Derby Trail Next Start-Likely/Possible

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i disagree. a 3 yo graded winner should get consideration-especially over a 2 yo graded winner. last year shouldn't count towards this year. changing using 2 yo earnings would keep horses from coasting in come spring. horses that are handled as fragile hothouse flowers with two whole starts in the spring would no longer get in on races from seven and eight months prior.

While I don't necessarily agree with basing it on earnings (because any track can artificially inflate a purse), certainly I think recognizing 2yo races in some fashion is acceptable.

History says that its the horses with 2yo form, preferably graded form, that go on to compete successfully in the Triple Crown. There are few (eg Curlin, maybe Rock Hard Ten) exceptions to this.

At any rate, counting juvenile races on dirt is better than counting 3yo races on a different surface from the Kentucky Derby. Animal Kingdom, Master of Hounds, and Brilliant Speed have combined to do absolutely zero on a dirt surface, yet have secured spots in the starting gate over horses that have.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

At any rate, counting juvenile races on dirt is better than counting 3yo races on a different surface from the Kentucky Derby.

Good point...

[jms62]

They should use a point system for graded stakes

GI 30 pts total 1st 18 2nd 6 3rd-4th 3
GII 20 pts total 1st 12 2nd 4 3rd-4th 2
GIII 10 pts total 1st 6 2nd 2 3rd-4th 1

Make the graded preps meaningful and maybe with such a defined path the networks may get interested. Maybe switch the schedule so every 2 weeks we have 3 races on a sat, spread out over an hour so the networks have a defined block of content. They can focus on the back stories and show the races. The ultimate reality show. Now being horseplayers I expect a hundred responses why this won't work.

[rpncaine]

How about one that thinks it would!

It's perfect. The "earnings" don't matter, it's the points for a Graded race. Keeps the inflated slot purses from being over emphasized! If only Churchill would consider this kind of change.

[slotdirt]

I don't agree with basing Derby entry solely on 2YO form, though I completely agree that earnings from any surface that isn't dirt shouldn't count. We know that would never happen though because Keeneland isn't getting rid of poly anytime soon.

[3kings]

Originally Posted by jms62

They should use a point system for graded stakes

GI 30 pts total 1st 18 2nd 6 3rd-4th 3
GII 20 pts total 1st 12 2nd 4 3rd-4th 2
GII 10 pts total 1st 6 2nd 2 3rd-4th 1

Make the graded preps meaningful and maybe with such a defined path the networks may get interested. Maybe switch the schedule so every 2 weeks we have 3 races on a sat, spread out over an hour so the networks have a defined block of content. They can focus on the back stories and show the races. The ultimate reality show. Now being horseplayers I expect a hundred responses why this won't work.

I think a system similar to this could work. Let 2 year old Graded races be worth half as many points.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

While I don't necessarily agree with basing it on earnings (because any track can artificially inflate a purse), certainly I think recognizing 2yo races in some fashion is acceptable.

History says that its the horses with 2yo form, preferably graded form, that go on to compete successfully in the Triple Crown. There are few (eg Curlin, maybe Rock Hard Ten) exceptions to this.

At any rate, counting juvenile races on dirt is better than counting 3yo races on a different surface from the Kentucky Derby. Animal Kingdom, Master of Hounds, and Brilliant Speed have combined to do absolutely zero on a dirt surface, yet have secured spots in the starting gate over horses that have.

it's not the issue of two year old form, it's the issue of encouraging more starts at three, and having good three year olds in the derby-as opposed to a good two year old who may have been surpassed by his peers a few months later-but he earned enough last season to play this season.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's not the issue of two year old form, it's the issue of encouraging more starts at three, and having good three year olds in the derby-as opposed to a good two year old who may have been surpassed by his peers a few months later-but he earned enough last season to play this season.

This might make sense theoretically, but where is the evidence that the Derby is regularly inundated with over-the-hill 2yos?

I can think of two offhand that perhaps should not have been in the Derby, those being Capote and Action This Day (who actually didn't run that bad).

