The Real Championship Meet
 

The real racing begins this weekend at Keenland vs. that 4 to 6 horse stakes field nonsense that Belmont has been putting out. Amazing that the horsemen don't support that stakes program more. I haven't been listening to the show this week but hopefully that meet gets the attention it deserves.

The title of your post may be an understatement. Talk about a 'super saturday.' It's good to see a female route race draw a full field of 13 as the Spinster did on Sunday. I can't remember the last NY race in that division that even approached double digits. After unbettable racing last weekend finally some cards to dig into. And the bc isn't even on synthetic. Excited to hear handicapping thoughts on ATR on Friday for these races.

I don't have time right now, so maybe someone else can lay out the recent champions and BC winners emerging from Keeneland and Belmont fall sessions as part of a more elaborate response. It is safe to say however that while the Keeneland meet is fun to bet thanks to the frequent chaotic results, the 'main track' races have been rendered largely pointless as 'champion launching' timber since the move to the polytrack. See the Spinster winners for a quick handle on that. The turf stakes and their winners certainly command appreciation moving forward towards year end awards and BC, but spare us Keeneland's main track racing these days as much more than a sideshow.

And yes, the Keeneland meet will be well covered on ATR..

It really comes down to whether you want to see inscrutable betting races or you want to see the stars of the sport (such as they are) run.

While the races at Belmont last Saturday produced lots of short prices, you got to see some of the best horses in training run. The likely top three betting choices in the Breeder's Cup Classic all ran at Belmont last Saturday.

There may well be higher prices at this week at Keeneland but it would be hard to argue that the quality of the races is better.

Paul

Well said as usual Steve. Keeneland Synthetic races are a real crap shoot.

What I find interesting is the title of your thread. There is absolutely no argument with any assertion that, in terms of finding bigger payoffs, these Stakes at Keeneland dwarf the ones run at Belmont last weekend. This is a given. But, in terms of Championship caliber, Keeneland isn't even in the discussion, for the most part, with their races this weekend, while Belmont was a virtual parade of stars. The reason for this is obvious, the surface at Keeneland makes the races a crapshoot, and thus creates a great evening out factor for the horses, and smartly their connections are trying to earn an otherwise unattainable Grade 1. Take today's Alcibaides and compare it to tomorrow's Frizette. Obviously the Alcibiades presents a more appealing puzzle with virtually guaranteed superior payoffs/rewards. However, what it also presents is a field of much lower quality, as there are two horses, at least, in the Frizette that, forgetting about surface, would be dramatic favorites over anyone running in the Alcibiades. In fact, the connections And Why Not even changed their Frizette plans, in order to run in the much larger field at Keeneland, and surely this was because, bigger or not, the field presented far easier mountains to climb.

I reviewed your brief posting history, and was somewhat surprised to find your few posts thoughtful and knowledgable. I also came upon this post of yours....



Assuming we accept this as truth, and while I somewhat disagree, I wouldn't argue there are surely merits to your points, my question to you is why you don't hold the Keeneland Stakes races under the same microscope. Surely you must recognize that, in terms of talent, few ( if any ) Keeneland Stakes run on polytrack continue to deserve the same Gradings they were given when these races were run on dirt? This is not to say they aren't entertaining and, possibly, great betting races...but are many of these races that deserve Grade 1 ratings...especially as representatives of the dirt division?

But, you called them " the real championship " races. Surely, given the quality of your posting history, you realize this is frequently the opposite of the truth.

Given Steve's attachment to NYRA and frequent slant that way, I guess that's the expected response I should have figured on getting. I suppose that's also the reason the post thread had to be moved to the back room. The point about the BC is fair and we'll see how it plays out in 4 weeks.

I can't argue that several favorites for BC races ran last weekend at New York. What I'm interested in is playing full fields and having fun with the hobby. New York's been running their cards with 50% maidens for months now- even at Saratoga on weekends. Again, fair point on the top dirt horses but I doubt there are many (if any) who follow the sport as weekend bettors who were excited to see those stakes race draws last week. Seriously, when you perused the entries on the internet last Wednesday for "Super Saturday", were you excited about playing those races?

I would also think that these types of disappointments are contributing to nearly every facet of the sport continuing to decline. There are too many graded races out there and I believe there are a bunch of downgrades needed. But why downgrade the ones that draw big, competitive fields over the 4 or 5 horse fields we've seen in New York that have 1 or 2 decent horses in each of them. Flower Bowl had 1 top horse. Vosburgh was a good race but I don't think Giant Ryan's a champion horse. Beldame, 2 good horses. Kelso, 2 good horses. Jockey Club Gold Cup, 2 good horses. Turf Classic, 1 top horse.

For my money, Keenland's opening weekend is a welcome passtime, albeit a brief interruption to the watered down racing in most of the country.

Races are graded due to the QUALITY of the participants and not the QUANTITY.

The title of your thread shows your agenda....not Steve's. To continue to post in this matter only devalues your contributions.

For what it's worth, not that you even deserve to be corrected, there were 3 Grade 1 winners in the Kelso and 2 in the Joe Hirsch Turf Classic....but I guess you failed to notice last year's winner.

Your bias is duly noted.

Dude, Keeneland is a travesty, and I do not know a single racing fan personally who looks forward to their races anymore.

And don't be thinking I'm a NYRA fan boy. Whatever it's faults (there are more than enough), I'll take their racing over KEE any day.

Huh? Moved to the back room? The Paddock is the 'front room', where topics are assured greatest exposure and potential for discussion. You were looking for a discussion, correct? Or was it just a cheap shot directed at NYRA seeking to get a rise out of me and/or Andy?

and has been almost since day #1 of TVG.

