Derby Trail Forums
Page 3 of 4 < 12 3 4 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Five New Grade I Races in 2007; Two Others Drop to Grade II (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7488)

eurobounce 12-07-2006 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oracle80
Then why the hell would you wanna REDUCE grade ones?!!!!
Don't you even understand that that viewpoint is counter to the one you cite here?
What we need is higher purse money in the grade ones and a movement to make racing matter all year long again like it used to.
Its horrible what the BC has done.
Tagg was on ATRAB and he was talking about Showing Up and how he planned a very light campaign next spring and summer but already falls lined up.
Now look, Tagg is doing the right thing by his horse and owners, no doubt. I'm not bashing him. But think about how sad it is that in November, Tagg is telling us that the best American grass horse who will be racing next year already has an abrreviated fall campaign mapped out.
You make the spring and summer grade one purses high enough, and guys will start saying screw it, lets just run and win some races and money.
The BC weakens racing further every year that goes by.
I agree that the Breeders Cup weakens the racing year long. However, increasing purses to Grade I's is not the answer. Reducing the number of Grade I races is the key to spur competition in these races. Then you have to take these Grade I races and spread them throughout the year. Then you will have a horse in training all year long. Most trainers like to get 2 or 3 races into their horse before the Grade I event. If you have 3 Grade I's then each trainers wants to get 2 or 3 preps, then those horses are racing anywhere from 6-9 times per year which I am fine with because it is all year long. In addition, it will increase the field for each Grade I race.

eurobounce 12-07-2006 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oracle80
Your just not that bright if you cant see that fewer opportunities that mean anything means fewer races by top horses.
Supply isn't low, purse money is. Graded status is the only motivation they have to run at all, you take that away and you can just forget the whole thing.
You really don't get the business at all.
No obviously you are not very bright. The key is to spur competition all year long.

oracle80 12-07-2006 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurobounce
I agree that the Breeders Cup weakens the racing year long. However, increasing purses to Grade I's is not the answer. Reducing the number of Grade I races is the key to spur competition in these races. Then you have to take these Grade I races and spread them throughout the year. Then you will have a horse in training all year long. Most trainers like to get 2 or 3 races into their horse before the Grade I event. If you have 3 Grade I's then each trainers wants to get 2 or 3 preps, then those horses are racing anywhere from 6-9 times per year which I am fine with because it is all year long. In addition, it will increase the field for each Grade I race.
No see, it wont.
What it will do is give owners even more limited opportunities to make money and send em all out of the game. All grade ones will be run as 14 horse fields with two betting interests. Coolmore/Pletcher and Goldolphin/Shadwell.
The only money in this game as it is is on the back end in the shed. You take away the chances at grade one status and you could pretty much kiss 50% of the players in the game goodbye. They might love the game and be willing to lose some cash to chase a dream, but they won't be willing to lose that much to chase a fantasy. Big difference there.
Like I said, you don't understand the business.

eurobounce 12-07-2006 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oracle80
You must be young, because you are wrong.
Not that long ago, a few decades ago horses ran against each other all year long. They had to in order to win titles.
They play keepaway now because they know they have the BC to settle it.
WIthout the BC, you'd see teh matchups all year. Unless you wanan explain to me that you are so smart that 85 years of history before the BC when thsi ALWAYS happened was an abberation, lol.
The purse money doesnt matter - well it does but not that much. You have said plenty of times that trainers and owners want that GRADE I WIN for breeding purposes. If you have less Grade I races then you will have fewer opportunities to get that Grade I win. If you have fewer chances, then you will have larger fields. Spread those Grade I races throughout the year then you will have owners, trainers and horses competiting all year. What will increasing the purses do? The JCGC is $1mm and how manty times has there been a 12 horse field in that race?

