Breeders' Cup Going for Grade 1's Again

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

OK, at least we have one sane member here.

I am curious though, about your thought that horses run in turf sprints because they are too slow to run sprinting on dirt or going a mile on the green.

Maybe I haven't thought about it enough, but for a horse like Nicole's Dream, before she was retired -- it was just what she was good at.

Is it not possible that some horses are just suited to sprinting on the grass? I'll use Arlington as an example. There plenty of horses who can win there going six furlongs on the dirt (or now, poly) but couldn't win a mile event out of the chute to save their lives. Maybe you're just making a generalization based on the recent proliferation of cheap maiden sellers and NW1X grass sprints full of 20-time losers -- but at the level where we're getting multiple winners and higher-end optional claimers, I tend to disagree and think that some horses are just better suited for that trip.

Of course, this question is only in relation to turf sprinting in general, and not having a BC race for them.

[blackthroatedwind]

Take a look at the pps of the horses that competed in the Turf Express at Hollywood on Saturday.

After doing so I am guessing you will agree with me.

[the_fat_man]

I personally find turf sprints to be just about the most exciting/challenging race there is.

If it were as simple as putting your bad horses in these types of races, then why wouldn't those with decent sprinters, say, enter them in some of these races and collect comparable purses in less competitive, by your assumption, races?

As for these horses not being able to stretch out: This is because stretching out on the turf is a bit more nuanced than stretching out on the dirt. Going from one to two turns presents all sorts of footwork issues--even to horses experienced in doing so. Which makes your favorite horse's, Sleeping Indian, stretch out to 2 turns all the more impressive, slow pace and all: he was on the correct lead throughout -- which is alot more than can be said for English Colony's 1st (quasi) 2 turn effort.

[blackthroatedwind]

That's fine that you find them a handicapping challenge.

How exactly does that qualify them for a supposed championship race? Where is the precedent for this in a country without even a Grade 2 race in that category?

[blackthroatedwind]

And, furthermore, the reason " decent sprinters " don't run in turf sprints is because there is no money in those races and no graded status to add to their potential residual value. These races are called the BREEDERS Cup.....so why exactly should they be honoring horses that only run in these races because they aren't good enough to run in races that enhance their BREEDING value?

I imagine some " decent " sprinters might show up in a $1 Million BC race....you know the " decent " kind that are too slow to have any chance in the dirt BC sprint. To me that hardly makes it a race of any kind of championship quality.

[the_fat_man]

So now we're not really focusing on mediocre dirt horses but rather those good enough to compete in quality races.

And, if there's a BC race for turf routers and turf milers, why shouldn't there be one for turf sprinters? Assuming we're discussing the addition of races.

Frankly, I'd much rather have seen a BC turf sprint at MTH (friday's card) than 2 mile races for 2 year olds.

It's also not a certainty, at least to me, that the best dirt sprinter will beat the best turf sprinter on the turf. Until that's proven to be the case, there's a place for the turf sprinter.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Frankly, I'd much rather have seen a BC turf sprint at MTH (friday's card) than 2 mile races for 2 year olds.

How about running a $250K for turf sprinters in addition to the 2YO fields? Certainly that would have gotten the same field as a phony BC race would have gotten.

Frankly, the BC needs to find a way to facilitate foreign participation, like every other country does. That is a far more pressing need than adding races of dubious quality.

[SentToStud]

A blind man could see this coming a mile away.

A lot of people think the BC hit on a good thing with the FM Turf race and they're just "building on that success" with all these additional races. Then again, fillies and mares like Pebbles, Miss Alleged, Royal Heroine, Miesque (x2), Ridgewood Pearl and Six Perfections did just fine without the sex-restriction.

Adding a Juv Turf race, throwing a million dollars at it and trying to get G1 for it is ludicrous. There are a grand total of two Graded turf races for 2 yo's, both of which are Grade 3's and both run in late November at Hollywood. The purses for these races are $100k and $150k. What possible justification is there for a race like this? For the BC people to say it will draw Euro horses is rubbish. Fact is, they've done a lousy job getting Europeans to come during the last 5-8 years and throwing money at the problem is ridiculous and will only serve to further dilute decent racing throughout the fall.

