One or two poor runnings shouldn't require a downgrade but 3 or 4 should. The Committee (which I think is nuts) supposedly meets annually to re-assess the grading. Some of the decisions are inane. I still cannot understand why the Keeneland Mile is G1 and the Oak Tree Mile is G2. In late 2004 they met and upgraded the Clark H to G1. It was run in 2005 as a G1 and by the end of the year, it was a G2 again. If they supposedly use 3 or 4 year averages, then how can a race's grade change twice in consecutive years?
There is a push now, esp. with the arrival of a BC race for female sprinters to have a "G1/2/3" season of races for filly sprinters and it makes sense. In some seasons the Prioress and the Test are outstanding. Does the carson Hollow/You race ring a bell?
In the rush to push new races into the fray, like the American Oaks other historic events are often short sold. The Sunshine Millions has diminished the quality of G1 races like the Santa Monica and the San Antonio, even the Donn. The new BC races will create a push to "make divisions" which include G1's leading up to a championship race.
Where I think the grading system is wrong is this. A G1 should be a G1, they should all be equal. Is the Gulfstream Park Turf H. (G1) as important as the Arlington Million (G1) and/or the Breeders' Cup Turf(G1)? Is the Las Virgenes or the Acorn as important as the Ky Oaks and/or the Alabama? They are all G1 so in theory they are. If the Ky Derby and the Travers and the Pacific Classic and the Breeders' Cup Classic are G1 then all other G1 races should be just as important, if not they are really G2.
|