Three New BC Races

[whodey17]

I wonder if Evening Attire will try the 1 1/2 miles race.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I agree with you about the Derby preps and their graded status. However, I can also understand the other side of the argument. There are pros and cons and the people that spend a great deal of money for horses have more than a right to a say in this matter. However, there is something highly illogical about TC preps being Graded the same as the actual TC races. However, they don't carry the same weight, or anything close, in terms of commanding breeding attention.

I don't care a great deal either about the whole thing but I do find the entire system greatly flawed. I wish there was a way to objectively grade all races at the end of the year, after they have been run, and after we have seen what kinds of horses actually comprised the fields. One of the main problems, of course, with this is the same people with questionable judgement, and personal agendas, would be doing the post race rating as well. Thus, all in all, I guess I would have to agree that it just doesn't matter or isn't really worth wasting much time over. However, wasting my time is my full time job.

I brought up the idea of grading races at the end of the year a long time ago to a semi-prominent trainer on the Southern Cal circuit. He said that he thought it was a good idea but that one of the main problems we'd have if we did that was that if we thought the problem of top horses ducking each other was already a problem, it would become even moreso by grading races after. Take the situation in 2003. As much as I wanted to condemn Mineshaft's being selected for HOY because he beat NOBODY and the only time he faces another horse that was considered one of the top 6-7 older males (Perfect Drift), he lost, I had to at least acknowledge that his people put him in the races that were considered the best races during the second half of the year. That nobody chose to face him in those races wasn't their fault. Now, if there was no grading until the end of the year, the connections of several different horses could pick and choose their spots and stay away from other top horses and make the claim that the race they went in was the best race and the others ducked them. At least by knowing ahead of time what the grades are, we know which races are supposed to be the best ones and where the best horses are supposed to go.

[blackthroatedwind]

That's a very valid point.

It's a good thing I bet most of my money in maiden races and turf races.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

It obviously will reduce field size. There is no doubt about that. The addition of three new races this year already decreased field size.
If someone had a really top notch 2yo turf filly this year they could either take a shot against the boys in the juvenile turf OR try the dirt in the juvy fillies. Not next year. They can enter her in a BIG money 2yo turf race for fillies instead.
Saying that it won't reduce field size is nonsensical. People could disagree on how big of an impact it will have....but it will certainly have an impact.

The 2 year old turf races and turf sprint will be oversubscribed every year. The juvy and juvy fillies will always fill with a large field. You could make a case the "marathon" may steal a horse from the classic but if they are willing to run in a $500k races as opposed to a $5 million dollar race they may not be a viable contender anyway.

[Danzig]

this is the third time i believe since the bcs inception that races have been added.
have any of them proved to be a mistake as yet? of course the ones just run have only run once, so hard to say there....

[King Glorious]

Before they started the F/M Turf, there were quite a few female turf runners that ran in and did pretty well in the open turf events. Included on that list are such runners as Miesque, Ridgewood Pearl, Estrapade, Miss Alleged and Hatoof. So they more than proved that they could hold their own in the open events, which the Europeans pretty much knew anyway because they don't hold the same reservations as Americans do when it comes to racing females against males. But there were also several that would skip the BC because they didn't want to take on that big a challenge and would instead point to a later race like the Matriarch. A horse like Discreet Cat may have missed the BC altogether if there was no Dirt Mile this year. Some might argue that these new races dilute the fields. I don't think they do. I think that the prime contenders for most races will still go in the races they were contenders for. No horse is going to skip the $5 million Classic for the $1 million Dirt Mile or $500k Marathon if they are a prime contender for the bigger purse. I'm ok with adding more races that don't take away from the other races because it increases the chances that more of the stars of the game will be present. I wonder if having a Dirt Mile in 1994 would have brought Holy Bull to the BC? A BC with him there, even in the Dirt Mile instead of the Classic, would have been better than it was not having him there at all.