There are a whole host of "Win and You're In" races that are an embarrassment. That the Alcibiades is designated a "Win and You're In" race for the Juvenile Fillies isn't Keeneland's fault; it's the Breeders' Cup's fault.

I agree that, from a wagering standpoint, the Super Saturday cards that NYRA has put on during the past few years have been disappointing. They have become days where "the sport" is emphasized. I also agree that there are too many graded races and that a bunch of downgrades are in order, but the answer is not downgrading the Grade I races that NYRA runs. With so many choices out there, when the division leaders show up in New York, as they invariably do year after year, the "second tier" horses go elsewhere. (That's not to say that I agree with every move NYRA makes. I was not a fan of moving the Tempted and Nashua, which both produced short fields of questionable quality; at a time where there is a dearth of top horses, I'm not a fan of running the Kelso at a mile on dirt the same weekend you are running the Vosburgh and Jockey Club Gold Cup.)

The Alcibiades and Breeders Futurity were two races that never deserved Grade I status and the switch to Polytrack has only made those grades more questionable. And I say this all as someone who makes a trip to Keeneland each year and generally enjoys the racing that they produce.

'the real championship meet' 'the real racing'.

i adamantly disagree. i'll take a smaller field at belmont over a larger field on a synthetic surface any day of the week. keeneland has become a no mans land when it comes to championships being decided. this post has nothing to do with the betting side of things, which is what you purport your point to be about.
the meet will get as much attention as it deserves, which really isn't much. they'd be best off returning to dirt and allowing runners who belong in championship discussions a chance to run at a historic venue. otherwise you'll continue to get glorified turfers and horses who can't otherwise garner black type a chance at doing so. if your beef is with grading of races, i'm surprised keeneland isn't one whose bones you wish to pick.

as for belmont, if betting was so easy, you'd think multi race wagers would be a slam dunk. were they?

Not looking to take a cheap shot to get a rise out of anybody in response to Steve and for the record my first priority from a betting standpoint has always been New York tracks since I started in the early 90's. I'm not anti NYRA biased as accused in another post either but am frustrated by their product. My sole bias is towards competitive racing with QUALITY betting options. While a BC winner may not be running in the Keenland stakes, they are competitive and highly bettable. And it isn't just the poly/dirt racing. Their turf stakes are superior also.

And sorry, I just don't see how you can sell those races last week or other maiden drenched cards as good, high quality racing. It's been getting worse in recent meets. Not sure why it's so difficult to admit that. That's not a jab, just a fact and I want it to get better.

A lot of good points made by 'parsix' First off, why run the Kelso and the Vosburgh on the same day when they draw the same horses. Second, why move two year old stakes to the week before you run the 'premier' two year old stakes of the fall. It dilutes all fields involved. Saratoga does the same thing with their Friday / Saturday stakes carded on the same conditions. Combined with the 50% maiden cardings with many firsters or state breds there is not much to enjoy from a betting perspective.

If you want to bet on 2-5's and 4-5's and tell your friends that you had ten bucks on Harve De Grace then that's a different type of player than where many would align themselves on this form i'd think. And if you want to crown champions (ie Zenyatta) for running on their home tracks against inferior fields then that's on those who decide. To me a win by Gio Ponti against that Shadwell Mile field is 10x more impressive than Harve De Grace because he had to beat 7 quality horses not one overmatched 3yo. And that's the shortest field of any of their stakes.

I'm not sure how anyone could wrip keeneland from a betting perspective. In terms of easy slam dunk handicapping I'm pretty sure that is what a 250 dollar pk4 across the 4 stakes at Belmont on Saturday says to me. Today there are some nice opportunities in that Jamaica field but last Saturday was unbettable on a race by race basis save pounding low priced favorites, I'm not sure how that could be argued.

People have responded to you and you've managed to ignore pretty much all of their responses. Not sure why, but it's tough to discuss things like that. Not attacking (because I can see where this is going to end up) but you've expressed opinions, people have responded and your responses are basically you reiterating the same thing.

Since you want it to get better, what should they be doing that they aren't currently? I realize that is a loaded question, but I assume you have some ideas, and I'd like to hear them.

The Beldame was a two horse race because the Cotillion at Parx is worth twice as much (ridiculous) and is run the same day. Wouldn't the Beldame have looked a lot different with It's Tricky and Plum Pretty? What is NYRA supposed to do in that instance?

I actually enjoy the Keeneland meets, from a wagering standpoint, but it's important to note these large fields we see are because connections are more apt to take a shot on that surface than they are on dirt. Not sure why, but I expect this to change (not overnight) in the next few years with the slots up and running at NYRA.

To answer your question, yes I was excited last Wednesday to bet Saturday's Belmont card. The weather was a big damper.

tracks have to card for the horses that are available to race. the current circumstances in racing will dictate the card-you are wasting your time if you try to create races for which no one can/will enter.
racing is suffering right now, just like so many other areas because of the economy. and you constantly see these days where stables that were prominent for years are dispersing their stock. then there's the fact that other states near new york have means at their disposal to boost purses-we all know the current state in pa vs ny and md.
i recorded super saturday-keeneland won't be on my dvr schedule. full fields are one thing, meaningful racing is another. poly in my opinion is a complete crap shoot and means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

No one is saying betting on Havre De Grace last weekend was fun and I can't imagine anyone in this thread did. But when there are so many options for connections to duck and dodge, for big, big money, what are racing organizations supposed to do?

Last Saturday was ruined because of the weather. Not really fair to compare it. And while my Saratoga meet was one of the worst ever, there were plenty of wagering opportunities everyday.