If you called the shots on Rags to Riches.......

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Well, the mentality amongst many trainers and owners nowadays is that the BC is the only important event of the year (aside from the Triple Crown). That's why statements like "we'll give him one or two more starts before the Breeder's Cup" can be heard in post-race interviews as early as March. The drive towards a single race late in the year has led to conservative handling to the detriment of the middle of the year and its once prestigious races.

The claim that the BC Classic merely replaces the JCGC as the final top race of the year, is a bit inaccurate. The BC Classic replaces all the fall championship races at Belmont (not to mention other important late season races across the country). The same group of horses used to run in the Whitney-Woodward-Marlboro Cup-JCGC series year in and year out. All of those races have been castrated in terms of distance, field consistency, and field quality. One has outright been eliminated. Analogous situations are apparent in other divisions and at other tracks as well.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather watch these top horses slug it out over the course of a few months and several races to decide who the best horse is as opposed to a single race. Of course, if you're content with Wild Again, Skywalker, Volponi, and Arcangues being BC Classic winners it will be hard to sway your opinion.

I understand your point, but the bottom line is that owners nowadays are so petrified of losing with their good horses that there would never be a situation in which the "top horses slug it out over the course of a few months," BC or no BC. What the BC does is ENSURE that everyone has to face everyone else eventually, if only for one day, and that's a positive, not a negative. You really think that without the BC, we'd see the top older males facing each other over and over in each Grade I all year long? I don't. I think we'd see the top five or six horses constantly ducking each other in order to get the easiest G-I wins available. The BC says "hey, if you want the ultimate accolades, you've gotta face everyone eventually," and if that relegates the JCGC to a prep race, so be it. That's not ruining racing, it's improving it.

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I understand your point, but the bottom line is that owners nowadays are so petrified of losing with their good horses that there would never be a situation in which the "top horses slug it out over the course of a few months," BC or no BC. What the BC does is ENSURE that everyone has to face everyone else eventually, if only for one day, and that's a positive, not a negative. You really think that without the BC, we'd see the top older males facing each other over and over in each Grade I all year long? I don't. I think we'd see the top five or six horses constantly ducking each other in order to get the easiest G-I wins available. The BC says "hey, if you want the ultimate accolades, you've gotta face everyone eventually," and if that relegates the JCGC to a prep race, so be it. That's not ruining racing, it's improving it.

Another reason why they're ducking is, in part, due to the purses on most of the major races not going up. I honestly believe if that tracks would double their purses of their major stakes that we would see an increase in the quality of the horses in them, and not these grade 1's that are pretty much glorified grade 3's.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

What the BC does is ENSURE that everyone has to face everyone else eventually, if only for one day, and that's a positive, not a negative. You really think that without the BC, we'd see the top older males facing each other over and over in each Grade I all year long? I don't. I think we'd see the top five or six horses constantly ducking each other in order to get the easiest G-I wins available. The BC says "hey, if you want the ultimate accolades, you've gotta face everyone eventually," and if that relegates the JCGC to a prep race, so be it. That's not ruining racing, it's improving it.

I think your perspective is valid, but at the same time, its quite possible that the reason why owners are petrified to run their horses is because they want to keep them in one piece so they can make the BC. In that way, the BC would be found to be detrimental. Certainly before '84 there was no problem in getting good horses together for more than one race. Obviously, other factors are involved, such as the creation of numerous alternatives to traditional top races and the purse-bolstering of second tier races, which allow the connections to duck each other. And probably more important, the desire to tailor a racehorse's career with the breeding shed, not the trophy case, in mind (which often dictates a minimum of overall starts so as to maintain peak popularity).

Still, for all its good intentions, BC day itself is starting to get a bit out of hand, trying to get instant credibility for all these forced new races. The ironic part being that whereas the BC has tended to dilute the quality of the rest of the season's important races (because top horses duck each other or skip important starts to await BC day), these new races might end up doing the same to the regular BC races. Its quite possible that the Dirt Mile will hurt both the Sprint and Classic, the Female Sprint will weaken the Sprint, and the Juvenile Turf will draw foreign interest away from the dirt Juvenile.

As far as getting good horses together on a regular basis, I think the ACRS was a better idea, being more flexible to a horse's campaign where things like current form and race setup (distance, track, etc.) would play into where a horse winds up from start to start. Some very good horses are toast by BC day and end up just embarrassing themselves (eg Gentlemen), but are nonetheless pushed to the race because somehow there year is incomplete without a start there.