Graded Earnings: Is there an alternative?

[hockey2315]

Look at it this way. . .

You say Sam P. is more deserving than Tiago so I'll compare those two because they make for a good comparison. . .

Sam P. has run in four graded stakes and hasn't won. . .

Tiago has run in two graded stakes and won a G1. . .

Sam P. has had four chances to prove himself as a stakes winner and has essentially failed. . .

Tiago hasn't necessarily proven himself off of one big effort, but he has atleast earned the chance to try and show that the SA Derby wasn't a fluke.

That's more than you can say for Sam P. (not that I don't think he belongs in the derby, just that Tiago deserves it more). . .

[blackthroatedwind]

One thing is for sure, there is no plan that would be put in place to qualify horses for the Derby that would NOT include eligibility for the winner of any of the big final prep races. That's a certainty.

[whodey17]

Think of it this way......you could have a horse race just once in one of the big three preps and that horse is in with just one race. My point is that this philosophy is bad for racing. I know that it is highly unlikely, but it is a possibility. Why on earth would we support a system that possibly encourages horses to race less often. This isnt about Tiago or any other horse. It is about the system we have in place to decide who runs in arguably the most important race in the world. I fear that the trend would be once you have the graded money to sit out until the 1st Saturday in May. Quay is sitting out 8 weeks, Scat Daddy is 6 (I believe), SS and Great Hunter only had 2 Preps. This is not a trend that I like.

[hockey2315]

Scat Daddy will have 5 weeks in between. . .

This is a problem with the status of the breed in my opinion. . .

Horses have become more unsound as we all know. . .

I highly doubt Pletcher views the 8 week lay-off for CQ as ideal. . . Horses aren't running because they're hurt/tired, not because of graded earnings. ..

Originally Posted by whodey17

Think of it this way......you could have a horse race just once in one of the big three preps and that horse is in with just one race. My point is that this philosophy is bad for racing....Why on earth would we support a system that possibly encourages horses to race less often.

DOes it really encourage horses to race less often? It could equally be argued that it will encourage more horses to race, since those horses that haven race early in the season or have had poor results early on would be DISCOURAGED to try once more.

You have dug in your heels on this, but I am not sure it is as certain as you are making it out to be. I see your logic vis a vis the problem, but disagree w/ the conclusions you draw here.

Why not weight the earnings: 100% for GIII and GII; 60% for GI and 30% for ungraded stakes?

The only aberration in this years field that I see is BirdBird getting $600,000 for that Boyds Delta River Jackpot whatever. Not a good field, run at a slow time of year, etc.

[hi_im_god]

why not graded stakes earnings? it's uncomplicated and everyone knows the rules going in.

the only arguement i can see against this system is someone might occasionally get a burr under their saddle about the perfectly servicable winner of a grade 1 race making the starting gate and knocking out a less qualified horse.

the graded stakes system works. you are twisting yourself into a pretzle trying to fix a nonexistent problem.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

why not graded stakes earnings? it's uncomplicated and everyone knows the rules going in.

the only arguement i can see against this system is someone might occasionally get a burr under their saddle about the perfectly servicable winner of a grade 1 race making the starting gate and knocking out a less qualified horse.

the graded stakes system works. you are twisting yourself into a pretzle trying to fix a nonexistent problem.

This year it has worked quite well. Keep in mind though that Birdbirdistheword, Pirates Deputy, and Xchanger could all be entering that starting gate if they wanted to. Jack Junior would have a guaranteed spot if he wanted it. Once the BC Turf Juvenile gets graded status the top two or three horses would be able to get in. Take away a Notional injury, throw in the horses I mentioned above, point a Sightseeing to the Derby and suddenly we'd be looking at a scenario where Any Given Saturday doesn't get in.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

This year it has worked quite well. Keep in mind though that Birdbirdistheword, Pirates Deputy, and Xchanger could all be entering that starting gate if they wanted to. Jack Junior would have a guaranteed spot if he wanted it. Once the BC Turf Juvenile gets graded status the top two or three horses would be able to get in. Take away a Notional injury, throw in the horses I mentioned above, point a Sightseeing to the Derby and suddenly we'd be looking at a scenario where Any Given Saturday doesn't get in.

