Graded Earnings: Is there an alternative?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by whodey17

He has raced in 5 Graded events. He has won 1, two 3rds 6th and 7th. So he has been in the battles. Not saying he is better than Tiago, saying that looking at the entire body of work his is better in my opinion.

So you want to let any 2yo that ran well into the Derby even if he is running terrible as a 3yo rather than a horse that wins a major race as a 3yo? That is idiocy. Should we let Funny Cide in the BC Classic because his lifetime body of work is better than most horses out there?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by whodey17

There are tons of examples where a horse got lucky and won a Grade I event. Again, one race doesnt make a horse.

No one is saying it made the horse. They are just saying that it earned him one of the 20 spots in the Derby and he is much more deserving than Xchanger or Chelokee.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by whodey17

There are tons of examples where a horse got lucky and won a Grade I event. Again, one race doesnt make a horse.

Well it's not like they went absolutely nuts up front in the SA Derby either. I know you're all by yourself on this one, so I'm being diplomatic, but Tiago belongs there as much as any horse outside of the big names, and certainly rates a better chance than many that will go.

[hockey2315]

Look at it this way. . .

You say Sam P. is more deserving than Tiago so I'll compare those two because they make for a good comparison. . .

Sam P. has run in four graded stakes and hasn't won. . .

Tiago has run in two graded stakes and won a G1. . .

Sam P. has had four chances to prove himself as a stakes winner and has essentially failed. . .

Tiago hasn't necessarily proven himself off of one big effort, but he has atleast earned the chance to try and show that the SA Derby wasn't a fluke.

That's more than you can say for Sam P. (not that I don't think he belongs in the derby, just that Tiago deserves it more). . .

[blackthroatedwind]

One thing is for sure, there is no plan that would be put in place to qualify horses for the Derby that would NOT include eligibility for the winner of any of the big final prep races. That's a certainty.

[whodey17]

Think of it this way......you could have a horse race just once in one of the big three preps and that horse is in with just one race. My point is that this philosophy is bad for racing. I know that it is highly unlikely, but it is a possibility. Why on earth would we support a system that possibly encourages horses to race less often. This isnt about Tiago or any other horse. It is about the system we have in place to decide who runs in arguably the most important race in the world. I fear that the trend would be once you have the graded money to sit out until the 1st Saturday in May. Quay is sitting out 8 weeks, Scat Daddy is 6 (I believe), SS and Great Hunter only had 2 Preps. This is not a trend that I like.

[hockey2315]

Scat Daddy will have 5 weeks in between. . .

This is a problem with the status of the breed in my opinion. . .

Horses have become more unsound as we all know. . .

I highly doubt Pletcher views the 8 week lay-off for CQ as ideal. . . Horses aren't running because they're hurt/tired, not because of graded earnings. ..

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by whodey17

Imagine if that maiden who ran in the Arkansas Derby won, then he would be in. How is that logical.

I would say yes, if a horse actually won a G2, 9f race in his debut, he would probably deserve a shot to run in the Kentucky Derby. That is not exactly an easy thing to do.
To me, the problem with your argument is that these 9f graded stakes races run between 3 and 5 weeks before the Kentucky Derby are the races that provide the best indications of who really belongs in the Derby. Are there occasionally "fluke" winners of these races that don't actually have a good chance of winning the Kentucky Derby? Sure, but any system that would deny the winners of any of those races a shot, is terribly flawed.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I would say yes, if a horse actually won a G2, 9f race in his debut, he would probably deserve a shot to run in the Kentucky Derby. That is not exactly an easy thing to do.
To me, the problem with your argument is that these 9f graded stakes races run between 3 and 5 weeks before the Kentucky Derby are the races that provide the best indications of who really belongs in the Derby. Are there occasionally "fluke" winners of these races that don't actually have a good chance of winning the Kentucky Derby? Sure, but any system that would deny the winners of any of those races a shot, is terribly flawed.

What if one of those races was full of maidens. Does the winner still deserve to go. Why is the Wood, Bluegrass, Arkansas and Santa Anita the beginning and end on who goes to the Derby? The winner of each of those races still could go to the Derby. However, they must have other Graded races as well.

I do agree with your post about the breed. However, that can be changed if racing demands it by setting forth qualifications that make sense in order to race for the biggest prizes.

[blackthroatedwind]

The biggest problem, as I see it, with the author of this threads "argument " is that he has not offered a reasonable alternative. Instead he came up with a very questionable list ( Sightseeing? ) of who he thought was more deserving. Luckily at least the current system does not include subjective decision making.