SniperSB23 12-07-2006 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oracle80
You must be young, because you are wrong.
Not that long ago, a few decades ago horses ran against each other all year long. They had to in order to win titles.
They play keepaway now because they know they have the BC to settle it.
WIthout the BC, you'd see teh matchups all year. Unless you wanan explain to me that you are so smart that 85 years of history before the BC when thsi ALWAYS happened was an abberation, lol.
There are plenty of examples in history that I'm sure you can cite where one horse dominated on the east coast and one on the west coast and they never squared off. Assuming that Invasor really did have to skip the JCGC for medical reasons what do you think would have been different about the campaigns for Lava Man, Bernardini, and Invasor this year from how they were? I think Bernardini would have retired after the JCGC and won HOY while Lava Man would have never come east. Invasor would have run in all the top east coast races without ever squaring off against Bernardini due to the illness in the JCGC. The BC is a major problem and incentives do need to be created to get horses to campaign year round but there is some value added by it such as assuring we got to see Lava Man, Bernardini, and Invasor in the same race this year.

oracle80 12-07-2006 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperSB23
There are plenty of examples in history that I'm sure you can cite where one horse dominated on the east coast and one on the west coast and they never squared off. Assuming that Invasor really did have to skip the JCGC for medical reasons what do you think would have been different about the campaigns for Lava Man, Bernardini, and Invasor this year from how they were? I think Bernardini would have retired after the JCGC and won HOY while Lava Man would have never come east. Invasor would have run in all the top east coast races without ever squaring off against Bernardini due to the illness in the JCGC. The BC is a major problem and incentives do need to be created to get horses to campaign year round but there is some value added by it such as assuring we got to see Lava Man, Bernardini, and Invasor in the same race this year.
How do you know what the campaigns would have been without the BC that all pointed for?

oracle80 12-07-2006 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurobounce
The purse money doesnt matter - well it does but not that much. You have said plenty of times that trainers and owners want that GRADE I WIN for breeding purposes. If you have less Grade I races then you will have fewer opportunities to get that Grade I win. If you have fewer chances, then you will have larger fields. Spread those Grade I races throughout the year then you will have owners, trainers and horses competiting all year. What will increasing the purses do? The JCGC is $1mm and how manty times has there been a 12 horse field in that race?

Stupid logic.
They used to run it with very little purse money before the BC and always had great fields.
The Bc has changed it all.

eurobounce 12-07-2006 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oracle80
No see, it wont.
What it will do is give owners even more limited opportunities to make money and send em all out of the game. All grade ones will be run as 14 horse fields with two betting interests. Coolmore/Pletcher and Goldolphin/Shadwell.
The only money in this game as it is is on the back end in the shed. You take away the chances at grade one status and you could pretty much kiss 50% of the players in the game goodbye. They might love the game and be willing to lose some cash to chase a dream, but they won't be willing to lose that much to chase a fantasy. Big difference there.
Like I said, you don't understand the business.
Great, so we will have a 4 horse field with the betting interest being one horse---yeah that is totally brilliant. Plus that makes for real exciting racing. I love to see a 2/5 shot beat an overmatched field. I love it. Good idea.

oracle80 12-07-2006 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurobounce
The purse money doesnt matter - well it does but not that much. You have said plenty of times that trainers and owners want that GRADE I WIN for breeding purposes. If you have less Grade I races then you will have fewer opportunities to get that Grade I win. If you have fewer chances, then you will have larger fields. Spread those Grade I races throughout the year then you will have owners, trainers and horses competiting all year. What will increasing the purses do? The JCGC is $1mm and how manty times has there been a 12 horse field in that race?

So you are saying that 3 grade one shots each year with no purse money boost is what could work?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!
Dude even the Sheikhs might quit if that happened.

eurobounce 12-07-2006 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oracle80
Stupid logic.
They used to run it with very little purse money before the BC and always had great fields.
The Bc has changed it all.
You didnt answer my question. When was the last time the JCGC had a 12 horse field?

oracle80 12-07-2006 10:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurobounce
Great, so we will have a 4 horse field with the betting interest being one horse---yeah that is totally brilliant. Plus that makes for real exciting racing. I love to see a 2/5 shot beat an overmatched field. I love it. Good idea.
This is what your idea would bring, not mine.
Fortunately your idea is so insane that it will never be considered for practical use.

eurobounce 12-07-2006 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oracle80
So you are saying that 3 grade one shots each year with no purse money boost is what could work?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!
Dude even the Sheikhs might quit if that happened.
Heck make the three Grade I races worth $5mm each. But having 107 Grade I races is a total joke. Giving a horse a Grade I status like Wagon Limit and Seek Gold is ridiculous.

