Three New BC Races

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by miraja2

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.

what i was asking about was whether any race in the bc card ever was a failure, or removed after being added. that would indicate that they have made errors and corrected them. what races are a failure on the bc card, but remain?