Derby Trail Forums
Page 4 of 7 « First < 23 4 56 > Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Charles Hatton Reading Room (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Breeders' Cup Going for Grade 1's Again (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18418)

brianwspencer 11-28-2007 05:03 PM
Oh my! They downgraded the illustrious Washington Park Handicap from a Grade II to a Grade III -- and dropped the grade altogether from the Arlington Classic.

East Coast bias.

Cannon Shell 11-28-2007 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
It was joke about some of the crazy suggestions people make.

Chuck, the same horses will show up for $250K. The money is better spent elsewhere ( or nowhere ). Look at the Juvenile turf races this year. The Filly race, for $250K, was exactly the same as the Colt BC for $1 Million. European and foreign participation? You're kidding....right? We get very little and frankly the BC doesn't seem to want any. With many horses not nominated and thus forced to pay exorbitant supplemental fees along with no perks offered by the BC ( as opposed to enormous perks from Japan and Hong Kong ) the best we could hope for were European mediocrities who happened to be nominated. Boy, is that exciting....and really what championship racing should be all about.

Why should racetracks around the country begin to construct a program of races to lead up to the BC? The BC has done the opposite to major races all around the country. They have drained, minimized, and even eliminated major races in just twenty short years. What obligation does the racing community have to work with a group that doesn't work in their better ( not even best ) interests? And, quite frankly, just pumping up purses, and/or creating races, doesn't alter the fact that many, if not most, of these supposed races would be extraordinarily weak fields. And furthermore, if the industry is going to work together on something, a great idea, they shouldn't waste it on the superfluous BC.

Frankly, considering the greed displayed by the BC I am beginning to wonder what major venue will be even interested in hosting it in the future. One can dream, I suppose, that the whole thing just goes away.
What difference does it make to Andy Serling or Chuck Simon if the race purse is $250 or 1 million? That is what I am try to convey? So what if they will attract the same field? Do you think the BC will use that extra money for good use?

There have been plenty of Euros that come when the races are at a location that they feel is suitable for them. This year obviously was an exception but I dont believe that it was a great year for top horses over there either. Hell just last year there were at least a dozen or more euros at CD. Many if not most Euros are eligible to the BC through the EBF. The South Americans are the ones who are not eligible and there probably should be a program where a horse can be nominated once they are imported for a pretty good fee ($25000?)

If you are that pessimistic that you believe tracks should not try to implement a series of races that would have possible benefits with little to no downside then this may be falling on deaf ears. But it would not be difficult or costly to do.

As for the greed displayed by the BC, why would they be any different than the tracks, trainers, owners, jockeys, breeders, sales companies, etc.?

blackthroatedwind 11-28-2007 05:29 PM
None of it matters to me Chuck. Hell, why should any of this crap matter to any of us? Does Daafur matter? What matters?

That doesn't mean it isn't a stupid and indefensible idea to denote a supposed championship race for a division that doesn't exist at anything close to a high level and is populated by also rans.

Cannon Shell 11-28-2007 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
None of it matters to me Chuck. Hell, why should any of this crap matter to any of us? Does Daafur matter? What matters?

That doesn't mean it isn't a stupid and indefensible idea to denote a supposed championship race for a division that doesn't exist at anything close to a high level and is populated by also rans.
I think the problem is that you are accepting these races as "championship" races. By changing the name that still doesn't make them championships. Was the Distaff a championship race this year?

blackthroatedwind 11-28-2007 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
I think the problem is that you are accepting these races as "championship" races. By changing the name that still doesn't make them championships. Was the Distaff a championship race this year?
No, but it was at least contested by a bunch of reasonable horses with decent accomplishments.

blackthroatedwind 11-28-2007 05:35 PM
Let me add, the BC is supposed to be, by it's very conception, a series of championship races. Whether I accept them as such is besides the point. They are saying so.....and thus by creating a BC Turf Sprint they would be denoting a race, that by its very nature is likely to be at least mostly contested by marginal race horses, as a " Championship " event. It lessens the rest of their program if nothing else.