SniperSB23 12-07-2006 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oracle80
How do you know what the campaigns would have been without the BC that all pointed for?
Neither of us know so all we can do is speculate. What do you think would have been different? I think Lava Man would have stayed in California and cleaned up there and hoped Bernardini got beat in the JCGC. Bernardini would have retired right after the JCGC and neither Invasor or Lava Man would then have had a chance to beat him and take away HOY.

Like I said the BC does cause a lot of problems but the one thing that is does do is increase the likelihood that the top horses on both coasts will square off at least once. I think that is a big positive.

eurobounce 12-07-2006 10:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oracle80
This is what your idea would bring, not mine.
Fortunately your idea is so insane that it will never be considered for practical use.
No my idea would increase year round racing and larger fields. We would see the stars compete against each other several times a year. However, your solution is to throw money out there. More money doesnt solve the problem. It takes a very immature mind and one without vision to use money as the sole problem solver.

oracle80 12-07-2006 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurobounce
You didnt answer my question. When was the last time the JCGC had a 12 horse field?
How do I know?
It had to be quite a while ago, pre breeders cup or in the infancy stage of the BC.
I don't know if you can find charts that old or not.

oracle80 12-07-2006 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurobounce
No my idea would increase year round racing and larger fields. We would see the stars compete against each other several times a year. However, your solution is to throw money out there. More money doesnt solve the problem. It takes a very immature mind and one without vision to use money as the sole problem solver.
And it takes a real genius to wanna reduce the number of big races. LOL!!
Competitive? how do you get competetive fields when all the ownesrs ay **** this and quit?
Stick to tires.

eurobounce 12-07-2006 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oracle80
How do I know?
It had to be quite a while ago, pre breeders cup or in the infancy stage of the BC.
I don't know if you can find charts that old or not.
Doesnt matter when. Now Imagine if that JCGC was only 1 of three Grade I races. Lets say the Breeders Cup was another. BC was run in Nov, the JCGC was run in sometime in the summer. Are you saying that we still would only have 4-6 horse fields?

eurobounce 12-07-2006 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oracle80
And it takes a real genius to wanna reduce the number of big races. LOL!!
Competitive? how do you get competetive fields when all the ownesrs ay **** this and quit?
Stick to tires.
Boy, you really dont get it do you. If you have less Grade I races, then you have less Grade I horses breeding. Therefor the breeding wouldnt be so expensive. I think it would attract more owners.

oracle80 12-07-2006 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurobounce
Doesnt matter when. Now Imagine if that JCGC was only 1 of three Grade I races. Lets say the Breeders Cup was another. BC was run in Nov, the JCGC was run in sometime in the summer. Are you saying that we still would only have 4-6 horse fields?
Even fewer. You'd have no owners or breeders, seriously.
Whos gonna breed or own at the highets level when you turn a next to impossible situation(making money in the game) into a completely hopeless one.
You don't get it. You really don't. We can't get or keep new owners now, what the **** would they get in the game for or stay in the game for if you get three cracks a year at a grade one.
You really can't be that stupid can you?

SniperSB23 12-07-2006 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurobounce
Boy, you really dont get it do you. If you have less Grade I races, then you have less Grade I horses breeding. Therefor the breeding wouldnt be so expensive. I think it would attract more owners.
Wouldn't G2 winners just become more valuable? You'd probably have horses ducking the G1's then to try and get an easy win in a G2 when the top horses are all running in one of the G1s.

oracle80 12-07-2006 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperSB23
Wouldn't G2 winners just become more valuable? You'd probably have horses ducking the G1's then to try and get an easy win in a G2 when the top horses are all running in one of the G1s.
In other words it would be a pointless move that would accomplish nothing?
Yeah Sniper, you got it.
Year round racing needs to matter again.

eurobounce 12-07-2006 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oracle80
Even fewer. You'd have no owners or breeders, seriously.
Whos gonna breed or own at the highets level when you turn a next to impossible situation(making money in the game) into a completely hopeless one.
You don't get it. You really don't. We can't get or keep new owners now, what the **** would they get in the game for or stay in the game for if you get three cracks a year at a grade one.
You really can't be that stupid can you?
Why do you think we cant get new owners now? Maybe it is because they cant afford it. Hmmm......you have to change something. Increasing purses just over values the horse so horses are overpriced. You dont get it Oracle.

