"Spaced" Races And "Fresh" Horses Are Killing The Sport

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I believe the same things ...

... and so did Ben Jones, Jimmy Jones, Hirsch Jacobs, Sunny Jim Fitzsimmons, Moody Jolley, Max Hirsch, Syl Veitch, Preston Burch, John Gaver ... and many many other Hall-Of-Fame trainers ... who develop0ed champion after champion after champion.

Your definition of a "good" trainer ... is very different from mine. A good trainer to me is one who brings out and sustains the talent of the horses in his care.

The ones I mentioned did that a heck of a lot better than any of the ones you cited.

I don't anything about what went on 40 years ago, but times have clearly changed. Nowadays if you try to run a good horse 15 times a year, you will not be successful.

By the way, do you think that there aren't any good trainers any more? You would have to be a fool to believe that. You understand as well as anyone how capitalism works. If there is a field or indusrty where there is a lot of money to be made, you will get some very talented people in that field. Horseracing is no exception. There are obviously a lot of great trainers out there right now. They will all tell you that you must run your horses sparingly. You can't possibly think that all these guys are incompetent. Times have obviously changed. I'm sure there are a number of factors including the breed, the track surfaces, the medications, and a number of other factors that have made things far different today.

[Assttodixie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't anything about what went on 40 years ago, but times have clearly changed. Nowadays if you try to run a good horse 15 times a year, you will not be successful.

By the way, do you think that there aren't any good trainers any more? You would have to be a fool to believe that. You understand as well as anyone how capitalism works. If there is a field or indusrty where there is a lot of money to be made, you will get some very talented people in that field. Horseracing is no exception. There are obviously a lot of great trainers out there right now. They will all tell you that you must run your horses sparingly. You can't possibly think that all these guys are incompetent. Times have obviously changed. I'm sure there are a number of factors including the breed, the track surfaces, the medications, and a number of other factors that have made things far different today.

The boss wants to know when is the last time someone TRIED to run a good horse 15 times and furthermore prepped him/her for that type of campaign. Can you name one?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Assttodixie

The boss wants to know when is the last time someone TRIED to run a good horse 15 times and furthermore prepped him/her for that type of campaign. Can you name one?

There are plenty of shmucks out there that try to run their horse every 2-3 weeks. The horses last for a few races and that is it. They don't end up running 15 times because they get hurt too quickly. It's not from a lack of trying. Plenty of bad trainers try to run their horses all the time.

[Assttodixie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There are plenty of shmucks out there that try to run their horse every 2-3 weeks. The horses last for a few races and that is it. They don't end up running 15 times because they get hurt too quickly. It's not from a lack of trying. Plenty of bad trainers try to run their horses all the time.

The Boss says that generally, those are usually just claimers and low level allowance horses that are run often. Again, he wants to know if you can name a GOOD horse that has been given a chance to try this campaign. Lawyer Ron? He didnt do too bad did he?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Assttodixie

The Boss says that generally, those are usually just claimers and low level allowance horses that are run often. Again, he wants to know if you can name a GOOD horse that has been given a chance to try this campaign. Lawyer Ron? He didnt do too bad did he?

There are plenty of them out there. A good example of a horse that they tried to run every 3 weeks was Runway Model. They ran her 8 times as a 2 year old and that was the end of her. They totally ruined her. She was so sore as a 3 year old that she couldn't do anything. They had to retire her.

Mike Harrington runs his good 2 year olds as much as he can. He may get 8 races out of them and then they are done. These horses never last. Most of these horse won't even be around as 3 year olds.

[Assttodixie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There are plenty of them out there. A good example of a horse that they tried to run every 3 weeks was Runway Model. They ran her 8 times as a 2 year old and that was the end of her. They totally ruined her. She was so sore as a 3 year old that she couldn't do anything. They had to retire her.

Mike Harrington runs his good 2 year olds as much as he can. He may get 8 races out of them and then they are done. These horses never last. Most of these horse won't even be around as 3 year olds.

The reason that Harrington runs his good 2 year olds so often is because they are almost all Swiss Yodelers. Swiss Yodelers are pretty much known for precocious 2 year old speed and they arent worth much once the others catch up. They generally reach their respective peaks early so it is actually smart to run them early and often.

Runway Model wasnt exactly a blueblood Rupert. Petitionville and Houston? She was a nice horse indeed. But is there any data that suggests that the reason that she was so sore as a three year old was any more a result of her running so much as it was her heredity, training or anything else?

Any other horses? Any bluebloods?

The boss told me to say all of this.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There are plenty of them out there. A good example of a horse that they tried to run every 3 weeks was Runway Model. They ran her 8 times as a 2 year old and that was the end of her. They totally ruined her. She was so sore as a 3 year old that she couldn't do anything. They had to retire her.

Mike Harrington runs his good 2 year olds as much as he can. He may get 8 races out of them and then they are done. These horses never last. Most of these horse won't even be around as 3 year olds.

Anecdotal evidence is not meaningful.

Unless someone does a scientific study of the question ... with mathematical rigor ... and no one will ... there can be no such certainty on either side.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't anything about what went on 40 years ago, but times have clearly changed. Nowadays if you try to run a good horse 15 times a year, you will not be successful.

By the way, do you think that there aren't any good trainers any more? You would have to be a fool to believe that. You understand as well as anyone how capitalism works. If there is a field or indusrty where there is a lot of money to be made, you will get some very talented people in that field. Horseracing is no exception. There are obviously a lot of great trainers out there right now. They will all tell you that you must run your horses sparingly. You can't possibly think that all these guys are incompetent. Times have obviously changed. I'm sure there are a number of factors including the breed, the track surfaces, the medications, and a number of other factors that have made things far different today.

The purpose and objectives have changed ...

