Five New Grade I Races in 2007; Two Others Drop to Grade II

Originally Posted by Linny

I couldn't agree more. First off lets begin with the premise that a G1=G1. This means that all G1's (within each division) is EQUAL. Now, does anyone think that the Donn H and the BC Classic are equal? Then why do they carry the same grade. Racing has changed and G1 horses are starting less and less often. As such we need fewer not more G1's. If races like the BC, the Derby etc are "better" or "more important" that races like the Donn or the Foster or the Florida Derby or the Hollywood Gold Cup, why do they carry the same grade. G1 races should be the elite races, not those who, back in the history of the game were won my G1 horses.

I love the history of the game and am saddened to see races like the Ladies Handicap run for $65k, with no grade, no fanfare. It's one of the oldest races in the US. It seems to me that it should have some honored position in the summer with all the history polished and shining every year, but it doesn't. Same for the Fall Highweight and the now dead Lawrence Realization. Sadly though, the game has changed and the best horses cherry pick spots and appear 4-5 times a year.

The problem is that the BC has disrupted and ruined just about every part of racing.
Grade one races used to be just that, grade one races. In order to earn accolades and status you had to run and compete in them.
Now the BC has overshadowed everything. races like the Fall Highweight and Lawrence no longer matter, and attendance is no longer required at early year grade ones as noone remembers them at the end of the year anyway, its all BC based.
BC is the worst thing that ever happened to racing. Its rendered most of teh year meaningless and turned a bunch of races that used to be real nice and important into 5 horse "prep" races. Extremely sad.

Originally Posted by oracle80

The problem is that the BC has disrupted and ruined just about every part of racing.
Grade one races used to be just that, grade one races. In order to earn accolades and status you had to run and compete in them.
Now the BC has overshadowed everything. races like the Fall Highweight and Lawrence no longer matter, and attendance is no longer required at early year grade ones as noone remembers them at the end of the year anyway, its all BC based.
BC is the worst thing that ever happened to racing. Its rendered most of teh year meaningless and turned a bunch of races that used to be real nice and important into 5 horse "prep" races. Extremely sad.

Amen Oracle. It has turned racing into a 6 month campaign (if that long) for some horses. Now three year olds are different since they have to "earn" their way into the Derby. I know we are speaking of the best of the best--but these horses are way makes our sport. On the Derby trail, you get real good racing from Feb to June. Then you get a little low until the fall when the three yeard olds gear up again for the big fall purses. We essentially get 7-9 months of good three year old racing. When it comes to older horses--well we get from Sept to Nov if we are lucky. The Breeders Cup intention is good, but it sure has screwed up racing for the older horses.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Amen Oracle. It has turned racing into a 6 month campaign (if that long) for some horses. Now three year olds are different since they have to "earn" their way into the Derby. I know we are speaking of the best of the best--but these horses are way makes our sport. On the Derby trail, you get real good racing from Feb to June. Then you get a little low until the fall when the three yeard olds gear up again for the big fall purses. We essentially get 7-9 months of good three year old racing. When it comes to older horses--well we get from Sept to Nov if we are lucky. The Breeders Cup intention is good, but it sure has screwed up racing for the older horses.

Then why the hell would you wanna REDUCE grade ones?!!!!
Don't you even understand that that viewpoint is counter to the one you cite here?
What we need is higher purse money in the grade ones and a movement to make racing matter all year long again like it used to.
Its horrible what the BC has done.
Tagg was on ATRAB and he was talking about Showing Up and how he planned a very light campaign next spring and summer but already falls lined up.
Now look, Tagg is doing the right thing by his horse and owners, no doubt. I'm not bashing him. But think about how sad it is that in November, Tagg is telling us that the best American grass horse who will be racing next year already has an abrreviated fall campaign mapped out.
You make the spring and summer grade one purses high enough, and guys will start saying screw it, lets just run and win some races and money.
The BC weakens racing further every year that goes by.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Then why the hell would you wanna REDUCE grade ones?!!!!
Don't you even understand that that viewpoint is counter to the one you cite here?
What we need is higher purse money in the grade ones and a movement to make racing matter all year long again like it used to.
Its horrible what the BC has done.
Tagg was on ATRAB and he was talking about Showing Up and how he planned a very light campaign next spring and summer but already falls lined up.
Now look, Tagg is doing the right thing by his horse and owners, no doubt. I'm not bashing him. But think about how sad it is that in November, Tagg is telling us that the best American grass horse who will be racing next year already has an abrreviated fall campaign mapped out.
You make the spring and summer grade one purses high enough, and guys will start saying screw it, lets just run and win some races and money.
The BC weakens racing further every year that goes by.

