Three New BC Races

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

When it was THE championship race of the year, in Kelso and Buckpasser's time, it was run at 2 miles.

Horsemen have always planned for big target days. The days of choice have simply changed.

When exactly did best return on investment shift from racetrack earnings to stallion earnings - the mid-1980's? I'd like to go back and look at the PP's of most of the horses who have run in the Breeder's Cup races since inception, to see how significant a change has (or has not?) occured in race frequency leading up to a big race.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by miraja2

It obviously will reduce field size. There is no doubt about that. The addition of three new races this year already decreased field size.
If someone had a really top notch 2yo turf filly this year they could either take a shot against the boys in the juvenile turf OR try the dirt in the juvy fillies. Not next year. They can enter her in a BIG money 2yo turf race for fillies instead.
Saying that it won't reduce field size is nonsensical. People could disagree on how big of an impact it will have....but it will certainly have an impact.

Didn't the Juvenile races all vastly oversubscribe this year? I am sure that was a major factor in the decision to add the juvenile fillies turf race. So now instead of 22 entries in the juvenile turf we will only get 16. Either way we will wind up with a full field.

[Riot]

It obviously will reduce field size. There is no doubt about that. The addition of three new races this year already decreased field size.

2007 Friday:
F & M sprint - 10 entries - 14 allowed
Juv turf 1 mile - 12 entries - 12 allowed
Dirt mile - 9 entries - 14 allowed

2007 Saturday:
Juv Fillies - 14 entries - 14 allowed
Juv colts - 13 - 14 allowed
F & M turf - 12 entires - 14 allowed
Sprint - 11 entries - 14 allowed
Mile - 14 entries - 14 allowed
Distaff - 12 entries - 14 allowed
Turf - 8 entries - 14 allowed
Classic - 9 entries - 14 allowed

Here's the 2007 lists, including nominations under the Division click http://www.breederscup.com/content.aspx?id=28964

Who clearly moved from Saturday to Friday at time of entry? Seriously, let's figure it out to see how fields were affected by adding Friday.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Riot

2007 Friday:
F & M sprint - 10 entries - 14 allowed
Juv turf 1 mile - 12 entries - 12 allowed
Dirt mile - 9 entries - 14 allowed

2007 Saturday:
Juv Fillies - 14 entries - 14 allowed
Juv colts - 13 - 14 allowed
F & M turf - 12 entires - 14 allowed
Sprint - 11 entries - 14 allowed
Mile - 14 entries - 14 allowed
Distaff - 12 entries - 14 allowed
Turf - 8 entries - 14 allowed
Classic - 9 entries - 14 allowed

Here's the 2007 lists, including nominations under the Division click http://www.breederscup.com/content.aspx?id=28964

Who clearly moved from Saturday to Friday at time of entry? Seriously, let's figure it out to see how fields were affected by adding Friday.

Just La Traviata and she'd probably be crippled right now if she'd have tried to take on the boys.

[deltagulf]

well start breeding them again for the longer distances. and then they should have better horses to run in it then claimers.

[Riot]

Easiest way is to look at the entries for the three Friday divisions (cannot cut and paste it off the website, sorry) - and see what horses more properly belonged in a Saturday race.

If they didn't really belong in Saturday, then they were right to enter on Friday.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by deltagulf

well start breeding them again for the longer distances. and then they should have better horses to run in it then claimers.

I'm willing to wager that at least 3/4s of the field in the BC Dirt Marathon next year are either stakes winners or G1 placed.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by deltagulf

well start breeding them again for the longer distances. and then they should have better horses to run in it then claimers.

I think we have a few of those horses now, they just don't have the niche to excel race after race. I think we might see horses separating themselves out into two clearer groups, into the clear milers, and then more of a separation into the 1 1/4-1 1/2 horses.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Since horses with "wire" or "stalking" speed (as opposed to "plodders") usually win the Belmont Stakes, the only current benchmark race, why will plodders win the BC Dirt Marathon?

Because I think those horses that have any kind of speed will be in the Classic or the Dirt Mile and the Marathon will be left with all of the horses that are devoid of any kind of speed. The Belmont is won by horses with speed because they are better than the other horses and there isn't another choice of race for them on that same day. On BC day, there will be other races.

