Belmont the Fall Championship Meet

Originally Posted by Slewbopper

Same with Holy Bull.

Taking nothing away from John Henry, who sat on the sidelines for the '84 BC, but Slew O Gold pretty much got screwed out of HOY after a brilliant campaign winning the Whitney, Marlboro, Woodward, and JCGC by losing a controversial Classic IN California. Had Wild Again been taken down, SOG would have been HOY. If I recall SOG and John were tied in the voting and some tie breaker was used to give John HOY

With Belmont the closest track to me, I truly miss the fall championship series. There used to actually be fans at Belmont on big days other than the Stakes prior to the BC. Anyway, BC day is the best day of racing all year, bar none.

Slewbopper,
I know that the Breeders Cup is here to stay, so the whole conversation/debate is moot. But I think its done more to harm racing than any other innovation in recent times.
The reason we can't generate a fan base that is consistent from June-February, is that we give people no reason to be fans.
People like rivalries, always have and always will. Baseball is a 162 game tedious and long season. Its hard to get worked up about any single game within that span. yet, when the Yankees and red sox play, people tune in. WHy? because of the rivalry of course.
College football is the same way.
In the good old days of my youth, rivalries existed because the only way to win a championship was to beat most of your opponents all year more times than they beat you.
The Breeders Cup was a great idea in theory. A year end celebration of racing that would move from place to place in order to expose more fans to racing.
But what its done is create a voting system for champions that ignores the rest of the years accomplishments and in the process has destroyed the stature of many races. Trainers no longer wanna hook up with the main rival in the year, they play dodgeball, and who can blame them? Its crippled the product all year long and I just don't think that one fantastic day is worth all that.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Slewbopper,
I know that the Breeders Cup is here to stay, so the whole conversation/debate is moot. But I think its done more to harm racing than any other innovation in recent times.
The reason we can't generate a fan base that is consistent from June-February, is that we give people no reason to be fans.
People like rivalries, always have and always will. Baseball is a 162 game tedious and long season. Its hard to get worked up about any single game within that span. yet, when the Yankees and red sox play, people tune in. WHy? because of the rivalry of course.
College football is the same way.
In the good old days of my youth, rivalries existed because the only way to win a championship was to beat most of your opponents all year more times than they beat you.
The Breeders Cup was a great idea in theory. A year end celebration of racing that would move from place to place in order to expose more fans to racing.
But what its done is create a voting system for champions that ignores the rest of the years accomplishments and in the process has destroyed the stature of many races. Trainers no longer wanna hook up with the main rival in the year, they play dodgeball, and who can blame them? Its crippled the product all year long and I just don't think that one fantastic day is worth all that.

Okay, I follow but this is how I figure things ...

1. BC Classic Win = HoY = Top Stud Value.
2. BC Classic Purse = $5 Mil = 5x (!!) Value of any other NA Grade 1

So, if you run 3rd in the BCC, the owner gets as much as if he won the JCGC or the Pac Classic. PLUS, you get huge "extra credit" toward the HoY if you win.

To me that's why they all point to the BCC. It's the $$. It's hard to believe that $1 Mil is seen as "change" but it is compared to the BCC and that's the problem. Why the heck the purse is so very high is beyond my understanding.

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Okay, I follow but this is how I figure things ...

1. BC Classic Win = HoY = Top Stud Value.
2. BC Classic Purse = $5 Mil = 5x (!!) Value of any other NA Grade 1

So, if you run 3rd in the BCC, the owner gets as much as if he won the JCGC or the Pac Classic. PLUS, you get huge "extra credit" toward the HoY if you win.

To me that's why they all point to the BCC. It's the $$. It's hard to believe that $1 Mil is seen as "change" but it is compared to the BCC and that's the problem. Why the heck the purse is so very high is beyond my understanding.

Stud,
Its not the purse money my friend. Its the chance at residual value for being a champion.
Purse money, even 5 or 6 mill, doesnt even put a dent in what a horse is worth if its a champion.
Look at the Dubai World cup. 6 mill and now noone will send a good horse over there. Why? because they know that they will come back with a spent horse and no shot to be champ. Purse money is not gonna match a 20 mill or 10 mill stud deal.

[Slewbopper]

Oracle: The Breeders Cup was a great idea in theory. A year end celebration of racing that would move from place to place in order to expose more fans to racing.
But what its done is create a voting system for champions that ignores the rest of the years accomplishments and in the process has destroyed the stature of many races. Trainers no longer wanna hook up with the main rival in the year, they play dodgeball, and who can blame them? Its crippled the product all year long and I just don't think that one fantastic day is worth all that.
----------------------------------------------------------------

You are absolutely right on all accounts. The BC has destroyed the the handicap TC of the Met Mile, Suburban, and Brooklyn. It caused Philip Morris to bow out of the Marlboro Hcp. Many establ;ished G1 races have been shortened to accomadate the BC. The only 1 1/2 mile dirt race left in America is the archaic Belmont Stakes which is run at that distance for tradition only.