I agree that the Breeders Cup weakens the racing year long. However, increasing purses to Grade I's is not the answer. Reducing the number of Grade I races is the key to spur competition in these races. Then you have to take these Grade I races and spread them throughout the year. Then you will have a horse in training all year long. Most trainers like to get 2 or 3 races into their horse before the Grade I event. If you have 3 Grade I's then each trainers wants to get 2 or 3 preps, then those horses are racing anywhere from 6-9 times per year which I am fine with because it is all year long. In addition, it will increase the field for each Grade I race.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

I agree that the Breeders Cup weakens the racing year long. However, increasing purses to Grade I's is not the answer. Reducing the number of Grade I races is the key to spur competition in these races. Then you have to take these Grade I races and spread them throughout the year. Then you will have a horse in training all year long. Most trainers like to get 2 or 3 races into their horse before the Grade I event. If you have 3 Grade I's then each trainers wants to get 2 or 3 preps, then those horses are racing anywhere from 6-9 times per year which I am fine with because it is all year long. In addition, it will increase the field for each Grade I race.

No see, it wont.
What it will do is give owners even more limited opportunities to make money and send em all out of the game. All grade ones will be run as 14 horse fields with two betting interests. Coolmore/Pletcher and Goldolphin/Shadwell.
The only money in this game as it is is on the back end in the shed. You take away the chances at grade one status and you could pretty much kiss 50% of the players in the game goodbye. They might love the game and be willing to lose some cash to chase a dream, but they won't be willing to lose that much to chase a fantasy. Big difference there.
Like I said, you don't understand the business.

Originally Posted by oracle80

No see, it wont.
What it will do is give owners even more limited opportunities to make money and send em all out of the game. All grade ones will be run as 14 horse fields with two betting interests. Coolmore/Pletcher and Goldolphin/Shadwell.
The only money in this game as it is is on the back end in the shed. You take away the chances at grade one status and you could pretty much kiss 50% of the players in the game goodbye. They might love the game and be willing to lose some cash to chase a dream, but they won't be willing to lose that much to chase a fantasy. Big difference there.
Like I said, you don't understand the business.

Great, so we will have a 4 horse field with the betting interest being one horse---yeah that is totally brilliant. Plus that makes for real exciting racing. I love to see a 2/5 shot beat an overmatched field. I love it. Good idea.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Great, so we will have a 4 horse field with the betting interest being one horse---yeah that is totally brilliant. Plus that makes for real exciting racing. I love to see a 2/5 shot beat an overmatched field. I love it. Good idea.

This is what your idea would bring, not mine.
Fortunately your idea is so insane that it will never be considered for practical use.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by oracle80

The problem is that the BC has disrupted and ruined just about every part of racing.
Grade one races used to be just that, grade one races. In order to earn accolades and status you had to run and compete in them.
Now the BC has overshadowed everything. races like the Fall Highweight and Lawrence no longer matter, and attendance is no longer required at early year grade ones as noone remembers them at the end of the year anyway, its all BC based.
BC is the worst thing that ever happened to racing. Its rendered most of teh year meaningless and turned a bunch of races that used to be real nice and important into 5 horse "prep" races. Extremely sad.

Of course if there was no BC we likely wouldn't have ever seen Lava Man, Invasor, and Bernardini ever race against each other this year. Bernardini would have been retired after the JCGC and Invasor would have probably run in the Clark. Lava Man might have gone up for the $1 million turf race in Canada. About the only other difference in their schedules is that Invasor might have run in the Woodward this year.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Of course if there was no BC we likely wouldn't have ever seen Lava Man, Invasor, and Bernardini ever race against each other this year. Bernardini would have been retired after the JCGC and Invasor would have probably run in the Clark. Lava Man might have gone up for the $1 million turf race in Canada. About the only other difference in their schedules is that Invasor might have run in the Woodward this year.

You must be young, because you are wrong.
Not that long ago, a few decades ago horses ran against each other all year long. They had to in order to win titles.
They play keepaway now because they know they have the BC to settle it.
WIthout the BC, you'd see teh matchups all year. Unless you wanan explain to me that you are so smart that 85 years of history before the BC when thsi ALWAYS happened was an abberation, lol.

Originally Posted by oracle80

You must be young, because you are wrong.
Not that long ago, a few decades ago horses ran against each other all year long. They had to in order to win titles.
They play keepaway now because they know they have the BC to settle it.
WIthout the BC, you'd see teh matchups all year. Unless you wanan explain to me that you are so smart that 85 years of history before the BC when thsi ALWAYS happened was an abberation, lol.

The purse money doesnt matter - well it does but not that much. You have said plenty of times that trainers and owners want that GRADE I WIN for breeding purposes. If you have less Grade I races then you will have fewer opportunities to get that Grade I win. If you have fewer chances, then you will have larger fields. Spread those Grade I races throughout the year then you will have owners, trainers and horses competiting all year. What will increasing the purses do? The JCGC is $1mm and how manty times has there been a 12 horse field in that race?