[Danzig]

or maybe these races were added for next year only(but not necessarily announced as such), to try to appeal to the euros more. after all, with the all weather track, there would be no worries about shipping all that way and then having to face a bad track like they did at monmouth. not all experiments are repeated. if it is a failure, i'm sure they'd go back to the drawing board.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Because I think those horses that have any kind of speed will be in the Classic or the Dirt Mile and the Marathon will be left with all of the horses that are devoid of any kind of speed. The Belmont is won by horses with speed because they are better than the other horses and there isn't another choice of race for them on that same day. On BC day, there will be other races.

You don't honestly think their will be real horses considering those three races as options....do you? The Marathon will be completely comprised by horses that were never even considered for the Mile or Classic.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Danzig

or maybe these races were added for next year only(but not necessarily announced as such), to try to appeal to the euros more. after all, with the all weather track, there would be no worries about shipping all that way and then having to face a bad track like they did at monmouth. not all experiments are repeated. if it is a failure, i'm sure they'd go back to the drawing board.

And I'm just as " sure " that you are dead wrong.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You don't honestly think their will be real horses considering those three races as options....do you? The Marathon will be completely comprised by horses that were never even considered for the Mile or Classic.

Guess that puts a crimp in the "short fields will result" argument.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

And I'm just as " sure " that you are dead wrong.

why?
if the race fills poorly, is full of the horses so many are convinced will be there, you think the powers that be would just leave it?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Danzig

why?
if the race fills poorly, is full of the horses so many are convinced will be there, you think the powers that be would just leave it?

Why? Because they are stubborn people that will never admit when they are wrong. And the committee is made up of people who are never told they are wrong.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Riot

Guess that puts a crimp in the "short fields will result" argument.

That argument is settled....or perhaps you didn't see the fields for the races this year.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You don't honestly think their will be real horses considering those three races as options....do you? The Marathon will be completely comprised by horses that were never even considered for the Mile or Classic.

As I've said a few times already, I don't expect any horses of quality to be in the Marathon anytime soon. I expect it to be barely above the level of an upper level claiming race. Even that may be too much to expect early on. I know it's going to be brutal to watch a bunch of slow horses staggering home down the stretch at the end of 12f. I think that the series of races they have during the year will also be horrible races. But I do think that it's a good idea and as I said, one side had to make the first move. The breeders wouldn't and I can't blame them. Maybe now, with the series and the BC race on the schedule, there is at least a little bit of incentive to try to breed horses for those kinds of races. The turning of the tide will be slow and it's never going to get back to the way it was. But at least it's a start and while maybe I'm being overly optomistic and maybe a bit naive, I think it's a move in the right direction. Time will tell. I don't think this race will take anything away from the Classic and I don't share the same concerns that you and some others have about naming the winners of every race as champions. We know better. I wouldn't care if they made the race an immediate grade one race. We know better.

[blackthroatedwind]

Calling the 1 1/2 mile race a BC race drags down every other race.

But what do I know.....I stopped watching the NFL in 1987 when they let the scab teams take the field for five games.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Calling the 1 1/2 mile race a BC race drags down every other race.

But what do I know.....I stopped watching the NFL in 1987 when they let the scab teams take the field for five games.

I understand that sentiment. It's the same one I have with calling prep races grade ones. IMO, if the Santa Anita Derby, the Florida Derby, the Wood and the Blue Grass are preps for the Kentucky Derby, making them the same grade as the main event does the Kentucky Derby an injustice. I believe the graded stakes committee decided that next year, not only will they keep the Arkansas Derby as a grade two but they also upgraded the Rebel to grade two status. That's very stupid to me. But I don't get worked up over it either way. They could make them all grade ones or make them all grade nines. They can call the new races BC races or they could call them whatever they want. I judge the races by what I think is the quality of the field and won't let a grade or title bother me.

[blackthroatedwind]

I agree with you about the Derby preps and their graded status. However, I can also understand the other side of the argument. There are pros and cons and the people that spend a great deal of money for horses have more than a right to a say in this matter. However, there is something highly illogical about TC preps being Graded the same as the actual TC races. However, they don't carry the same weight, or anything close, in terms of commanding breeding attention.

I don't care a great deal either about the whole thing but I do find the entire system greatly flawed. I wish there was a way to objectively grade all races at the end of the year, after they have been run, and after we have seen what kinds of horses actually comprised the fields. One of the main problems, of course, with this is the same people with questionable judgement, and personal agendas, would be doing the post race rating as well. Thus, all in all, I guess I would have to agree that it just doesn't matter or isn't really worth wasting much time over. However, wasting my time is my full time job.