does a rube goldberg points system or weighting stakes races solve this? or does it just create a more complicated less understandable system?

i think it's great that people put thought into solving a difficult problem with innovative solutions and usually hate the a-holes that shoot down every suggestion with "that won't work". but you have to have an actual problem first.

there is no problem. everyone understands how this works. some years people responsible for choosing where a horse runs make a puzzling choice and the horse doesn't get in the gate. that will still be the case in any of the proposed "solutions". only everyone who doesn't pay close attention to boards like this will have no idea what is going on.

"he has more stakes $ but some of it is reduced because we only apply 60% for a grade 2" or "he got less points for winning his $1 million stakes at 2 than a horse that finished 3rd in a 750,000 stakes at 3".

simple is good. tiago deserves a spot because his connections were smart enough to run him where they did. anyone who misses the gate should have thought about running at santa anita the first week of april.

no one has to learn calculus to understand that.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by whodey17

Imagine if that maiden who ran in the Arkansas Derby won, then he would be in. How is that logical.

I would say yes, if a horse actually won a G2, 9f race in his debut, he would probably deserve a shot to run in the Kentucky Derby. That is not exactly an easy thing to do.
To me, the problem with your argument is that these 9f graded stakes races run between 3 and 5 weeks before the Kentucky Derby are the races that provide the best indications of who really belongs in the Derby. Are there occasionally "fluke" winners of these races that don't actually have a good chance of winning the Kentucky Derby? Sure, but any system that would deny the winners of any of those races a shot, is terribly flawed.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I would say yes, if a horse actually won a G2, 9f race in his debut, he would probably deserve a shot to run in the Kentucky Derby. That is not exactly an easy thing to do.
To me, the problem with your argument is that these 9f graded stakes races run between 3 and 5 weeks before the Kentucky Derby are the races that provide the best indications of who really belongs in the Derby. Are there occasionally "fluke" winners of these races that don't actually have a good chance of winning the Kentucky Derby? Sure, but any system that would deny the winners of any of those races a shot, is terribly flawed.

What if one of those races was full of maidens. Does the winner still deserve to go. Why is the Wood, Bluegrass, Arkansas and Santa Anita the beginning and end on who goes to the Derby? The winner of each of those races still could go to the Derby. However, they must have other Graded races as well.

I do agree with your post about the breed. However, that can be changed if racing demands it by setting forth qualifications that make sense in order to race for the biggest prizes.

[blackthroatedwind]

The biggest problem, as I see it, with the author of this threads "argument " is that he has not offered a reasonable alternative. Instead he came up with a very questionable list ( Sightseeing? ) of who he thought was more deserving. Luckily at least the current system does not include subjective decision making.

It isn't a perfect system, but it is fair in that it allows horses a chance to prove their way in by earnings, and as has been pointed out VERY few deserving horses have been excluded and those that have possibly been excluded were because they failed to win at least one necessary race.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The biggest problem, as I see it, with the author of this threads "argument " is that he has not offered a reasonable alternative. Instead he came up with a very questionable list ( Sightseeing? ) of who he thought was more deserving. Luckily at least the current system does not include subjective decision making.

It isn't a perfect system, but it is fair in that it allows horses a chance to prove their way in by earnings, and as has been pointed out VERY few deserving horses have been excluded and those that have possibly been excluded were because they failed to win at least one necessary race.

I believed I offered a reasonable aternative in the original post. Please, enlighten me as to why a pts system like I proposed would not work?

[whodey17]

I just picked some horses from this year 3 year old crop and applied my pts system. Again, this would change if my pts system was in place. Anyway...

Scat Daddy - 70
Circular Quay - 60
Stormello - 57
No Biz - 52
Street Sense - 48
Cowtown Cat - 32
Teuf - 27
Curlin - 22
Storm In May - 22
Sightseeing - 21
Tiago - 16