Cannon Shell 11-28-2007 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
Let me add, the BC is supposed to be, by it's very conception, a series of championship races. Whether I accept them as such is besides the point. They are saying so.....and thus by creating a BC Turf Sprint they would be denoting a race, that by its very nature is likely to be at least mostly contested by marginal race horses, as a " Championship " event. It lessens the rest of their program if nothing else.
When the NBA started giving out the 6th man of the year it didn't lessen the value of the MVP award.
I just dont see how a turf sprint or 2 year old filly grass race effects the quality or reputation of the Distaff or Classic. Adding the Texas Bowl wont have any effect on the Rose or Orange Bowls. No one in their right mind would equate the winners as equals. I dont think that anyone would believe the winner of the FM Sprint the equal of the winner of the Classic.
But in the end it really doesn't matter what we think or what they do...

Cannon Shell 11-28-2007 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALostTexan
Looks like the Breeders' Cup guys actually got this one right, too, by asking that the Committee table to recommendation. Sounds like they might have taken a good, hard look at their request...
They asked them to table the request because they are going to add another race.

blackthroatedwind 11-28-2007 05:57 PM
The NBA's Sixth Man awards a player of talent who helps his team. The BC Turf Sprint would award a horse too slow to compete against even mildly talented horses in other races that was the fastest turtle of his group. I don't see the analogy.

I believe in standards, Chuck, and if the BC denotes races for marginal contingents, so marginal in fact that there are a mere smattering of races for that group even contested annually, then they are suggesting, at least to me, that they have no standards. To me it marginalizes their entire product.

I do see a distinction between making $250K supporting races and making these same races $1 Million BC races. I am all for supporting stakes for divisions below championship caliber. I think if the BC is unable to make this distinction they are further marginalizing themselves and their product. I'm all for improving something, but to alter it to its detriment does the opposite, it diminishes itself.

JJP 11-28-2007 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_fat_man

And, if there's a BC race for turf routers and turf milers, why shouldn't there be one for turf sprinters? Assuming we're discussing the addition of races.
First off, its a new type of race. Ten years ago, how many turf sprints did you see, other than maybe the downhill races at SA? This is a recent phenomenon, that seems to be inspired most strongly by the NYRA racing secretary(ies).

I guess I shouldn't have used the word "phenomenon" when describing turf sprints since there is absolutely nothing phenomenal about them. Hopefully, like new Coke, this fad will fade away.

JJP 11-28-2007 06:17 PM
Speaking of turf sprints and new fads, can an Optional Claiming Breeders Cup race be far behind?

I better watch what I say....

SentToStud 11-28-2007 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
They asked them to table the request because they are going to add another race.
I find it funny that the BC people asked the TOBA Graded Stakes Committee people to "table" their request.

It's the same people.

How the Graded Committe found their way to deciding there would be 3 more G 1's in 2008 than in 2007 -- with no races losing Grade 1 status -- just shows how incestuous and self-serving the BC is.

I suppose I don't blame them for doing what is in their own interest. But not everyone is stupid enough to believe that we need three more Grade 1's when the entire fall racing season already serves as a prep for the interests of the Breeders Cup.

Eventually, the TOBA-GSC will be forced to downgrade races like the Cigar and the JCGC. And no one will care.

the_fat_man 11-28-2007 06:27 PM
I just don't get all the disparagement concerning turf sprints. I think it takes a special kind of sprinter to be able to handle the turf, one that's a better athlete than it's dirt counterpart, as there's much more involved in terms of footwork on the turf than on the dirt. And, like all turf races, turf sprints are much more challenging in terms of race strategy and, in turn, handicapping. And I don't buy into the notion that only horses that can't run on the dirt turn to the turf, as if it were their last recourse. Two examples, off the top of my head, of turf sprinters that are at least as good, if not better, on the dirt: Gold Trippi and Giant Deputy.

I realize they're not top of the line runners but they're certainly not crows.

Can only hope that PJ Campo keeps 'em coming next year at BEL and SAR.

blackthroatedwind 11-28-2007 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_fat_man
I just don't get all the disparagement concerning turf sprints. I think it takes a special kind of sprinter to be able to handle the turf, one that's a better athlete than it's dirt counterpart, as there's much more involved in terms of footwork on the turf than on the dirt. And, like all turf races, turf sprints are much more challenging in terms of race strategy and, in turn, handicapping. And I don't buy into the notion that only horses that can't run on the dirt turn to the turf, as if it were their last recourse. Two examples, off the top of my head, of turf sprinters that are at least as good, if not better, on the dirt: Gold Trippi and Giant Deputy.