It isn't a perfect system, but it is fair in that it allows horses a chance to prove their way in by earnings, and as has been pointed out VERY few deserving horses have been excluded and those that have possibly been excluded were because they failed to win at least one necessary race.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The biggest problem, as I see it, with the author of this threads "argument " is that he has not offered a reasonable alternative. Instead he came up with a very questionable list ( Sightseeing? ) of who he thought was more deserving. Luckily at least the current system does not include subjective decision making.

It isn't a perfect system, but it is fair in that it allows horses a chance to prove their way in by earnings, and as has been pointed out VERY few deserving horses have been excluded and those that have possibly been excluded were because they failed to win at least one necessary race.

I believed I offered a reasonable aternative in the original post. Please, enlighten me as to why a pts system like I proposed would not work?

[whodey17]

I just picked some horses from this year 3 year old crop and applied my pts system. Again, this would change if my pts system was in place. Anyway...

Scat Daddy - 70
Circular Quay - 60
Stormello - 57
No Biz - 52
Street Sense - 48
Cowtown Cat - 32
Teuf - 27
Curlin - 22
Storm In May - 22
Sightseeing - 21
Tiago - 16

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by whodey17

I just picked some horses from this year 3 year old crop and applied my pts system. Again, this would change if my pts system was in place. Anyway...

Scat Daddy - 70
Circular Quay - 60
Stormello - 57
No Biz - 52
Street Sense - 48
Cowtown Cat - 32
Teuf - 27
Curlin - 22
Storm In May - 22
Sightseeing - 21
Tiago - 16

Clearly no system is perfect, but your system treats, for example, winning the G2 Hutcheson and the G2 Arkansas Derby as equals. That to me, just doesn't make sense. A horse that wins a 9f G2 in April deserves more "credit" than a horse that wins a 7.5 furlong race in March. Under the current system that horse gets that "credit" because the Arkansas Derby is a million dollar race while the Hutcheson is a $150,000 race. I think the current system works better than the system you propose because the 9f April preps - the ones which are probably the best indicators of who "belongs" in the Derby because of the distance and timing of the races - also happen to be the 3yo races with the largest purses.
Your system seems to treat the Kentucky Derby as a 3yo Hall of Fame, and that getting into the race should be some sort of lifetime achievement award for consistent performance. Admirable sentiment to be sure, but I would rather see horses that have the best chance of actually winnng the race included. I think the current system ensures that to a higher degree than your points system.

[Linny]

With rare exception, I think that the right horses generally get in. It is no one's responsibilty but the trainer's to assure enough earnings.

That said, how about a point system for graded earnings with 3yo races being worth 1.5 x any 2yo earnings and sprints being valued at 1/2 those of routes.
The concern I see with my own idea is that races like the Derby require some of those "sprinter-miler" types for the benefit of the pace. Teurflesberg keeps coming up on this thread and while I like the colt, I think he has no shot in the Derby. Why do I still think he should run? If the owners want to and he's eligible, he should run. We need him for some pace and his connections have done what is required to get there. If he "keeps out" a horse that someone deems "more worthy," the fault is with the excluded horse's connections for not getting him there. Either the horse was not good enough to get the $$$ or they tried to use 1 graded race and had back luck or something.

Part of the appeal of the Derby is that anything can happen. Most people would have said Giacomo shouldn't have even been in the gate, yet he won. As for "flukey" races, you cannot make any judgement about whether a race was a fluke until horses start to run back. Charismatic was considered a fluke until he won the Preakness. War Emblem was a fluke until he followed up with the Preakness and Haskell.

[SniperSB23]

I've posted this before but I think it is relevant here. I think this system would work very well, it may need a little tweaking but overall it would be just fine. It does benefit you to run in a lot of races but at the same time would make sure the best horses get in with a good finish in a major prep:

Race - Points
4/30 THE SNOW CHIEF (HOLLYWOOD PARK) 5-3-1
4/29 WITHERS STAKES (AQUEDUCT PARK) 5-3-1
4/29 UNBRIDLED STAKES (CALDER RACE COURSE) 3-2-1
4/29 DERBY TRIAL (CHURCHILL DOWNS) 5-3-1
4/22 FEDERICO TESIO STAKES (PIMLICO RACE COURSE) 5-3-1
4/22 COOLMORE LEXINGTON STAKES (KEENELAND) 10-8-6-4-2
4/15 TOYOTA BLUE GRASS STAKES (KEENELAND) 20-16-12-8-4
4/15 THE NORTHERN SPUR BREEDERS' CUP STAKES (OAKLAWN PARK) 3-2-1
4/15 ARKANSAS DERBY (OAKLAWN PARK) 20-16-12-8-4
4/9 LAFAYETTE STAKES (KEENELAND) 3-2-1
4/8 WOOD MEMORIAL (AQUEDUCT PARK) 20-16-12-8-4
4/8 SANTA ANITA DERBY (SANTA ANITA PARK) 20-16-12-8-4
4/8 ILLINOIS DERBY (HAWTHORNE RACE COURSE) 10-8-6-4-2
4/8 BAY SHORE STAKES (AQUEDUCT PARK) 3-2-1
4/1 WINSTAR DERBY (SUNLAND PARK) 5-3-1
4/1 FLORIDA DERBY (GULFSTREAM PARK) 20-16-12-8-4
3/25 RUSHAWAY STAKES (TURFWAY PARK) 5-3-1
3/25 LANE'S END STAKES (TURFWAY PARK) 10-8-6-4-2
3/18 THE TAMPA BAY DERBY (TAMPA BAY DOWNS) 10-8-6-4-2
3/18 THE SAN FELIPE (SANTA ANITA PARK) 10-8-6-4-2
3/18 THE REBEL STAKES (OAKLAWN PARK) 10-8-6-4-2
3/18 GOTHAM (AQUEDUCT PARK) 10-8-6-4-2
3/11 CALIFORNIA DERBY (GOLDEN GATE FIELDS) 7-5-3-1
3/4 SWALE STAKES (GULFSTREAM PARK) 3-2-1
3/4 SANTA CATALINA STAKES (SANTA ANITA PARK) 10-8-6-4-2
3/4 JOHN BATTAGLIA MEMORIAL STAKES (TURFWAY PARK) 5-3-1
3/4 FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH STAKES (GULFSTREAM PARK) 10-8-6-4-2
2/26 BORDERLAND DERBY (SUNLAND PARK) 5-3-1
2/25 THE SOUTHWEST STAKES (OAKLAWN PARK) 7-5-3-1
2/18 THE SAM F. DAVIS STAKES (TAMPA BAY DOWNS) 7-5-3-1
2/12 SAN VICENTE STAKES (SANTA ANITA PARK) 7-5-3-1
2/4 SHAM STAKES (SANTA ANITA PARK) 7-5-3-1
2/4 HUTCHESON STAKES (GULFSTREAM PARK) 3-2-1
2/4 HOLY BULL STAKES (GULFSTREAM PARK) 7-5-3-1
1/29 EL CAMINO REAL DERBY (BAY MEADOWS) 5-3-1
1/21 CRESCENT CITY DERBY (FAIR GROUNDS AT LOUISIANA DOWNS) 3-2-1
1/14 SAN RAFAEL STAKES (SANTA ANITA PARK) 5-3-1
1/14 RISEN STAR STAKES (FAIR GROUNDS AT LOUISIANA DOWNS) 5-3-1
1/7 AVENTURA STAKES (GULFSTREAM PARK) 5-3-1
12/9 DELTA JACKPOT (DELTA DOWNS) 5-3-1
11/25 REMSEN STAKES (AQUEDUCT PARK) 5-3-1
11/25 KENTUCKY JOCKEY CLUB (CHURCHILL DOWNS) 5-3-1
11/4 BREEDERS' CUP JUVENILE (CHURCHILL DOWNS) 10-8-6-4-2
11/3 NASHUA STAKES (AQUEDUCT PARK) 5-3-1
10/29 IROQUOIS STAKES (CHURCHILL DOWNS) 5-3-1
10/8 NORFOLK BREEDERS' CUP STAKES (OAK TREE AT SANTA ANITA) 7-5-3-1
10/7 LANE'S END BREEDERS' FUTURITY (KEENELAND) 7-5-3-1
10/14 CHAMPAGNE STAKES (BELMONT PARK) 7-5-3-1
9/30 KENTUCKY CUP JUVENILE STAKES (TURFWAY PARK) 5-3-1
9/23 FUTURITY STAKES (BELMONT PARK) 5-3-1
9/10 ARLINGTON-WASHINGTON BREEDERS' CUP FUTURITY (ARLINGTON PARK) 5-3-1
9/6 DEL MAR FUTURITY (DEL MAR) 7-5-3-1
9/4 SAPLING STAKES (MONMOUTH PARK) 3-2-1
9/4 LAFAYETTE STAKES (EVANGELINE DOWNS) 3-2-1
9/4 I'M SMOKIN STAKES (DEL MAR) 3-2-1
9/4 HOPEFUL (SARATOGA RACE COURSE) 7-5-3-1
8/17 SARATOGA SPECIAL BREEDERS' CUP STAKES (SARATOGA RACE COURSE) 5-3-1
8/13 BEST PAL STAKES (DEL MAR) 5-3-1
7/27 SANFORD STAKES (SARATOGA RACE COURSE) 5-3-1
7/8 BASHFORD MANOR STAKES (CHURCHILL DOWNS) 3-2-1
7/4 TREMONT (BELMONT PARK) 3-2-1
7/4 HOLLYWOOD JUVENILE CHAMPIONSHIP (HOLLYWOOD PARK) 3-2-1
5/4 KENTUCKY BREEDERS' CUP (CHURCHILL DOWNS) 3-2-1

