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

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 oracle80

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.

Doesnt matter when. Now Imagine if that JCGC was only 1 of three Grade I races. Lets say the Breeders Cup was another. BC was run in Nov, the JCGC was run in sometime in the summer. Are you saying that we still would only have 4-6 horse fields?

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Doesnt matter when. Now Imagine if that JCGC was only 1 of three Grade I races. Lets say the Breeders Cup was another. BC was run in Nov, the JCGC was run in sometime in the summer. Are you saying that we still would only have 4-6 horse fields?

Even fewer. You'd have no owners or breeders, seriously.
Whos gonna breed or own at the highets level when you turn a next to impossible situation(making money in the game) into a completely hopeless one.
You don't get it. You really don't. We can't get or keep new owners now, what the **** would they get in the game for or stay in the game for if you get three cracks a year at a grade one.
You really can't be that stupid can you?

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?

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

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?

I musta been absent the day in business class when the professor taught that you needed to destroy the ecomony of a sector in order to get it to really take off!!!

Originally Posted by oracle80

I musta been absent the day in business class when the professor taught that you needed to destroy the ecomony of a sector in order to get it to really take off!!!

You wouldnt destroy it....you would enhance it. Tell me one sector that has improved by throwing money at it. And maybe you were at home reading teh DRF the day they went over this issue.

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

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?

No Cajun I am not saying that. I am saying that the field would have been totally different if the SF was only 1 of 3 Grade I races in 2006. Now if he beat a field of 12 horses then sure give him a Grade I status. However he did beat a field of 9. However, I think a field that included Lava Man, Invasor, Premium Tap instead of Love Of Money, MB Sea and Wiggins is a little more attractive.

[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.