I am sure that all of us that were following the game at the inception of the BC thought it was a wonderful thing. In retrospect what has happened, is, as you said, we are waiting around all year for one day while one time meaningful races run throughout the year are nothing more than a means to this end.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Slewbopper,
I know that the Breeders Cup is here to stay, so the whole conversation/debate is moot. But I think its done more to harm racing than any other innovation in recent times.
The reason we can't generate a fan base that is consistent from June-February, is that we give people no reason to be fans.
People like rivalries, always have and always will. Baseball is a 162 game tedious and long season. Its hard to get worked up about any single game within that span. yet, when the Yankees and red sox play, people tune in. WHy? because of the rivalry of course.
College football is the same way.
In the good old days of my youth, rivalries existed because the only way to win a championship was to beat most of your opponents all year more times than they beat you.
The Breeders Cup was a great idea in theory. A year end celebration of racing that would move from place to place in order to expose more fans to racing.
But what its done is create a voting system for champions that ignores the rest of the years accomplishments and in the process has destroyed the stature of many races. Trainers no longer wanna hook up with the main rival in the year, they play dodgeball, and who can blame them? Its crippled the product all year long and I just don't think that one fantastic day is worth all that.

I agree that rivalries create interest, but when horses run 5-6 times a year, they are not going to meet enough times to create the kind of rivalry that will captivate new fans. The BC may have had a small impact on the number of races a horse runs in a year, but I don't think it is the source of all evil that you make it out to be. Horses just aren't running as often, and they are not running as long. It's hard to have a rivalry when the very best horses retire as 3-yr-olds.

Red Sox fans tune in because they have rooted for that team for years. Ohio State fans tune in because they know they will meet Michigan yet again this year. But if there are Bernardini fans out there, they know (if they are smart) that there is less than a 25% chance that they will get to root for Bernardini this time next year.

Without a BC, we would still have had no more than one chance this year to see Lava Man face either Invasor or Bernardini. Maybe no chances.

I agree with your point that the BC gets too much emphasis at Eclipse time. However, I don't remember being personally outraged at any picks because of the BC factor. (I WOULD have thrown a fit if Leroidanimeax had been denied an Eclipse because of his BC loss, though.) Are there any Eclipse winners that you thought were particularly poor choices (because of over-emphasis on a BC win/loss)?

--Dunbar

[Gander]

I think we are long past the days of rivalries in horse racing, unless you are like me and love claimers, allowance and small restricted stakes. They seem to evoke the only real rivalries in the game.

Take for instance Dave, Certifiably Crazy, Pa Pa Da and Golden Commander, who seem to meet at least once a month. Or Finlandia, Lamp is Lit, Sabellina, On the Bus and Lady Bi Bi. Those are some good ones.

In high level raing we can kiss real rivalries goodbye. The sport will neve be able to measure up to baseball or college basketball in terms of rivalries and attachment to certain horses, like we have with teams.

Seems just when you get attached to a 3 year old, he/she is retiring or injured. Thank God for horses like Lava Man, Tin Man, Captain Squire, Funny Cide, and Caller One.

[Cannon Shell]

One of the biggest problems with the Breeders cup is that unlike the Derby you dont have to actually do anything to qualify for the races. Sure you have to be a good horse but outside of the Turf mile or Sprint, the races rarely overfill. I know people flame the Derby system of Graded earning but at least it forces trainers to compete in order to earn enough to qualify.

[Cannon Shell]

Another reason that rivalries dont exist is that the same small group of trainers train all the good horses. Think of the 2yo races you could have if you matched up the Pletcher and Blasmussen barns alone.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Another reason that rivalries dont exist is that the same small group of trainers train all the good horses. Think of the 2yo races you could have if you matched up the Pletcher and Blasmussen barns alone.

'blassmusen'--I like that...@ the very least when they do happen to run against each other they should be uncoupled...unlike in the hopeful.

[Pedigree Ann]

The Breeders' Cup's problems start from the name - BREEDERS' Cup. The program was designed originally to create ONE big race that would have enough purse money to tempt owners to keep from retiring their star 3yos before the end of the year, or to keep them in training for their 4yo season. It would be funded by money from stallion owners, primarily the big name stallions whose sons were the prime candidates for early retirement, and foal nominations, mostly from high-end ffarms.

Unfortunately, horses like John Henry, by a mid-level stallion, or horses from other parts of the world, were put behind the eight-ball from the beginning, since they nor their sires were likely to be nominated and so had to pay outrageous supplemental fees that generally weren't worth the gamble. The Breeders Cup has never been the level playing field that one ought to have for determining championships.