eurobounce 12-07-2006 10:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperSB23
Wouldn't G2 winners just become more valuable? You'd probably have horses ducking the G1's then to try and get an easy win in a G2 when the top horses are all running in one of the G1s.
No because you would reduce the number of Grade II and III races.

oracle80 12-07-2006 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurobounce
Why do you think we cant get new owners now? Maybe it is because they cant afford it. Hmmm......you have to change something. Increasing purses just over values the horse so horses are overpriced. You dont get it Oracle.
LOL!!!!
So you are proposing the complete destruction of the economic foundation of horse racing as a proposed means of salvation? In order to see three "exciting" races a year?
Umm, lets get this to head honchos as soon as possible. I'm sure they will be very interested.

Cajungator26 12-07-2006 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurobounce
Heck make the three Grade I races worth $5mm each. But having 107 Grade I races is a total joke. Giving a horse a Grade I status like Wagon Limit and Seek Gold is ridiculous.
Seek Gold deserves Grade I status because he beat every horse in that field on THAT day. Are you saying that the Stephen Foster shouldn't be a Grade I because of one year with a fluky finish? :confused:

oracle80 12-07-2006 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cajungator26
Seek Gold deserves Grade I status because he beat every horse in that field on THAT day. Are you saying that the Stephen Foster shouldn't be a Grade I because of one year with a fluky finish? :confused:
I musta been absent the day in business class when the professor taught that you needed to destroy the ecomony of a sector in order to get it to really take off!!!

eurobounce 12-07-2006 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cajungator26
Seek Gold deserves Grade I status because he beat every horse in that field on THAT day. Are you saying that the Stephen Foster shouldn't be a Grade I because of one year with a fluky finish? :confused:
No Cajun I am not saying that. I am saying that the field would have been totally different if the SF was only 1 of 3 Grade I races in 2006. Now if he beat a field of 12 horses then sure give him a Grade I status. However he did beat a field of 9. However, I think a field that included Lava Man, Invasor, Premium Tap instead of Love Of Money, MB Sea and Wiggins is a little more attractive.

Linny 12-07-2006 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperSB23
Of course if there was no BC we likely wouldn't have ever seen Lava Man, Invasor, and Bernardini ever race against each other this year. Bernardini would have been retired after the JCGC and Invasor would have probably run in the Clark. Lava Man might have gone up for the $1 million turf race in Canada. About the only other difference in their schedules is that Invasor might have run in the Woodward this year.
Before the BC, the best horses travelled to meet and compete. The JCGC WAS the BCC. It was the big event for which every top older horse pointed yearlong. The "Belmont Fall Championship Meet" used to mean something. Remember, the NY race schedule was changed by the BC. The Gold Cup was in late Oct or early Nov and they ran the Governors, the Marlboro and the Woodward leading up to it!

eurobounce 12-07-2006 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oracle80
I musta been absent the day in business class when the professor taught that you needed to destroy the ecomony of a sector in order to get it to really take off!!!
You wouldnt destroy it....you would enhance it. Tell me one sector that has improved by throwing money at it. And maybe you were at home reading teh DRF the day they went over this issue.

eurobounce 12-07-2006 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linny
Before the BC, the best horses travelled to meet and compete. The JCGC WAS the BCC. It was the big event for which every top older horse pointed yearlong. The "Belmont Fall Championship Meet" used to mean something. Remember, the NY race schedule was changed by the BC. The Gold Cup was in late Oct or early Nov and they ran the Governors, the Marlboro and the Woodward leading up to it!
Yes, I remember. Look at this years field at Belmont. 4 Grade I's with a total of like what--32 horses?

blackthroatedwind 12-07-2006 11:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linny
Before the BC, the best horses travelled to meet and compete. The JCGC WAS the BCC. It was the big event for which every top older horse pointed yearlong. The "Belmont Fall Championship Meet" used to mean something. Remember, the NY race schedule was changed by the BC. The Gold Cup was in late Oct or early Nov and they ran the Governors, the Marlboro and the Woodward leading up to it!