There's even less reason for a $1,000,000 turf sprint aside from, perhaps, to provide competition to the Delta Jackpot as the most ridiculous race of the year.

I like Breeders Cup Day for the racing but overall it's bad for the sport the way it dilutes good races throughout the fall. The JCGC was ok this year but last year's race was pathetic. It won't be long until races like the JCGC and Cigar are downgraded or even go the way of the Marlboro.

This year's Cigar should have drawn Corinthian and a few others. Instead we saw a pretty lousy race. If you don't think it was a lousy race, you are in disagreement with bettors who wagered far more on Aqueduct's last race that day (a NYBred N1X) than they did on the Cigar.

On the positive side, the Cigar resulted in Naughty New Yorker now being Grade 1 Stakes Placed. There is always something for which to be thankful.

[JJP]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

And, if there's a BC race for turf routers and turf milers, why shouldn't there be one for turf sprinters? Assuming we're discussing the addition of races.

First off, its a new type of race. Ten years ago, how many turf sprints did you see, other than maybe the downhill races at SA? This is a recent phenomenon, that seems to be inspired most strongly by the NYRA racing secretary(ies).

I guess I shouldn't have used the word "phenomenon" when describing turf sprints since there is absolutely nothing phenomenal about them. Hopefully, like new Coke, this fad will fade away.

[Linny]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Take a look at the pps of the horses that competed in the Turf Express at Hollywood on Saturday.

After doing so I am guessing you will agree with me.

Bad example, the G1 Citation sucked too. The mid Atlantic has some awesome grass sprinters. That said, I dont think the new races should be G1.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Linny

Bad example, the G1 Citation sucked too. The mid Atlantic has some awesome grass sprinters. That said, I dont think the new races should be G1.

Huh?

If you take a look at the lifetime past performances of the field for the Hollywood Turf Express you will see that those horses ended up in turf sprints because they were unsuccessful either on the dirt going short or on the turf going longer.

You missed my point completely.......and then chastised me. Much appreciated.

[blackthroatedwind]

And, by the way, the Mid-Atlantic has a lot of " awesome " performances....that don't get duplicated in NY.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

There are nine graded stakes for turf sprinters (all of which Grade 3's) - and honestly, isn't that nine races too many?

A Breeders Cup Turf Sprint...or anything that legitimizes turf sprints for horses age three and up is a bad idea.

I'd be in favor of a Breeders Cup Starter Allowance race - restricted to horses who raced for a tag of 25K or less during that racing season - before I would be a turf sprint.

A middle distance starter allowance race would feature a massively oversubscribed field of horses with forms dominated by winning performances at a VERY WIDE variety of race-tracks and distances....probably trained by a bunch of move-up artists and undesireables.

The real bright spot of that kind of race would be the fact that it would not siphon out contenders from other BC races. I'd rather see cheaper horses in razor sharp form get to run for a $1 million purse - than have the possibility of the fields for the existing Breeders Cup races being further watered down

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by Cardus

It would be more sensible if tracks coast-to-coast established series of turf sprints first, and then a BC turf sprint were added.

Adding a BC turf sprint in the hopes that tracks would subsequently establish such races is the tail wagging the dog.

I guess that horse left the barn awhile ago, though.

BUt that's what happened with the turf Mile. There were precious few turf mile stakes races run in the USA before the Breeders' Cup started, and none of them respected. Mostly they were run as part of series of prep races for the BIG turf race of the meet at 12f (or 14f at Santa Anita), or as a consolation race for lacking the stamina for the BIG race. The Dixie Hcp was 12f on turf. The Hialeah Turf Cup was 12f. The Hollywood Invitational Turf H was 12f. Turf racing was all about classic distance (12f) racing until the Turf Mile came along. Now all the big racetracks have big turf mile races which have, in some cases, stolen the thunder from the longer distance races.

The BC is insidious; it has shaped the entire US racing program to its format, to the detriment of racing as a whole. Why were the Jockey Club Gold Cup, Vosburgh S, Super Derby, and others shortened? To get in line with the BC.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

The BC is insidious; it has shaped the entire US racing program to its format, to the detriment of racing as a whole. Why were the Jockey Club Gold Cup, Vosburgh S, Super Derby, and others shortened? To get in line with the BC.

Very good point.