Rachel Alexandra Retired

[iamthelurker]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

no doubt it would have been a great event and horse racing would have had some attention that day... but it would still have been just one day. I just disagreed with the sentence of hers that I highlighted (The match-up would have done wonders for the sports popularity and general public opinion, they failed.) not her whole post. The two should have met. But it wasnt going to make anything popular, except maybe for 2 minutes. The gambling aspect is the only way this sport can become popular again... these smart marketers at tracks need to figure out how to make that happen.

Both owners are still terrible for never making it happen... I just feel it like it would have satisfied us horse racing junkies, and not too much else.

Are you all so blinded by wagering that you don't realize the way to save this sport is to make it appealing to the youth?!?! The value of a lifelong fan with true passion for the thoroughbred racehorse is much more important to this sports future than anything else. There will always be those interested in solely the gambling aspect of this game, there are those horse lovers that could not care even a little about placing a bet. But the real beauty of it all is that when exciting races happen between THE BEST horses your going to see a little bit of both come out in more than the majority of viewers. NO singular race drastically changes the popularity status of this game (I can see where what I said was read as that), but it is more the accumulation of consistent great rivalries and great races that will bit by bit bring more and more fans out of the woodwork. Without getting the two best horses of this decade to race against each other we are going nowhere but backwards.

[slotdirt]

I just don't understand how anybody could possibly surmise that anything but gambling drives horse racing. That's the way it's been forever in this country, and that's the way it's going to be. Having five year olds run burlap sack races inbetween the fifth and sixth at Laurel on a Thursday is all well and good, but besides buying some soda pop and a funnel cake, what the hell do young folks do for racing besides think horses are pretty and get in the way of the folks who actually spend money?

[iamthelurker]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I just don't understand how anybody could possibly surmise that anything but gambling drives horse racing. That's the way it's been forever in this country, and that's the way it's going to be. Having five year olds run burlap sack races inbetween the fifth and sixth at Laurel on a Thursday is all well and good, but besides buying some soda pop and a funnel cake, what the hell do young folks do for racing besides think horses are pretty and get in the way of the folks who actually spend money?

My point was that if you spike someone in the 10-18 age groups interest now, that by the time they are an old grump like yourself, they will confidently say that horse racing is their favorite sport. And from ages 18-90 they will also be a helpful part of the handle just like the rest of us.

[slotdirt]

How do you get someone interested in a sport for its stars when the best of the best rarely appear on a racetrack more than four or five times a season? Sounds great in theory, but horse racing for the general populace has permanently been reduced to a three race schedule and then a tiny blip for the "world" championships in October/November. Sad, but true.

[iamthelurker]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

How do you get someone interested in a sport for its stars when the best of the best rarely appear on a racetrack more than four or five times a season? Sounds great in theory, but horse racing for the general populace has permanently been reduced to a three race schedule and then a tiny blip for the "world" championships in October/November. Sad, but true.

SAD BUT TRUE IS MY POINT, now with the unchangeable fact that you just stated, wouldn't it be really nice if just ONE of those 4 to 5 races were as big as Z vs. RA would have been.

I gotta mess with clyde once more this week before I go lurking again, so sorry my posts that hold some form of youthful enthusiasm have bothered your oldness slot.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by iamthelurker

Are you all so blinded by wagering that you don't realize the way to save this sport is to make it appealing to the youth?!?! The value of a lifelong fan with true passion for the thoroughbred racehorse is much more important to this sports future than anything else. There will always be those interested in solely the gambling aspect of this game, there are those horse lovers that could not care even a little about placing a bet. But the real beauty of it all is that when exciting races happen between THE BEST horses your going to see a little bit of both come out in more than the majority of viewers. NO singular race drastically changes the popularity status of this game (I can see where what I said was read as that), but it is more the accumulation of consistent great rivalries and great races that will bit by bit bring more and more fans out of the woodwork. Without getting the two best horses of this decade to race against each other we are going nowhere but backwards.

I disagree with the bolded. people who watch races and dont wager on them dont hold much value to this sport IMO. Personally, I dont hold value to this sport because I do not wager much. Everyone involved at the race track makes money only one way.. through wagering.

Though you arent going to get an arguement from me about the stupid owners & trainers these days that dont race the horses and dont create rivalries. It would be very good for the excitement of the people involved in the sport, I just question what it will do to bring in more gamblers. I think its a different world now than the 70's.. dont know if rivalries would bring in the new blood. Besides, things arent going to change so even if there are rivalries.. what are two horses running against each other 4 times and then retiring going to do for anyone?

Showing people that they can make money from this sport is the best way to grow popularity IMO. There are TONS of people out there who love to gamble... poker, sports betting, etc. We somehow need to get their attention. I think that once those action junkies could visit a race track live a few times.. it would create so much new blood. How do we get them to come to the track?

[iamthelurker]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I disagree with the bolded. people who watch races and dont wager on them dont hold much value to this sport IMO. Personally, I dont hold value to this sport because I do not wager much. Everyone involved at the race track makes money only one way.. through wagering.

Though you arent going to get an arguement from me about the stupid owners & trainers these days that dont race the horses and dont create rivalries. It would be very good for the excitement of the people involved in the sport, I just question what it will do to bring in more gamblers. I think its a different world now than the 70's.. dont know if rivalries would bring in the new blood. Besides, things arent going to change so even if there are rivalries.. what are two horses running against each other 4 times and then retiring going to do for anyone?

