Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Travis Stone
I am not a particular fan of how races are graded in today's racing arena. I think there are numerous flaws. And really, grades are pointless from a racing fan and handicapping perspective. But that's a double-edged sword as owners and trainers point horses to particular races because of grades. What sounds like a slippery-slope is just a brutal system.
If I were czar, races would be graded on a "post-race" basis. And a races grade would never be set in stone. For example, this Southwest on Monday was probably a weak G3 race, however, if Denis of Cork goes on to do great things, the Southwest of '08 gradually rises in rank. I think this could add a lot of merit, excitement and more fairly represent the graded system as opposed to what we have now.
Basically, we are assigning the race a numerical quality before we know who is in it!
|
Your system would screw over top horses. If Asmussen announces that Curlin is going to the Suburban then everyone else goes to the Foster and a bunch of claimers show up for the Suburban. Now you are going to award a G1 to the winner of the Foster and not to Curlin cause he was in a weak field even though the winner of the Foster ducked him. They could deny the horse a G1 until the BC Classic just by ducking him so he never beats a quality field. Or if you think that Curlin alone makes a race a G1 then had he run in the Mineshaft you'd have to instantly upgrade that to G1 based on his presence and he could choose whatever easy races were convenient to him and win G1s in all of them. Grading them ahead of time is a good thing, in my opinion, for this reason.