Should JCGC return to 16F ?
 

Because of the BC initiative for a "marathon" division this is the perfect year to return the Jockey Club Gold Cup to 16F, as it used to be. I surmise this move could very well place the JCGC back to elite status. Group Plan was the last to win at that distance, 1975 in 3:23.20. Trained by The Chief.

Among many notables to win the JCGC at that distance, 1921 - 1975, was Kelso, winning a mind boggling 5 in a row from 1960-1964. He set the race record in 1964 at 3:19.20... Forego won in 1974 in 3:21.20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jockey_Club_Gold_Cup

how about 24 furlongs?

OOOOOOOOO

I honestly don't care what distance the race is run at, but the suggestion that the people in charge of a race with the history and importance of the JCGC should do ANYTHING differently just because the Breeders' Cup added some stupid new 12f race is completely insane and demonstrates the heart of the entire problem.
This sport SHOULD NOT revolve around this stupid day....or two days....or a month and half....or however long they decide to make this hideous event.

Zero interest watching a race that last for almost 3 1/2 minutes. If Im losing, I want it to be quick and painless.

I'd like to see it at 1 1/2 miles.

I did some searching, but cannot find any of the news reports regarding the announcement when they shortened it up. Pre-internet :D

I thought the reasoning was due "realities of the American racing game" at the time. Anybody else out there recall why it was shortened?

Think if they ran a 16 furlong race over the surface used in the last Del Mar meet. The race would take ten minutes and the smart jocks would have their horses literally walking the first mile.

A new standard for idiotic posting has been set.

Of course, Sumitas in all likelihood was just eclipsing a previous record of his.

Never. You rule, you old wind bag.

That's like asking if you should stop making stupid threads.

This is hilarious, Kev... :D

Thanks Andrew....right to the point, right to the heart of the matter...I'm serious when I say your way with words makes me lol...

The problem with that is that the people in charge of the race already have done something different with the race a few times. It was a 16f race. They dropped it to 12f. It was a 12f race and they dropped it to 10f. While I can't say with absolute certainty that the drop to 10f was in order to make it a better prep for the BC, I'm sure that played a part in it. So I would have to say that it's not too insane to suggest that they do anything because of the BC when they've shown already that they will.

Except that the answers to the two questions are obviously different.

Negatory. I find his threads highly entertaining.

They don't need a longer race at all. If you want to run those, send them off to Europe because the current landscape of American thoroughbred racing means a race of that length has no importance. The industry is driven by breeding and there is no demand for a marathon winner. I've been saying for years that the Belmont is the most irrelevant G1 we have unless someone is going for the Triple Crown. In year's with no TC bid, I can do without.

Why not get Rolex to sponser the 24 hours of Churchill ? The Jockeys could keep changing after every 1 hour.:rolleyes:

Two things that should be quick and painless:

* Losing

* Bad sex