[blackthroatedwind]

You're forgetting that Holy Bull wasn't nominated and for that reason he skipped the BC as both a 2YO and 3YO. In fact, he concluded his 2YO season in one of the Calder Stakes, the In Reality.

[Riot]

That argument is settled....or perhaps you didn't see the fields for the races this year.

Settled? I'm still waiting to measure exactly what the impact of three new Friday races this year had on Saturday.

See the fields? I posted the fields for 2007, above. Waiting on more than one comment, and I would seriously like to hear yours.

What horses out of the below five races do you think left the Saturday races for Friday (they had to be eligible for Saturday), and what race did they end up in on Friday, instead?

F & M turf - 12 entries - 14 allowed
Distaff - 12 entries - 14 allowed
Sprint - 11 entries - 14 allowed
Turf - 8 entries - 14 allowed
Classic - 9 entries - 14 allowed

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You're forgetting that Holy Bull wasn't nominated and for that reason he skipped the BC as both a 2YO and 3YO. In fact, he concluded his 2YO season in one of the Calder Stakes, the In Reality.

That's right. I had forgotten about that. I still wonder though if maybe a little more consideration would have been given to it at the end of his 3yo season, seeing how good he had become. I think that had he gone as a 2yo, he would have still been second choice to Dehere and possibly even third choice. I don't know how much the purse was for the In Reality was back then (I believe it's $400k now) but the odds were much more in his favor to collect that winning check than if he had gone to the Juvenile. As a 3yo, he would have been the overwhelming favorite and for a much bigger purse had he gone to the Classic so I'm not sure if his not being nominated was the sole reason or if the fact that I don't think Croll ever felt that 10f was his best distance PLUS they would have had to pay to do it, is what kept him out.

[blackthroatedwind]

It was actually a $400K race back then.

He wasn't going in any BC as a 3YO. He ended his year with the Woodward and didn't even go to the Jockey Club Gold Cup ( which was an even weaker field that the Woodward ). If he wanted to run in a big Mile race he could have gone in the, then, NYRA Mile.....where at least that day he would have had trouble beating Cigar.

[bogeydaman]

Originally Posted by miraja2

It obviously will reduce field size. There is no doubt about that. The addition of three new races this year already decreased field size.
If someone had a really top notch 2yo turf filly this year they could either take a shot against the boys in the juvenile turf OR try the dirt in the juvy fillies. Not next year. They can enter her in a BIG money 2yo turf race for fillies instead.
Saying that it won't reduce field size is nonsensical. People could disagree on how big of an impact it will have....but it will certainly have an impact.

IMO the Juvy filly turf race will have no impact on any field size. All 4 2 year old races will oversubscribe with maiden breakers and NW1 allowance horses. You can make the argument that they already "experimented" with the Juvy Filly turf race in 07. It was the 6th race at Monmouth on BC Friday. The only difference is that the purse was $250K this year and next year it will be $1 million and have the title "world championship" next to it. The only possible difference field might be another shipper or 2 from Europe and a long shot in the 2 year old filly dirt race might take a shot 1st time turf because of the "world championship" title.

[miraja2]

I don't understand people that DEFEND the addition of these races by saying, "It won't take horses away from the other races because there will be plenty of low-level allowance horses to fill all the races." Great.
Either it will take horses away from the other races, or it will be filled with horses that don't belong in the Breeders' Cup. I think it is a pretty bad deal either way, and I think the worst news is, that it will do both.

The problem with the juvy turf race for fillies isn't that it might not fill. It probably will. The point is that if the race didn't exist, the top-notch 2yo turf fillies would be forced into one of the other two races (juvy fillies or juvy turf) or skip the BC altogether. By adding more races, I think it is inarguable that - even if they do have full fields - it probably means less interesting races.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

this is the third time i believe since the bcs inception that races have been added.
have any of them proved to be a mistake as yet?

Yes.
Of course, in my opinion, every single race in the Breeders' Cup is a mistake. But the more they add, the worse it gets.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

That argument is settled....or perhaps you didn't see the fields for the races this year.