In the past ... horses were either owned by the very wealthy ... who hired hardboot trainers ... and who enjoyed watching their horses run ... or who just left the racing schedule up to the trainer ... OR ...

... they were owned by small investors who relied on purse winnings to make money or at least to make it less of a loss.

Today ... the goal ... for both the owners and the trainers ... is to get a big syndication deal ... and the fear is that losing more than a few races may queer the deal. Get that big G1 win ... then sit back and negotiate.

I think the horses ... more or less ... maybe a little less ... are just as capable of becoming professional athletes ... but they're just not asked to.

But this strategy is too clever by half ... because the scarcity of top-level racing is killing the business ... by failing to lure a new fan base into the game.

Thirty to seventy years ago .. if you asked a random adult to name a race horse ... at least half or more would have said War Admiral or Whirlaway or Citation or Native Dancer or Kelso or Secretariat.

Try that today ... and see the answer you get.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

The purpose and objectives have changed ...

In the past ... horses were either owned by the very wealthy ... who hired hardboot trainers ... and who enjoyed watching their horses run ... or who just left the racing schedule up to the trainer ... OR ...

... they were owned by small investors who relied on purse winnings to make money or at least to make it less of a loss.

Today ... the goal ... for both the owners and the trainers ... is to get a big syndication deal ... and the fear is that losing more than a few races may queer the deal. Get that big G1 win ... then sit back and negotiate.

I think the horses ... more or less ... maybe a little less ... are just as capable of becoming professional athletes ... but they're just not asked to.

But this strategy is too clever by half ... because the scarcity of top-level racing is killing the business ... by failing to lure a new fan base into the game.

Thirty to seventy years ago .. if you asked a random adult to name a race horse ... at least half or more would have said War Admiral or Whirlaway or Citation or Native Dancer or Kelso or Secretariat.

Try that today ... and see the answer you get.

There is definitely some truth to what you are saying. If a guy has a great horse that is really well bred, the most important thing is going to be the syndication deal. The goal will be to win the really big races. If it's a dirt horse, they're going to try to win the JCGC, the Breeder's Cup Classic, etc. They will run the horse extremely sparingly.

It's not going to do them much good to get a couple of extra wins in less prestigious races.

But every horse out there is not a well-bred horse that will be worth several million for breeding. There are plenty of grade III type of horses out there with ordinary breeding. These horses may not be worth a fortune for breeding. Horses like this may be able to make $500,000 a year or so racing if they pick the right spots. I'm talking about a horse with average breeding who is not good enough to win the Travers but who may be able to win the Indiana Derby. Even with a horse like this, where the big money is in racing rather than breeding, a good trainer is going to run the horse relatively sparingly. The horse may run 8-9 times a year or so.

[Linny]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Nowadays if you try to run a good horse 15 times a year, you will not be successful.

The definition of successful has changed. When a top handicap horse (when there were real handicaps) ran 12-15 times a season and lost 5 or 6 times, he still had a decent shot at a title. Now you can win all year, lose the Breeders' Cup by a neck and your a "phony."

In 1942 Whirlaway ran 22 times between April 9th and Dec 12. He won 11 (one was a walkover) and never finished off the board. He won races like the Clark H, the Brooklyn, and the JCGC and the Dixie H. He placed in the Suburban and the Arlington H among others. He raced from 6f to 2 miles. A season like that today would never happen because top horses are held out for all but 4 or 5 top engagements, all geared to having his A game for the Breeders' Cup.

Trainers can and will do what they want with their stock but my disgreement is with not running a fit healthy horse. They skip races with a fit horse then cry and moan when horsey gets hurt in training and has to miss the big dance.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Linny

The definition of successful has changed. When a top handicap horse (when there were real handicaps) ran 12-15 times a season and lost 5 or 6 times, he still had a decent shot at a title. Now you can win all year, lose the Breeders' Cup by a neck and your a "phony."

In 1942 Whirlaway ran 22 times between April 9th and Dec 12. He won 11 (one was a walkover) and never finished off the board. He won races like the Clark H, the Brooklyn, and the JCGC and the Dixie H. He placed in the Suburban and the Arlington H among others. He raced from 6f to 2 miles. A season like that today would never happen because top horses are held out for all but 4 or 5 top engagements, all geared to having his A game for the Breeders' Cup.

Trainers can and will do what they want with their stock but my disgreement is with not running a fit healthy horse. They skip races with a fit horse then cry and moan when horsey gets hurt in training and has to miss the big dance.

As I've said before, I don't know anything about what happened in 1942. I know a lot about racing from about 1982 to the present. I can tell you that one of the first things I noticed as a handicapper was that horses that ran every 2-3 weeks usually did not stay in form for very long. These horses would usually run a few good races and that would be the end of them. The good trainers know this and that is why they don't run their hores every 2-3 weeks. I'm not saying that horses can't run every 4 weeks. I think every 4 weeks is fine. If you have a relatively sound horse and run him all year every 4 weeks or so, you could probably get 10-11 races out of him. Races are not going to always come up when you want them to, so you probably couldn't run the horse 12 times. Not only that, if you're going to run the horse for a year straight, it's probably a good idea to send him out to the farm for a month at the end of the year. Then would end up costing you a few months because a horse loses his conditioning when he's out orf training for a month.

If I had a horse that I thought could win the Breeder's Cup, I wouldn't try to run him too many times that year. I'd probably give him a break and start up with him in March. I think it is a little too conservative to only run him 3 times before the Breeder's Cup. There's a lot of money out there and I'd feel pretty stupid if we skipped a ton of god races that we could have won and then ended up losing in the BC. So I would probably plan a campaign where the BC ends up being the horse's 6th race of the year or something like that. Competing at the highest level like that, I would probabl give the horse a little more time between racs than an average horse. I'd tried to run him every 4-6 weeks.