Liam's Map=Cross Traffic part 2?

[Port Conway Lane]

[quote=RolloTomasi;1042483]

Wrong. Preakness winner Shackleford, Travers/Woodward winner Alpha, Hollywood Gold Cup winner Mast Track, Goodwood winner Well Armed, Travers winner Golden Ticket, Donn winner Hymn Book, Hollywood Gold Cup winner Rail Trip, Haskell winner Verrazano all had credentials for the Classic.

This is contrary to your point that there are bad horses in the mile. Or are you claiming that because the winners of the mile were bad horses that the race was bad, or the field quality was bad? Or that the good horses in the mile were placed at the wrong distance? I fail to follow your reasoning, it is contradictory.

Ok. So how do you know Goldencents, Gayego, Vineyard Haven, The Factor, Pyro, Jersey Town, Caleb's Posse, and Aikenite wouldn't have won the Sprint?

First of all two of those won the mile so they have no regrets. As for the others who knows? The fact is you named multiple horses in the same year that should have run in the sprint. My point is that not all of the ones you named could have won in the same year. So yes I could say that some of the ones you mentioned would not have won, take your choice.

And just because they "all couldn't have won", does that justify the ducking and diving?

The mile gives trainers an option to run their horses at a distance that may fit their horse best. Are you telling me that American racehorses are either a
6 furlong sprinter or a 1 1/4 mile router with nothing in between?

The fact that the race carries instant Grade 1 status when it should not, has Breeder's Cup attached to its name when it is no more than a glorified undercard race is what detracts from the Classic, because one or maybe two Classic and Sprint horses looking for an easier race--the antithesis of what the BC should be about--inevitably reroute to it.

Back to the horses you named at the top. For whatever reason the connections chose to run in the mile. It doesn't mean that the absence of the mile would ensure their participation in the Classic.(especially Verrazano)

It is a bad race, and the results of the runnings thus far prove the point.

Prove what point?? You named both quality runners and others that weren't.
Bad horses winning and Quality horses winning. Bad horses losing to good horses and vice versa. What exactly makes it a bad race and how do the results prove anything?