Derby Trail Next Start-Likely/Possible

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Based on recent comments from Churchill officials (especially after Eight Belles), it is highly unlikely that Churchill is going to reduce the field size, as they love the image of a "stampede" of horses coming through the stretch the first quarter mile. Even if they were inclined to consider such a change, I just don't know that reducing field size is necessarily going to "clean up" the running of the race. If my memory serves me, the 1994 Derby had a pretty rough run into the clubhouse turn, and it had "only" 14 horses. On an every day basis, we see rough race-riding in five and six horse fields.

If you take six slots from the starting gate, it would only make the "qualification" system mean more. As it currently stands, in most years, the horses that have been excluded on earnings are real longshots; by reducing the field size, you are only increasing the likelihood of controversy attendant to who gets in. That being said, as a strong believer in the law of unintended consequences, reducing the field size might have the unintended result of forcing trainers to actually campaign their horses up to the Derby. Whether that is a good or bad thing given the current state of the American thoroughbred is uncertain.

If we want to make changes, perhaps the best route would be to set specific conditions...must have 5 starts with at least two during three year old season, must have at least one of 9 furlongs (or greater), must have more than maiden win (for example). But that will never fly! The Derby is every owner's "dream race" and it's hard to deny anyone who invests in the sport his/her dream, even if their horse has no real chance.

[RolloTomasi]

The argument that Frankel and his ilk coming over to race in the Kentucky Derby would be left out because of bias against non-dirt earnings holds little water. Aside from Johannesburg and Arazi--both of whom won the f'n BC Juvenile--no top 2yo from Europe has ever run in the Kentucky Derby. Nobody in their right mind would send a horse like that over here without testing the waters first.

Why? Because despite popular mob opinion, the Kentucky Derby is simply not the most important race in the world.

On the other hand, if expendable Coolmore castoffs and ill-prepared Goldolphin goats somehow add to the appeal of the Kentucky Derby, then I guess maybe future Kent BC Stakes competitor Brilliant Speed isn't so bad after all.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

The argument that Frankel and his ilk coming over to race in the Kentucky Derby would be left out because of bias against non-dirt earnings holds little water. Aside from Johannesburg and Arazi--both of whom won the f'n BC Juvenile--no top 2yo from Europe has ever run in the Kentucky Derby. Nobody in their right mind would send a horse like that over here without testing the waters first.

Why? Because despite popular mob opinion, the Kentucky Derby is simply not the most important race in the world.

On the other hand, if expendable Coolmore castoffs and ill-prepared Goldolphin goats somehow add to the appeal of the Kentucky Derby, then I guess maybe future Kent BC Stakes competitor Brilliant Speed isn't so bad after all.

Which single race is more important?

[slotdirt]

I'm sure most Euros consider the Arc, the 3YO classics, and probably a couple others more historically significant than the Kentucky Derby.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I'm sure most Euros consider the Arc, the 3YO classics, and probably a couple others more historically significant than the Kentucky Derby.

We aren't talking strictly "historical significance" though. We aren't talking strictly "money". We are talking about "importance".

I guess it goes back to how you define "importance". I think when you factor financial interests, world wide attention and historical significance there is no single race that can compare to the Kentucky Derby.

If "important" means figuring out the best horse, then I would agree the derby certainly is overrated in that regard.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Which single race is more important?

I'm sure most British trainers of high class 3yos would say that the Derby Stakes (you know, the race the Kentucky Derby is named after) is more important to them.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

I'm sure most British trainers of high class 3yos would say that the Derby Stakes (you know, the race the Kentucky Derby is named after) is more important to them.

And most people who care about money would say the Dubai World Cup is most important to them.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

And most people who care about money would say the Dubai World Cup is most important to them.

A well bred dubai world cup winner is going to command a better stud deal than an equally well bred ky derby winner?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

If we want to make changes, perhaps the best route would be to set specific conditions...must have 5 starts with at least two during three year old season, must have at least one of 9 furlongs (or greater), must have more than maiden win (for example). But that will never fly! The Derby is every owner's "dream race" and it's hard to deny anyone who invests in the sport his/her dream, even if their horse has no real chance.

And it shouldn't. Because you just eliminated the entire $3,445 Derby Trifecta from the race in 2008.

[slotdirt]

Is the Kentucky Derby the most important dirt race in the world? Yes. Is it more important globally than a few other races, including the Arc? Probably not. There is racing, after all, outside of the good old USA.

[dalakhani]

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/...record-080201/

Kentucky derby ranks top ten in ALL events including the superbowl.

And which race is more "important"????????????