Breeders' Cup Going for Grade 1's Again

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

None of it matters to me Chuck. Hell, why should any of this crap matter to any of us? Does Daafur matter? What matters?

That doesn't mean it isn't a stupid and indefensible idea to denote a supposed championship race for a division that doesn't exist at anything close to a high level and is populated by also rans.

I think the problem is that you are accepting these races as "championship" races. By changing the name that still doesn't make them championships. Was the Distaff a championship race this year?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think the problem is that you are accepting these races as "championship" races. By changing the name that still doesn't make them championships. Was the Distaff a championship race this year?

No, but it was at least contested by a bunch of reasonable horses with decent accomplishments.

[blackthroatedwind]

Let me add, the BC is supposed to be, by it's very conception, a series of championship races. Whether I accept them as such is besides the point. They are saying so.....and thus by creating a BC Turf Sprint they would be denoting a race, that by its very nature is likely to be at least mostly contested by marginal race horses, as a " Championship " event. It lessens the rest of their program if nothing else.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Let me add, the BC is supposed to be, by it's very conception, a series of championship races. Whether I accept them as such is besides the point. They are saying so.....and thus by creating a BC Turf Sprint they would be denoting a race, that by its very nature is likely to be at least mostly contested by marginal race horses, as a " Championship " event. It lessens the rest of their program if nothing else.

When the NBA started giving out the 6th man of the year it didn't lessen the value of the MVP award.
I just dont see how a turf sprint or 2 year old filly grass race effects the quality or reputation of the Distaff or Classic. Adding the Texas Bowl wont have any effect on the Rose or Orange Bowls. No one in their right mind would equate the winners as equals. I dont think that anyone would believe the winner of the FM Sprint the equal of the winner of the Classic.
But in the end it really doesn't matter what we think or what they do...

[blackthroatedwind]

The NBA's Sixth Man awards a player of talent who helps his team. The BC Turf Sprint would award a horse too slow to compete against even mildly talented horses in other races that was the fastest turtle of his group. I don't see the analogy.

I believe in standards, Chuck, and if the BC denotes races for marginal contingents, so marginal in fact that there are a mere smattering of races for that group even contested annually, then they are suggesting, at least to me, that they have no standards. To me it marginalizes their entire product.

I do see a distinction between making $250K supporting races and making these same races $1 Million BC races. I am all for supporting stakes for divisions below championship caliber. I think if the BC is unable to make this distinction they are further marginalizing themselves and their product. I'm all for improving something, but to alter it to its detriment does the opposite, it diminishes itself.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The NBA's Sixth Man awards a player of talent who helps his team. The BC Turf Sprint would award a horse too slow to compete against even mildly talented horses in other races that was the fastest turtle of his group. I don't see the analogy.

I believe in standards, Chuck, and if the BC denotes races for marginal contingents, so marginal in fact that there are a mere smattering of races for that group even contested annually, then they are suggesting, at least to me, that they have no standards. To me it marginalizes their entire product.

I do see a distinction between making $250K supporting races and making these same races $1 Million BC races. I am all for supporting stakes for divisions below championship caliber. I think if the BC is unable to make this distinction they are further marginalizing themselves and their product. I'm all for improving something, but to alter it to its detriment does the opposite, it diminishes itself.

Fair enough. I cant say that I agree with you on this but I do get where you are coming from. Though I thought the 6th man analogy was accurate as if he was as talented he would be starting.

I just think that because turf and dirt are so distinctly different that to say a top turf sprinter is not talented enough to compete on dirt is like saying that a horse like GW is not talented enough to compete on the dirt. It wasn't that GW wasnt talented enough, it was he wasn't a dirt horse. There are a thousand Danehill stakes winners and not one of them is on the dirt. It would be hard to fathom that there isn't a horse by Danehill or another top turf sire that would not be a legit turf sprinter. The only reason that there isnt a tradition of top class turf sprinters in this country is that the tracks simply did not write the races. I believe that if you write enough quality stakes you will get a competitive division with talented horses. I have passed on horses at Tattersalles simply because there were no shorter races for them over here and I did not want to be screwed if they did not stretch out. The fact is that the dirt sprint division is been so weak in recent years that you might see some crossover from the turf sprint stakes to the dirt sprint.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Fair enough. I cant say that I agree with you on this but I do get where you are coming from. Though I thought the 6th man analogy was accurate as if he was as talented he would be starting.

I just think that because turf and dirt are so distinctly different that to say a top turf sprinter is not talented enough to compete on dirt is like saying that a horse like GW is not talented enough to compete on the dirt. It wasn't that GW wasnt talented enough, it was he wasn't a dirt horse. There are a thousand Danehill stakes winners and not one of them is on the dirt. It would be hard to fathom that there isn't a horse by Danehill or another top turf sire that would not be a legit turf sprinter. The only reason that there isnt a tradition of top class turf sprinters in this country is that the tracks simply did not write the races. I believe that if you write enough quality stakes you will get a competitive division with talented horses. I have passed on horses at Tattersalles simply because there were no shorter races for them over here and I did not want to be screwed if they did not stretch out. The fact is that the dirt sprint division is been so weak in recent years that you might see some crossover from the turf sprint stakes to the dirt sprint.

So then you think Michael Finley is more talented and important to the Spurs than Manu Ginobili is? There are other examples of players that come off of the bench and are more talented than starters but the best fit for the team is to have them coming off of the bench to maybe be that anchor for the second unit or to give their team a bigger advantage over the other teams bench. Chicago did much better when Ben Gordon was a sixth man instead of a starter. Remember Rickey Pierce in Milwaukee? I believe he made the all-star team coming off of the bench, as Ginobili probably will this season.