2/18 (OP) Southwest Stakes

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

IMO, the only grade one races for 3yo's should be the TC races, the Haskell, the Travers, the Super Derby, the King's Bishop, and the Secretariat.

I obviously am extremely biased in this case, however, I don't think the Super Derby is quite ready to return to grade one status. Early this decade the race had a few runnings that hurt its points, but lately, we've done okay:

- Lawyer Ron (Second in '06... lots of points)
- Grasshopper (Mineshaft winner... lots of potential)

If we get a good chunk of points out of Grasshopper this year, the race is in much better shape.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

I obviously am extremely biased in this case, however, I don't think the Super Derby is quite ready to return to grade one status. Early this decade the race had a few runnings that hurt its points, but lately, we've done okay:

- Lawyer Ron (Second in '06... lots of points)
- Grasshopper (Mineshaft winner... lots of potential)

If we get a good chunk of points out of Grasshopper this year, the race is in much better shape.

If you base it on it's recent runnings, no, it shouldn't be a grade one. But I look at it in a different sense. The reason I would make it grade one is in the hopes that it can become that type of race. After the TC, it would be nice to have a set path for the 3yo's to aim to. The Haskell is the first logical big one, coming just about two months after the Belmont. The Travers is obviously next in the sequence. From the Travers to the Super Derby, the timing is perfect and also gives them enough time to be ready for the BC. If I were in charge, I'd make it a grade one and separate it from races like the Penn Derby, WV Derby, etc. I'd try to keep a clear top tier of races for the top horses instead of giving them so many equal options to chose from that it keeps them from facing each other.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

If you base it on it's recent runnings, no, it shouldn't be a grade one. But I look at it in a different sense. The reason I would make it grade one is in the hopes that it can become that type of race. After the TC, it would be nice to have a set path for the 3yo's to aim to. The Haskell is the first logical big one, coming just about two months after the Belmont. The Travers is obviously next in the sequence. From the Travers to the Super Derby, the timing is perfect and also gives them enough time to be ready for the BC. If I were in charge, I'd make it a grade one and separate it from races like the Penn Derby, WV Derby, etc. I'd try to keep a clear top tier of races for the top horses instead of giving them so many equal options to chose from that it keeps them from facing each other.

Your idea would be great for the fans as we'd have far less G1 winners going into the Triple Crown and those that suffer minor injuries during the TC are less likely to be retired without being a G1 winner. Unfortunately what would be great news for fans is terrible news for the breeders who can't stand those horses as G1 winners and we all know who holds sway with the Graded Stakes Committee.

[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!

[SniperSB23]

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.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

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.

Not true. The race rating would not go down because of bad horses, it can only go up with good horses.

If we put Secretariat and Forego in the gate with 11 $5k claimers, it would still be a grade one.

Obviously there are some kinks to be worked-out. However, you'll never convince me that giving a race a rating before having horses for it makes even remote sense. It's like saying the 2009 Super Bowl will be the greatest two teams to play in history. It's cart before the horse.

[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?

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

The problem, IMO, with this is that it focuses too much on just the winner of the race.

The other horses to hit the board, or run 4th or 5th would help the quality of the race, too. It's not just the winner.

In terms of pointing towards races...

You can just reference the past year's race, or its historical trend. For example, the Travers will likely be a grade one every year. So that works.

Let's use the Super Derby.. earlier this decade the rating might be a tad low. But with Lawyer Ron running second, and then getting all those big wins the following year, the rating would go up. Grasshopper is also helping the "rating" as well. So trainers/owners/breeders this year would say, "The Super Derby is now a high grade two versus a low grade two it was four years ago."

Races would continually update with each passing day. When Monba runs on Sunday, he might help the rating of the CashCall Futurity if he runs well.

Like I said, there are some kinks. But I think if this were hashed-out, and sadly, I have a few pages of notes on this, it could work.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

The other horses to hit the board, or run 4th or 5th would help the quality of the race, too. It's not just the winner.

In terms of pointing towards races...

You can just reference the past year's race, or its historical trend. For example, the Travers will likely be a grade one every year. So that works.

Let's use the Super Derby.. earlier this decade the rating might be a tad low. But with Lawyer Ron running second, and then getting all those big wins the following year, the rating would go up. Grasshopper is also helping the "rating" as well. So trainers/owners/breeders this year would say, "The Super Derby is now a high grade two versus a low grade two it was four years ago."

Races would continually update with each passing day. When Monba runs on Sunday, he might help the rating of the CashCall Futurity if he runs well.

Like I said, there are some kinks. But I think if this were hashed-out, and sadly, I have a few pages of notes on this, it could work.

But what do you do with the rating if Monba gets beat really bad and then Colonel John comes back to smash the Sham in his next race? We've seen Into Mischief come back and lose a couple. What about if next year Colonel John is HOY but Into Mischief is running in $50k claimers? If you say that the other horses in the race would help qualify it, that's very dangerous. Look at the Super Derby. Sure, Lawyer Ron went on to have a nice year the next year and Grasshopper appears ready to have one this year. But what about Going Ballistic, Past the Point, and Louisberg? What they do counts too and they could do more to drag the race down than Lawyer Ron and Grasshopper can do to raise it. Look at the 2004 Arkansas Derby. It appeared that Smarty had defeated a below average field at the time. It took until the summer of 2005 before Borrego started doing things. Do you wait over a year before you make the final grade of the race? Do you upgrade it each time Borrego wins and then turn around and downgrade it when he goes to Bay Meadows or Golden Gate and loses to a nobody? What about past races that Lava Man and Evening Attire were in? These horses are still racing so should their results today effect the grade of a race in 2004 or 2005? How far do you go back? How far ahead do you look?

Sniper is absolutely correct. If he were to go in the Suburban, it's very likely that no good ones would go to take him on. They might opt for the Foster and make that a tougher race depth wise. It would be like 2003. Mineshaft went to all of the big races and faced nobody while Medaglia d'Oro was facing Candy Ride in the Pacific Classic, Congaree was facing Perfect Drift in Kentucky and Pleasantly Perfect in California, they all were facing each other in the BC. If you were to look at the top six or seven ranked older males in 2003, Mineshaft only faced one of them. He only faced that one horse one time. And he lost to that horse. Other than that, he faced allowance quality fields and ended up as HOY. Was it his fault? No. When it was pretty clear that he was becoming really good and was moving to the leadership of the division, nobody went to face him. If they were grading those races after the fact, Mineshaft doesn't have any grade one wins and doesn't get horse of the year. But the truth is that we know that he was running in the best races and that others were ducking him. We know this because we know which races are supposed to be for the best before they run them. Doing it after the fact opens the door to too many people to duck and dodge and make claims that their race was the best and the other horses should have come to face them.