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...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ALostTexan

Looks like the Breeders' Cup guys actually got this one right, too, by asking that the Committee table to recommendation. Sounds like they might have taken a good, hard look at their request...

They asked them to table the request because they are going to add another race.

[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.

[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.

[JJP]

Speaking of turf sprints and new fads, can an Optional Claiming Breeders Cup race be far behind?

I better watch what I say....

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

They asked them to table the request because they are going to add another race.

I find it funny that the BC people asked the TOBA Graded Stakes Committee people to "table" their request.

It's the same people.

How the Graded Committe found their way to deciding there would be 3 more G 1's in 2008 than in 2007 -- with no races losing Grade 1 status -- just shows how incestuous and self-serving the BC is.

I suppose I don't blame them for doing what is in their own interest. But not everyone is stupid enough to believe that we need three more Grade 1's when the entire fall racing season already serves as a prep for the interests of the Breeders Cup.

Eventually, the TOBA-GSC will be forced to downgrade races like the Cigar and the JCGC. And no one will care.

[the_fat_man]

I just don't get all the disparagement concerning turf sprints. I think it takes a special kind of sprinter to be able to handle the turf, one that's a better athlete than it's dirt counterpart, as there's much more involved in terms of footwork on the turf than on the dirt. And, like all turf races, turf sprints are much more challenging in terms of race strategy and, in turn, handicapping. And I don't buy into the notion that only horses that can't run on the dirt turn to the turf, as if it were their last recourse. Two examples, off the top of my head, of turf sprinters that are at least as good, if not better, on the dirt: Gold Trippi and Giant Deputy.

I realize they're not top of the line runners but they're certainly not crows.

Can only hope that PJ Campo keeps 'em coming next year at BEL and SAR.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I just don't get all the disparagement concerning turf sprints. I think it takes a special kind of sprinter to be able to handle the turf, one that's a better athlete than it's dirt counterpart, as there's much more involved in terms of footwork on the turf than on the dirt. And, like all turf races, turf sprints are much more challenging in terms of race strategy and, in turn, handicapping. And I don't buy into the notion that only horses that can't run on the dirt turn to the turf, as if it were their last recourse. Two examples, off the top of my head, of turf sprinters that are at least as good, if not better, on the dirt: Gold Trippi and Giant Deputy.

I realize they're not top of the line runners but they're certainly not crows.

Can only hope that PJ Campo keeps 'em coming next year at BEL and SAR.

Not " only " but probably the majority.

I'm not disparaging turf sprints ( though I believe there are too many at the cheaper levels run in NY ). I'm all for a daily mix of races. If I don't like a kind of race I will work around it. If the turf sprints work for you, great, as I'm sure there are other kinds of races some favor that you don't.

That, however, is not the discussion at least I'm having here.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Don't forget Landseer off the top of my head.

talking of euros attempting the classic, on dirt. not euro horses in all races.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I just don't get all the disparagement concerning turf sprints. I think it takes a special kind of sprinter to be able to handle the turf, one that's a better athlete than it's dirt counterpart, as there's much more involved in terms of footwork on the turf than on the dirt. And, like all turf races, turf sprints are much more challenging in terms of race strategy and, in turn, handicapping. And I don't buy into the notion that only horses that can't run on the dirt turn to the turf, as if it were their last recourse. Two examples, off the top of my head, of turf sprinters that are at least as good, if not better, on the dirt: Gold Trippi and Giant Deputy.

I realize they're not top of the line runners but they're certainly not crows.

Can only hope that PJ Campo keeps 'em coming next year at BEL and SAR.

Turf sprints are a last resort for any intact horse and any filly/mare simply becase there are so few graded stakes in that "division" and the whole game is about getting black type. I can guarantee there are no horses running in turf sprints that could be out competing in other more lucrative divisions.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Maybe they compete in turf sprints because A) they are bred for turf, and B) they are bred to sprint.

That is poor breeding if anyone is that unblessed. People do everything possible to not breed a horse to be a turf sprinter.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Turf sprints are a last resort for any intact horse and any filly/mare simply becase there are so few graded stakes in that "division" and the whole game is about getting black type. I can guarantee there are no horses running in turf sprints that could be out competing in other more lucrative divisions.

yet, there are horses that are very talented turf sprinters; even excel at it. in fact, they're able to run faster on the turf than their dirt counterparts do on dirt (this is obviously because of the surface, right?). and, would probably beat those competing in 'more lucrative divisions' on the turf. once again, if we are to assume that these horses are the bottom feeders of racing, we need to have established that their dirt counterparts are better than they are on the turf. and, since, running on the turf is clearly beneath them, we'll never know for sure, will we? it goes round and round.

I also find it a bit ironic, that the very expensive, the very well bred, Green Monkey, was every bit the flop on turf that he is on dirt. then again, he was routing; there's still the sprint turf option left for him.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

yet, there are horses that are very talented turf sprinters; even excel at it. in fact, they're able to run faster on the turf than their dirt counterparts do on dirt (this is obviously because of the surface, right?). and, would probably beat those competing in 'more lucrative divisions' on the turf. once again, if we are to assume that these horses are the bottom feeders of racing, we need to have established that their dirt counterparts are better than they are on the turf. and, since, running on the turf is clearly beneath them, we'll never know for sure, will we? it goes round and round.

I also find it a bit ironic, that the very expensive, the very well bred, Green Monkey, was every bit the flop on turf that he is on dirt. then again, he was routing; there's still the sprint turf option left for him.

Yeah, and notice it is the last option. How many horses can you find me that established themselves as turf sprinters and didn't try and become a turf miler or a dirt sprinter? You won't find any, any that have the talent to get out of that division do so cause there is no black type to be earned there. The ones that stay are the ones that can't do anything else.

[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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

I find it funny that the BC people asked the TOBA Graded Stakes Committee people to "table" their request.

It's the same people.

How the Graded Committe found their way to deciding there would be 3 more G 1's in 2008 than in 2007 -- with no races losing Grade 1 status -- just shows how incestuous and self-serving the BC is.

I suppose I don't blame them for doing what is in their own interest. But not everyone is stupid enough to believe that we need three more Grade 1's when the entire fall racing season already serves as a prep for the interests of the Breeders Cup.

Eventually, the TOBA-GSC will be forced to downgrade races like the Cigar and the JCGC. And no one will care.

If the BC and stakes committee are one in the same it is awfully interesting that they are denying the BC graded status.

It is hard to follow how the Breeders Cup is to blame for The Makers Mark, Just A Game or First Lady being upgraded. If any race deserves an upgrade it is the Makers MArk. Run in April, the last 3 year it was won by the future BC mile winner in Kip Deville, Miesques Approval and Artie Schiller. The First Lady gets a grade 1 field every year. The Just a Game is a race in June with little BC implications.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Turf sprints are a last resort for any intact horse and any filly/mare simply becase there are so few graded stakes in that "division" and the whole game is about getting black type. I can guarantee there are no horses running in turf sprints that could be out competing in other more lucrative divisions.

Which is kind of my point. If there were more opportunities than the talent level would rise proportionally. You would also see more imported sprinters though with the dollar as weak as it is only the mega wealthy could do it. It would also diversify the stallion ranks eventually which would be a positive for the sport in general.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

That is poor breeding if anyone is that unblessed. People do everything possible to not breed a horse to be a turf sprinter.

That is absolutely untrue. The fact is that many of our top stallions like Mr. Greely are exactly that. You dont know it because there aren't any races here for them to show it. Mizzen Mast is another sire who has the ability to get a really good turf sprinter and himself was a grade 1 winner on the dirt despite being by Cozzene.