[whodey17]

I like that Sniper. I really think we should value the horses who race as well as trying to find a way to include the late bloomers. I think we could come up with a better way of doing this than relying soley on Graded Earnings.

Originally Posted by whodey17

Think of it this way......you could have a horse race just once in one of the big three preps and that horse is in with just one race. My point is that this philosophy is bad for racing....Why on earth would we support a system that possibly encourages horses to race less often.

DOes it really encourage horses to race less often? It could equally be argued that it will encourage more horses to race, since those horses that haven race early in the season or have had poor results early on would be DISCOURAGED to try once more.

You have dug in your heels on this, but I am not sure it is as certain as you are making it out to be. I see your logic vis a vis the problem, but disagree w/ the conclusions you draw here.

Why not weight the earnings: 100% for GIII and GII; 60% for GI and 30% for ungraded stakes?

The only aberration in this years field that I see is BirdBird getting $600,000 for that Boyds Delta River Jackpot whatever. Not a good field, run at a slow time of year, etc.

[hi_im_god]

why not graded stakes earnings? it's uncomplicated and everyone knows the rules going in.

the only arguement i can see against this system is someone might occasionally get a burr under their saddle about the perfectly servicable winner of a grade 1 race making the starting gate and knocking out a less qualified horse.

the graded stakes system works. you are twisting yourself into a pretzle trying to fix a nonexistent problem.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

why not graded stakes earnings? it's uncomplicated and everyone knows the rules going in.

the only arguement i can see against this system is someone might occasionally get a burr under their saddle about the perfectly servicable winner of a grade 1 race making the starting gate and knocking out a less qualified horse.

the graded stakes system works. you are twisting yourself into a pretzle trying to fix a nonexistent problem.

This year it has worked quite well. Keep in mind though that Birdbirdistheword, Pirates Deputy, and Xchanger could all be entering that starting gate if they wanted to. Jack Junior would have a guaranteed spot if he wanted it. Once the BC Turf Juvenile gets graded status the top two or three horses would be able to get in. Take away a Notional injury, throw in the horses I mentioned above, point a Sightseeing to the Derby and suddenly we'd be looking at a scenario where Any Given Saturday doesn't get in.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

This year it has worked quite well. Keep in mind though that Birdbirdistheword, Pirates Deputy, and Xchanger could all be entering that starting gate if they wanted to. Jack Junior would have a guaranteed spot if he wanted it. Once the BC Turf Juvenile gets graded status the top two or three horses would be able to get in. Take away a Notional injury, throw in the horses I mentioned above, point a Sightseeing to the Derby and suddenly we'd be looking at a scenario where Any Given Saturday doesn't get in.

does a rube goldberg points system or weighting stakes races solve this? or does it just create a more complicated less understandable system?

i think it's great that people put thought into solving a difficult problem with innovative solutions and usually hate the a-holes that shoot down every suggestion with "that won't work". but you have to have an actual problem first.

there is no problem. everyone understands how this works. some years people responsible for choosing where a horse runs make a puzzling choice and the horse doesn't get in the gate. that will still be the case in any of the proposed "solutions". only everyone who doesn't pay close attention to boards like this will have no idea what is going on.

"he has more stakes $ but some of it is reduced because we only apply 60% for a grade 2" or "he got less points for winning his $1 million stakes at 2 than a horse that finished 3rd in a 750,000 stakes at 3".

simple is good. tiago deserves a spot because his connections were smart enough to run him where they did. anyone who misses the gate should have thought about running at santa anita the first week of april.

no one has to learn calculus to understand that.