The most damaging Breeders' Cup additions to the original plan are the sprint and the 2yo races. I remember when sprint races were merely preps for longer races and the champion sprinter award was frequently a consolation prize for a miler who couldn't last 10f. When grading started there were NO G1 sprints and only a couple of G2s; now one sees them every third weekend. These days people BREED for BC sprint winners, instead of getting sprinters as a normal byproduct of trying to breed classic winners. And don't get me started on the damage to 2yos knees that 2-turn races from early September onward can do as youngsters are prepped for the BC.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Another reason that rivalries dont exist is that the same small group of trainers train all the good horses. Think of the 2yo races you could have if you matched up the Pletcher and Blasmussen barns alone.

Very good point.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I agree that rivalries create interest, but when horses run 5-6 times a year, they are not going to meet enough times to create the kind of rivalry that will captivate new fans. The BC may have had a small impact on the number of races a horse runs in a year, but I don't think it is the source of all evil that you make it out to be. Horses just aren't running as often, and they are not running as long. It's hard to have a rivalry when the very best horses retire as 3-yr-olds.

Red Sox fans tune in because they have rooted for that team for years. Ohio State fans tune in because they know they will meet Michigan yet again this year. But if there are Bernardini fans out there, they know (if they are smart) that there is less than a 25% chance that they will get to root for Bernardini this time next year.

Without a BC, we would still have had no more than one chance this year to see Lava Man face either Invasor or Bernardini. Maybe no chances.

I agree with your point that the BC gets too much emphasis at Eclipse time. However, I don't remember being personally outraged at any picks because of the BC factor. (I WOULD have thrown a fit if Leroidanimeax had been denied an Eclipse because of his BC loss, though.) Are there any Eclipse winners that you thought were particularly poor choices (because of over-emphasis on a BC win/loss)?

--Dunbar

I thought speightstown over Pico Central was a terrible choice. Pico Central not only won bigger races, he dominated when the two met head to head.

[Cannon Shell]

A little off the topic but why are mile races now considered sprints? I mean it is a great accomplishment to win the Met Mile or Cigar Mile but theses are NOT sprints! TVG sponsors the sprint so I guess if they say it should count.....

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

A little off the topic but why are mile races now considered sprints? I mean it is a great accomplishment to win the Met Mile or Cigar Mile but theses are NOT sprints! TVG sponsors the sprint so I guess if they say it should count.....

Actually, one turn miles were considered sprints a long time ago. And the US sprint title has always been "sprinter and/or miler" - just look at the list of winners in the past.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Actually, one turn miles were considered sprints a long time ago. And the US sprint title has always been "sprinter and/or miler" - just look at the list of winners in the past.

Sprint should mean sprint. Since 1980 only 2 horses that were named eclipse winners in the sprint catagory could be considered sprinters/milers Gulch and Precisionist maybe Smile also and all of those horses won the B.cup the year they won. I know we dont have a miler class like Europe but One turn miles should not be taken into consideration for the sprit title.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Sprint should mean sprint. Since 1980 only 2 horses that were named eclipse winners in the sprint catagory could be considered sprinters/milers Gulch and Precisionist maybe Smile also and all of those horses won the B.cup the year they won. I know we dont have a miler class like Europe but One turn miles should not be taken into consideration for the sprit title.

Don't forget Orientate, Rubiano, Artax, all milers who took no prisoners at 6f or 7f either. The point of the Met Mile and Cigar Mile is that they are around one-turn and so attract a lot of the better speed horses, especially the ones who are better at 7f than 6f.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I thought speightstown over Pico Central was a terrible choice. Pico Central not only won bigger races, he dominated when the two met head to head.

I don't have the stats in front of me, but I'd probably agree with you. I remember being pretty impressed by Pico Central that year.

Overall, though, I don't think the BC has resulted in too many wrong horses winning an Eclipse.

--Dunbar

[Gander]

Speightstown had a better record at the true sprint distance of 6F. He was very consistent all year and at times brilliant.
He also won far and away the most important sprint race of the year, the BC sprint. I have no problem with Speighstown getting the nod. The connections could have run in the BC if they really wanted the award.
I dont consider the Met Mile a sprint.

Originally Posted by Gander

Speightstown had a better record at the true sprint distance of 6F. He was very consistent all year and at times brilliant.
He also won far and away the most important sprint race of the year, the BC sprint. I have no problem with Speighstown getting the nod. The connections could have run in the BC if they really wanted the award.
I dont consider the Met Mile a sprint.

Thats complete nonsense. Pico dusted him off and squashed him like a bug in the vosburgh. Pico skipped the cup because it woulda cost them a ton to supplement him.
he as absolutely incredible that year winning the Vosburgh, Carter, met Mile and I believe the San Carlos. Ridiculous!!!!! And I screamed bloody murder about it at the time. The BC doesnt equal a whole year.

[Gander]

Welcome back Merasq, its good to see you posting again. We need more people that want to talk about the races themself, rather than polycrap and stallion options.