[King Glorious]

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!

The problem, IMO, with this is that it focuses too much on just the winner of the race. Denis of Cork could go on to win the TC but that wouldn't mean that the Southwest was that much of a race. Would you also then rank the allowance race that Denis won before this? You'd have to look at the accomplishments of the entire field and you might have to wait a year or two before finalizing that ranking. Smarty beat Borrego in Arkansas in 2004. It wasn't until the summer and fall of 2005 when Borrego finally broke through and took the Pacific Classic and JCGC.

I think that there has to be a grade on a race before the race. There has to be something for people to point to. Otherwise, what's to stop Street Sense from going in the Travers, Hard Spun to the WV Derby, Curlin to the Penn Derby.......and all of them making the claim that their horse is the best horse and therefore their race is the biggest race and the others are ducking them?