Showing people that they can make money from this sport is the best way to grow popularity IMO. There are TONS of people out there who love to gamble... poker, sports betting, etc. We somehow need to get their attention. I think that once those action junkies could visit a race track live a few times.. it would create so much new blood. How do we get them to come to the track?

Well I hate to say it but you can't make serious money playing horses unless your very very talented. The REAL action junkies your talking about know that they have a better chance winning at poker, sports betting, etc.

I also think that having tracks change the way they operate would be much harder to pull off than getting a bunch of big egos to realize they are missing opportunities to not only help the sport but create history.

Though, after writing that I have slots debby downer voice (im guessing what he sounds like) in my head saying none of it can be done, either route. But hey, whats wrong with at least trying.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I disagree with the bolded. people who watch races and dont wager on them dont hold much value to this sport IMO. Personally, I dont hold value to this sport because I do not wager much. Everyone involved at the race track makes money only one way.. through wagering.

But they may become involved in the business in other ways, perhaps as owners. I don't want to turn the discussion into the value of owners versus the value of bettors to the business. Suffice it to say, horse racing could not survive without either.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by HomerS

Way too much time has been wasted on trying to get small time players (or non players) to come out to the track a couple of times a year. As opposed to focusing on your core audience and getting them to increase their handle- whether live, or off track.

I'm not sure I agree that the highlighted part has actually happened...though it has sure been talked to death.

Obviously, I agree with the latter part.

Yes, you want to introduce new people to the game if possible, and explore that, but it is your core customer that needs to be catered to.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I'm not sure I agree that the highlighted part has actually happened...though it has sure been talked to death.

Obviously, I agree with the latter part.

Yes, you want to introduce new people to the game if possible, and explore that, but it is your core customer that needs to be catered to.

I have a hard time seeing where a race pitting two great fillies who have never met wouldn't appeal to both.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I have a hard time seeing where a race pitting two great fillies who have never met wouldn't appeal to both.

Who would argue with that?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I'm not sure I agree that the highlighted part has actually happened...though it has sure been talked to death.

Obviously, I agree with the latter part.

Yes, you want to introduce new people to the game if possible, and explore that, but it is your core customer that needs to be catered to.

agreed. you've got your core, keep them happy, they keep coming back. newbies? they might come back.

the first thing racing needs to do is make sure all bet takers are giving the money to the tracks.
second thing that needs to happen is lower take out.

tracks are better off with the first, bettors with the second.

lastly, help owners perhaps make a bit more money. that brings in more owners, as well as aiding current owners to invest more.
god, it's so simple!

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig

agreed. you've got your core, keep them happy, they keep coming back. newbies? they might come back.

the first thing racing needs to do is make sure all bet takers are giving the money to the tracks.
second thing that needs to happen is lower take out.

tracks are better off with the first, bettors with the second.

lastly, help owners perhaps make a bit more money. that brings in more owners, as well as aiding current owners to invest more.
god, it's so simple!

Check out the demographic of the average customer though. That guy will most likely be dead in ten years.

I think i would work on creating some new customers.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Check out the demographic of the average customer though. That guy will most likely be dead in ten years.

I think i would work on creating some new customers.

Wouldn't it be better to keep the old customers and kill the new ones?

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by HomerS

Betting drives the game plain and simple. Am sure many of us could attend a day at the races and have a good time without betting. Especially a nice fall sunny day at Belmont. Where you have the place to yourself basically. Can get up close much closer then most other sports. See world class athletes. But at the end of the day the focus needs to be betting, betting and betting.

Way too much time has been wasted on trying to get small time players (or non players) to come out to the track a couple of times a year. As opposed to focusing on your core audience and getting them to increase their handle- whether live, or off track.

Almost every other business but racing markets to their core audience.

Why can't you cater to both? I became a fan during the Smarty era and only bet $3,500 a year (more money actually goes into the track if you include money I've spent in going to tracks around the country in admission, meals at the track, DRFs (does the track get a cut?) etc.), but it all adds up amongst small player fans like me, no?

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by HomerS

I am not saying they should ignore you or anyone. You always need new customers. Todays smaller bettor may be a bigger bettor going forward. And even if not you want to have more players. But its about focus. When you have limited ad dollars you need to be careful about where you spend them.

But its all about handle and thats where the focus should be. Understand you want the experience of the newbie to be good- so they come back.

Too many tracks spend alot of time on giveaways and cheesy promotions that may get people in one time but not enough on their core player. It shouldnt all be directed at the on track player either. Although I think racing offers tremendous value when compared to other entertainment options (look at cost of going to Belmont compared to a major sporting event in NY). Reality is most players arent going to the track anymore, for a variety of reasons. How often do we see tracks running races running at the same time as others, or poor sound quality. Bad viewing angles.

You look at some of the websites even and its downright embarrassing what some have up there. NYRA does a good job but not enough do.

Excellent points.

[iamthelurker]

This is definitely foreshadowing that Mayweather vs. Pacquiao isn't gonna happen either.

[slotdirt]

Can we start a petition to get iamthelurker to go back to doing what he does best, i.e., lurking?

[iamthelurker]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Can we start a petition to get iamthelurker to go back to doing what he does best, i.e., lurking?

You have a lot of posts.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by iamthelurker

This is definitely foreshadowing that Mayweather vs. Pacquiao isn't gonna happen either.

lol