I think we lost the Governor's before the BC but I might be wrong. I have a hard time remembering it after they stiffed Forego is 1975.

However, I agree with EVERYTHING else. Of course I have been criticizing the BC, and what it has done for racing, for a LONG time.

oracle80 12-07-2006 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurobounce
You wouldnt destroy it....you would enhance it. Tell me one sector that has improved by throwing money at it. And maybe you were at home reading teh DRF the day they went over this issue.
LOL!!!!
You have to be kidding right?
How about Nascar genius? Doh!!!

eurobounce 12-07-2006 11:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oracle80
LOL!!!!
You have to be kidding right?
How about Nascar genius? Doh!!!
You have got to be kidding me with this one Oracle. NASCAR threw money at marketing. Investing in the marketing of the sport is vastly different from throwing money at the purse structure. If you took just the PURSE money and not the AWARD money in a race you will see a HUGE difference. A driver who finishes 1st in a race would only get about $65k-$75k (based on the purse). The rest of the money comes from the bonus program and 25% from TV revenue. If you look at the history of the PURSE money only in NASCAR you will find that NASCAR has actually decreased the dollars they contribute to the PURSE money. The money the drivers make in PURSES is nothing. They make the majority of the money from sponsors and the bonus program NOT THE PURSE MONEY.

eurobounce 12-07-2006 11:27 AM
You forget I live in INDY (the race car capital of the world--well use to be).

JJP 12-07-2006 11:27 AM
The Prioress has been the worst grade 1 in North America the past three years and never gets downgraded. Somebody in NY must have pictures on somebody.

blackthroatedwind 12-07-2006 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJP
The Prioress has been the worst grade 1 in North America the past three years and never gets downgraded. Somebody in NY must have pictures on somebody.
Actually that's highly debatable. While I think it's status should be lowered, it was a highly entertaining race this year, and one of the better betting opportunities in a Grade 1 this year. However, that isn't a reason to keep it a Grade 1, and even though it is the ONLY Grade 1 at 6F restricted to 3YO fillies in America, it still should be downgraded. I just don't believe that group deserves a Grade 1 ranking. But, if you do, then the Prioress is the correct race.

Linny 12-07-2006 03:21 PM
Any given running of a race can be bad, relative to it's general class. A bad (relatively) horse can win a good race and get G1 status. Broker's Tip won one race in his life, the Kentucky Derby. He was a bad horse who won a race that we today call G1.
The graded stake committee is supposed to look past one poor running of any race and use a multi year sample. That's why I cannot understand the change in the Clark. Last year's running was important enough for it to get G1 this year, but now it's downgraded. Were they just bummed that Magna Graduate didn't train on? It makes no sense. I think that one a grade is assigned, they should let it stand for at least 2 years to let trainers work it into their schedules.

Cannon Shell 12-07-2006 07:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurobounce
Heck make the three Grade I races worth $5mm each. But having 107 Grade I races is a total joke. Giving a horse a Grade I status like Wagon Limit and Seek Gold is ridiculous.
I may be bit biased but the field that Wagon Limit beat in the Gold Cup was a pretty good group especially in light of current runnings. He may not have been a great horse or sire but he certainly was grade 1 calibur that day.

Scav 12-07-2006 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
Actually that's highly debatable. While I think it's status should be lowered, it was a highly entertaining race this year, and one of the better betting opportunities in a Grade 1 this year. However, that isn't a reason to keep it a Grade 1, and even though it is the ONLY Grade 1 at 6F restricted to 3YO fillies in America, it still should be downgraded. I just don't believe that group deserves a Grade 1 ranking. But, if you do, then the Prioress is the correct race.
I NEVER forget when Roussel send his filly, In Secure, to the Prioress. F'n Chavez tried timing the rail opening up and almost got thrown into the infield because she was moving so fast. She was 13/1 that day, it was my first time I had ever put 200WP on a horse over 6/1.......I never got a bigger rush in my life for losing $400. I am still not sure if she would have beaten House Party that day, but with the trip she was getting, if she would have gotten through, the rush would have even been greater


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:57 PM.
Page 3 of 4 < 12 3 4 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.