This is a pretty good point that seems to have somehow been overlooked in this strange thread.
The addition of 3 new races this year ALREADY affected the field size of the existing races. Some people in this thread seem to be saying that something won't happen....that has already happened.
It seems odd to me.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by miraja2

This is a pretty good point that seems to have somehow been overlooked in this strange thread.
The addition of 3 new races this year ALREADY affected the field size of the existing races. Some people in this thread seem to be saying that something won't happen....that has already happened.
It seems odd to me.

If you guys keep saying that it won't make it true. I'm yet to hear a good example of a horse that would have run on Saturday if there were no Friday races and La Traviata is the only one that I can think of. There is no way they would have run Dream Rush at 6 furlongs against the boys. The Cigar Mile was hurt far more by the Friday races losing both Corinthian and Discreet Cat than any of the Saturday races were hurt. The only even possible I can think of is Xchanger who surely would have gone in the Jerome long before the Classic if the DC Dirt Mile didn't exist.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Yes.
Of course, in my opinion, every single race in the Breeders' Cup is a mistake. But the more they add, the worse it gets.

let me re-word that question
have any races been removed from the card? any had trouble filling? any reduced in status after gaining a graded rating?

as for the bc and the races leading up to it, you see the same thing in the spring classics. every three year old race is a derby prep, and every race after the belmont is a prep for the bc. i don't agree with it...but then, you have people who say any race other than the tc races shouldn't be a grade one. can't have it both ways. if each race should stand on its own merits, you can't then say it should have a reduced standing.

the worst thing about the bc is the fact they named it the 'world championships'. it's not that at all.

[sumitas]

Because of the BC initiative for a "marathon" division this is the perfect year to return the Jockey Club Gold Cup to 16F, as it used to be. I surmise this move could very well place the JCGC back to elite status. Group Plan was the last to win at that distance, 1975 in 3:23.20. Trained by The Chief.

Among many notables to win the JCGC at that distance, 1921 - 1975, was Kelso, winning a mind boggling 5 in a row from 1960-1964. He set the race record in 1964 at 3:19.20... Forego won in 1974 in 3:21.20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jockey_Club_Gold_Cup

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

If you guys keep saying that it won't make it true. I'm yet to hear a good example of a horse that would have run on Saturday if there were no Friday races and La Traviata is the only one that I can think of. There is no way they would have run Dream Rush at 6 furlongs against the boys. The Cigar Mile was hurt far more by the Friday races losing both Corinthian and Discreet Cat than any of the Saturday races were hurt. The only even possible I can think of is Xchanger who surely would have gone in the Jerome long before the Classic if the DC Dirt Mile didn't exist.

From Friday, the following might have run on Saturday: Corinthian, Discreet Cat, Wanderin Boy, Lewis Michael, Gottcha Gold, Dream Rush, The Leopard and La Traviata. Many of these could have certainly changed the dynamics of the races they would have run in.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

If you guys keep saying that it won't make it true. I'm yet to hear a good example of a horse that would have run on Saturday if there were no Friday races and La Traviata is the only one that I can think of. There is no way they would have run Dream Rush at 6 furlongs against the boys. The Cigar Mile was hurt far more by the Friday races losing both Corinthian and Discreet Cat than any of the Saturday races were hurt. The only even possible I can think of is Xchanger who surely would have gone in the Jerome long before the Classic if the DC Dirt Mile didn't exist.

That strikes me as a strange sentence. You say that you have yet to hear a good example.....and then you name one.
It is also one (of the several) that have already been named on this thread (see response #81), so if you haven't seen an example, you simply haven't been reading very carefully.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

let me re-word that question
have any races been removed from the card?

Give me a break. Just because something was introduced, and never removed, does NOT mean it must be a good thing. I'm sure we can all think of about 1 billion things in the world that have been introduced and not removed. By your logic those are all good ideas, because if they weren't....somebody would have removed them!
A thing's mere existence does not prove the worthiness of that existence.