Meanwhile horses that were successful in the Triple Crown like Mine That Bird, Giacomo, Funny Cide, Real Quiet, Timber Country, Go For Gin, Sea Hero, Best Pal, Alysheba, Ferdinand, Tejano Run, Lemon Drop Kid, Birdstone, Proud Citizen, A.P. Valentine, Louis Quatorze, and Gate Dancer all possibly could have been held out of the Kentucky Derby because they didn't happen to win a significant prep race.

While I, too, would like to see these horses race a couple of more times before the TC, "encouraging" them to win prep races is not the answer. In fact, the competition to win these lesser races (with overstuffed purse money) is probably one of the reasons why trainers nowadays only bring them out a couple of times before Churchill. How many winning efforts can a typical 3yo horse uncork in a 5-month span?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

This might make sense theoretically, but where is the evidence that the Derby is regularly inundated with over-the-hill 2yos?

I can think of two offhand that perhaps should not have been in the Derby, those being Capote and Action This Day (who actually didn't run that bad).

Meanwhile horses that were successful in the Triple Crown like Mine That Bird, Giacomo, Funny Cide, Real Quiet, Timber Country, Go For Gin, Sea Hero, Best Pal, Alysheba, Ferdinand, Tejano Run, Lemon Drop Kid, Birdstone, Proud Citizen, A.P. Valentine, Louis Quatorze, and Gate Dancer all possibly could have been held out of the Kentucky Derby because they didn't happen to win a significant prep race.

While I, too, would like to see these horses race a couple of more times before the TC, "encouraging" them to win prep races is not the answer. In fact, the competition to win these lesser races (with overstuffed purse money) is probably one of the reasons why trainers nowadays only bring them out a couple of times before Churchill. How many winning efforts can a typical 3yo horse uncork in a 5-month span?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein, (attributed)

Rollo... Status Quo isn't working and hasn't for quite some time. You say
"While I, too, would like to see these horses race a couple of more times before the TC, "encouraging" them to win prep races is not the answer. " yet you offer no potential answers.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by jms62

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein, (attributed)

Rollo... Status Quo isn't working and hasn't for quite some time. You say
"While I, too, would like to see these horses race a couple of more times before the TC, "encouraging" them to win prep races is not the answer. " yet you offer no potential answers.

Actually, I was the one who started this line of discussion. I suggested that earnings from graded stakes on the turf and synthetic surfaces should not count. The effects would be eliminating the unaccomplished-on-dirt horses from consideration while allowing talented but earnings-challenged runners to make it to the starting gate.

Your points system has been suggested before, but the problem is it still includes irrelevant races like the Blue Grass and Spiral.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

The effects would be eliminating the unaccomplished-on-dirt horses from consideration while allowing talented but earnings-challenged runners to make it to the starting gate.

While not suggesting that the current system is perfect, aside from maybe Dance City, is there any horse that fits this description? For that matter, over the past decade or so, how many horses that were perceived as potentially legitimate contenders were excluded because of insufficient earnings? The only two that I can think of off the top of my head are Sunday Break and Rock Hard Ten.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

While not suggesting that the current system is perfect, aside from maybe Dance City, is there any horse that fits this description? For that matter, over the past decade or so, how many horses that were perceived as potentially legitimate contenders were excluded because of insufficient earnings? The only two that I can think of off the top of my head are Sunday Break and Rock Hard Ten.

Santiva, Sway Away, Anthony's Cross, Shackleford, and Watch Me Go all are on the outside looking in because 3 or 4 turf horses have secured spots. Yet all those have been 1st or 2nd in important prep races on dirt.

As far as previous years, I'd have to take a closer look. It was only recently that they restricted the field to 20 horses, too, so historically there probably haven't been too many "left out" horses.

However, I'm taking the stance that this is an emerging trend (ie turf no-hopers from the poly preps taking up spots in the starting gate), not necessarily one that has taken a firm hold. It was savvy of Tom Albertrani and Mike Maker to capitalize on the turf-friendly nature of the Keeneland main track when gobs of money are up for grabs, but it sucks that they would go ahead and show up for the Derby with very little real hope of winning.