I realize they're not top of the line runners but they're certainly not crows.

Can only hope that PJ Campo keeps 'em coming next year at BEL and SAR.

Not " only " but probably the majority.

I'm not disparaging turf sprints ( though I believe there are too many at the cheaper levels run in NY ). I'm all for a daily mix of races. If I don't like a kind of race I will work around it. If the turf sprints work for you, great, as I'm sure there are other kinds of races some favor that you don't.

That, however, is not the discussion at least I'm having here.

Danzig 11-28-2007 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianwspencer
Don't forget Landseer off the top of my head.
talking of euros attempting the classic, on dirt. not euro horses in all races.

SniperSB23 11-28-2007 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_fat_man
I just don't get all the disparagement concerning turf sprints. I think it takes a special kind of sprinter to be able to handle the turf, one that's a better athlete than it's dirt counterpart, as there's much more involved in terms of footwork on the turf than on the dirt. And, like all turf races, turf sprints are much more challenging in terms of race strategy and, in turn, handicapping. And I don't buy into the notion that only horses that can't run on the dirt turn to the turf, as if it were their last recourse. Two examples, off the top of my head, of turf sprinters that are at least as good, if not better, on the dirt: Gold Trippi and Giant Deputy.

I realize they're not top of the line runners but they're certainly not crows.

Can only hope that PJ Campo keeps 'em coming next year at BEL and SAR.
Turf sprints are a last resort for any intact horse and any filly/mare simply becase there are so few graded stakes in that "division" and the whole game is about getting black type. I can guarantee there are no horses running in turf sprints that could be out competing in other more lucrative divisions.

SniperSB23 11-28-2007 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
Maybe they compete in turf sprints because A) they are bred for turf, and B) they are bred to sprint.
That is poor breeding if anyone is that unblessed. People do everything possible to not breed a horse to be a turf sprinter.

the_fat_man 11-28-2007 09:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperSB23
Turf sprints are a last resort for any intact horse and any filly/mare simply becase there are so few graded stakes in that "division" and the whole game is about getting black type. I can guarantee there are no horses running in turf sprints that could be out competing in other more lucrative divisions.
yet, there are horses that are very talented turf sprinters; even excel at it. in fact, they're able to run faster on the turf than their dirt counterparts do on dirt (this is obviously because of the surface, right?). and, would probably beat those competing in 'more lucrative divisions' on the turf. once again, if we are to assume that these horses are the bottom feeders of racing, we need to have established that their dirt counterparts are better than they are on the turf. and, since, running on the turf is clearly beneath them, we'll never know for sure, will we? it goes round and round.

I also find it a bit ironic, that the very expensive, the very well bred, Green Monkey, was every bit the flop on turf that he is on dirt. then again, he was routing; there's still the sprint turf option left for him.

SniperSB23 11-28-2007 09:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_fat_man
yet, there are horses that are very talented turf sprinters; even excel at it. in fact, they're able to run faster on the turf than their dirt counterparts do on dirt (this is obviously because of the surface, right?). and, would probably beat those competing in 'more lucrative divisions' on the turf. once again, if we are to assume that these horses are the bottom feeders of racing, we need to have established that their dirt counterparts are better than they are on the turf. and, since, running on the turf is clearly beneath them, we'll never know for sure, will we? it goes round and round.

I also find it a bit ironic, that the very expensive, the very well bred, Green Monkey, was every bit the flop on turf that he is on dirt. then again, he was routing; there's still the sprint turf option left for him.
Yeah, and notice it is the last option. How many horses can you find me that established themselves as turf sprinters and didn't try and become a turf miler or a dirt sprinter? You won't find any, any that have the talent to get out of that division do so cause there is no black type to be earned there. The ones that stay are the ones that can't do anything else.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:07 AM.
Page 4 of 7 « First < 23 4 56 > Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

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