating with it's review rating. Only those horses whose review rating suggested they could win off that Official Mark or higher are considered for the shortlist. In many races this approach identifies one or two horses and they are rarely the favourites because they are targeting ability to perform at a higher level than the official handicapper believes. Races which show no horses with a 'positive' rating can then easily identified as 'tight knit' handicaps probably between horses whose abilities are well known. These are races to avoid betting in.

[As an aside - note that one of the results of using paddock review is that you can recognise that the Official Handicapper does not place his nursery ratings at the same absolute level in each season. Paddock Review enables certain 'marker' horses to be identified in each seasons' population who are classic examples of certain physical types with known performance rating capabilities. Using these marker horses and the general population of ratings it can be seen that the placement of the Official 2yo ratings on the absolute scale can range by up to 10-12lbs between seasons. This does not effect the results of 2yo handicap races because the relative weights between the 2yos are still correct by the Official Handicapper's system. The placement on the absolute scale of the 2yo population does have an effect on :-

• The end of season ratings given to the best 2yo runners of the season.
• The competitiveness of the 2yos in open handicaps when they become 3yos and compete against older horses.]

It is worth covering two other areas of paddock review which should be undertaken. The first is to assess the fitness of each horse and assign a rating to it (a simple 1 to 10 scale is suggested). B2yoR suggests that the primary area to look at to assess fitness is the muscle definition on the horse's buttocks. The consistent application of collecting fitness information will have uses beyond the individual horses. For example it is possible to compare how fit, on average, a trainer's horses are on average. JL Dunlop is a good example of a trainer who has a poor first-time out wins-runs with 2yos although his horses are usually above average fitness on debut. It is probable that the poor debut record is attributable to lack of mental sharpness of the 2yos and the trainer insisting on his 2yos not having a hard race on debut.

The second area to assess is behaviour. It is suggested that items such as sweating up and coltishness are really details and should only be assessed as part of overall behaviour. In summary, unless a horse's behaviour seems bad enough that it will almost certainly effect it's performance then these minor issues can be ignored. For example, Tout Seul had a full erection and was a real nuisance throughout the pre-race period on his debut at Chepstow in 2002 but won easily (at 14/1) because he was so physically superior to the rest of the field.

Back to Top of Page

All the way through this article the point has been stressed that you need to take the high level view first (the "80%+") before you start worrying about the details. But it is worth finishing this section with an example of a detail which is worth investigating because it certainly has a noticeable effect on horse's performances.

An example has been chosen which you can investigate both with on-course paddock review and by watching races on the TV. The issue can be titled "Nodding" and refers to how a horse carries and uses its head and neck when galloping. On-course paddock review will enable you to identify whether a horse's neck and head are in proportion with it's body and how it carries the neck and head.

When watching a race look for how the horse's heads and necks move, especially how rhythmical the movement is. The classic example of excellent use of the head and neck in a metronomic, balanced and smooth way was Choisir on the firm ground at Royal Ascot in 2003.

The head and neck have two effects on performance :-

• They are heavy structures carried away from the main centre of balance so they need to be in proportion and move correctly.
• They assist with the breathing (a galloping horse takes one breath per stride) with the horse exhaling as the head and neck go forward as it reaches with the front legs and they strike the ground. The horse then inhales as it lifts it's head and neck and moves into the suspension phase of the gallop (with all four feet off the ground as the hind legs recover to strike the ground under the body). If the horse does not move it's head and neck correctly then it is not going to fill it's lungs correctly.

• Look at high quality races and compare them to selling races - do you see any differences in Nodding?
• In the early stages of long distance races (including Hurdles and Steeplechases)  look for the horses which are Nodding most rhythmically and efficiently. How do they perform in the race?
• What effect does this issue have with horses where their jockeys are pulling hard on the bit to stop them going forward. The received wisdom is that a horse which pulls too hard will fail because it has used up too much energy. What effect does having it's head held in one position have on it's breathing and therefore performance?

Back to Top of Page

If you have got this far with this page I hope you have got the positive message that Paddock Review works and is something that you are capable of. So its now up to you to get onto the racecourse and get reviewing.

Its worth reiterating a few points to bolster your confidence if it is needed. Don't allow yourself to think that this is an activity for insiders. We can take the example of Richard Hoiles (TV racing presenter) who seems to have the right approach to paddock review. However he often allows himself to get cowed into saying "he isn't much of a paddock man" despite the fact he usually talks as much sense about paddock review on TV as anyone. It is probably the case that he feels slightly intimidated by more horsey types. But this amounts to confusing Horse Welfare/Stable Management knowledge with ability to judge athletic ability which are separate activities.

Hoiles gives the impression that he's trying to treat paddock review as an ongoing 'research' which is the correct approach. One of the problems with the existing insider 'mystique' is that it is passed on through the generations but doesn't appear to be based on any proper research. As an aside the same happens in Thoroughbred breeding whereby we don't have any understanding about the inheritance of athletic ability so that insider mystique, fashion and unsubstantiated theories can hold sway.

Your own reviewing starting from a solid base will be more useful than trying to use the historical methods. To encourage you further it is worth remembering that assessing physical types and developing simple pattern matching as part of this is entirely natural to you. You already judge and assess other human beings as physical types and characters every day without even knowing you are doing it. If you were asked to describe a person as a physical type, assess their movement and describe their likely athletic aptitude you would be able to do it naturally.

The same approaches and factors are at work when assessing horses, all you probably lack is the belief to apply them and the experience of having done it.

Back to Top of Page

The Virtual Paddock pages present real examples of groups of 2yos which were assembled for races. The pages contain pictures of each of the 2yos and invites you to assess them and put them into particular descriptions. This is a cut-down version of a Paddock Review and clearly you have less information to work with because you a working with single, two dimensional pictures. However, it is interesting to see how successful you can be at assigning the horses to the descriptions with the information available.

To get  the correct answer for each of the Virtual Paddocks please send an e-mail request to the B2yor Contact address.

Back to Top of Page