Originally Posted by eurobounce

The purse money doesnt matter - well it does but not that much. You have said plenty of times that trainers and owners want that GRADE I WIN for breeding purposes. If you have less Grade I races then you will have fewer opportunities to get that Grade I win. If you have fewer chances, then you will have larger fields. Spread those Grade I races throughout the year then you will have owners, trainers and horses competiting all year. What will increasing the purses do? The JCGC is $1mm and how manty times has there been a 12 horse field in that race?

Stupid logic.
They used to run it with very little purse money before the BC and always had great fields.
The Bc has changed it all.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Stupid logic.
They used to run it with very little purse money before the BC and always had great fields.
The Bc has changed it all.

You didnt answer my question. When was the last time the JCGC had a 12 horse field?

Originally Posted by eurobounce

You didnt answer my question. When was the last time the JCGC had a 12 horse field?

How do I know?
It had to be quite a while ago, pre breeders cup or in the infancy stage of the BC.
I don't know if you can find charts that old or not.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

The purse money doesnt matter - well it does but not that much. You have said plenty of times that trainers and owners want that GRADE I WIN for breeding purposes. If you have less Grade I races then you will have fewer opportunities to get that Grade I win. If you have fewer chances, then you will have larger fields. Spread those Grade I races throughout the year then you will have owners, trainers and horses competiting all year. What will increasing the purses do? The JCGC is $1mm and how manty times has there been a 12 horse field in that race?

So you are saying that 3 grade one shots each year with no purse money boost is what could work?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!
Dude even the Sheikhs might quit if that happened.

Originally Posted by oracle80

So you are saying that 3 grade one shots each year with no purse money boost is what could work?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!
Dude even the Sheikhs might quit if that happened.

Heck make the three Grade I races worth $5mm each. But having 107 Grade I races is a total joke. Giving a horse a Grade I status like Wagon Limit and Seek Gold is ridiculous.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Heck make the three Grade I races worth $5mm each. But having 107 Grade I races is a total joke. Giving a horse a Grade I status like Wagon Limit and Seek Gold is ridiculous.

Seek Gold deserves Grade I status because he beat every horse in that field on THAT day. Are you saying that the Stephen Foster shouldn't be a Grade I because of one year with a fluky finish?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Heck make the three Grade I races worth $5mm each. But having 107 Grade I races is a total joke. Giving a horse a Grade I status like Wagon Limit and Seek Gold is ridiculous.

I may be bit biased but the field that Wagon Limit beat in the Gold Cup was a pretty good group especially in light of current runnings. He may not have been a great horse or sire but he certainly was grade 1 calibur that day.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by oracle80

You must be young, because you are wrong.
Not that long ago, a few decades ago horses ran against each other all year long. They had to in order to win titles.
They play keepaway now because they know they have the BC to settle it.
WIthout the BC, you'd see teh matchups all year. Unless you wanan explain to me that you are so smart that 85 years of history before the BC when thsi ALWAYS happened was an abberation, lol.

There are plenty of examples in history that I'm sure you can cite where one horse dominated on the east coast and one on the west coast and they never squared off. Assuming that Invasor really did have to skip the JCGC for medical reasons what do you think would have been different about the campaigns for Lava Man, Bernardini, and Invasor this year from how they were? I think Bernardini would have retired after the JCGC and won HOY while Lava Man would have never come east. Invasor would have run in all the top east coast races without ever squaring off against Bernardini due to the illness in the JCGC. The BC is a major problem and incentives do need to be created to get horses to campaign year round but there is some value added by it such as assuring we got to see Lava Man, Bernardini, and Invasor in the same race this year.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

There are plenty of examples in history that I'm sure you can cite where one horse dominated on the east coast and one on the west coast and they never squared off. Assuming that Invasor really did have to skip the JCGC for medical reasons what do you think would have been different about the campaigns for Lava Man, Bernardini, and Invasor this year from how they were? I think Bernardini would have retired after the JCGC and won HOY while Lava Man would have never come east. Invasor would have run in all the top east coast races without ever squaring off against Bernardini due to the illness in the JCGC. The BC is a major problem and incentives do need to be created to get horses to campaign year round but there is some value added by it such as assuring we got to see Lava Man, Bernardini, and Invasor in the same race this year.

How do you know what the campaigns would have been without the BC that all pointed for?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by oracle80

How do you know what the campaigns would have been without the BC that all pointed for?

Neither of us know so all we can do is speculate. What do you think would have been different? I think Lava Man would have stayed in California and cleaned up there and hoped Bernardini got beat in the JCGC. Bernardini would have retired right after the JCGC and neither Invasor or Lava Man would then have had a chance to beat him and take away HOY.

Like I said the BC does cause a lot of problems but the one thing that is does do is increase the likelihood that the top horses on both coasts will square off at least once. I think that is a big positive.