Five New Grade I Races in 2007; Two Others Drop to Grade II

[jpops757]

In spite of the claim of races deserving graded status. Too many are simply handed out because of tradition and politics. My home track is LS and I feel the main reason they have a couple of gr3 races is because the grading group want to send them a bone because they are a very nice source of income from a simo stand point and not the racing quality. Granted a few very nice horses ship in for the gr3s but the overall quality is not there.

Originally Posted by jpops757

In spite of the claim of races deserving graded status. Too many are simply handed out because of tradition and politics. My home track is LS and I feel the main reason they have a couple of gr3 races is because the grading group want to send them a bone because they are a very nice source of income from a simo stand point and not the racing quality. Granted a few very nice horses ship in for the gr3s but the overall quality is not there.

Well then you get the debate on what is quality. I mean, tracks cannot make trainers race their horses. Say you are all set for a nice Grade I race and then two days before the race the two "stars" defect. It isn't the tracks fault so why should that race get a negative mark against it. There are too many variables that come in to play.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Why would anyone wanna prep for the Derby over poly where speed has no chance, .

THe first three in the BC Juvie ran in the the Breeders' Futurity at Keeneland.

[Pedigree Ann]

When I look abck at the original list of graded races from 1973, I could cry at how far from the original intent we have come.

In 1973, there was only ONE G1 for horses 3 and up at 8f or less - the Met Mile. At 1 1/16 there was the Californian S; at 9f were the San Antonio S (a Big 'Cap prep) and the Governor S (a prep for the Marlboro Cup etc.); there were 9 G1s at 10f, then the Woodward at 12f and the Jockey Club Gold Cup at 2 miles.

There were no G1s shorter than 9f for older mares, nor for 3yos. Sophomore fillies could get a G1 for winning the Acorn at 8f or the Cotillion at 8.5f, but the remaining 5 G1s were at 9f or beyond. (The Kentucky Oaks was more or less a local race in those days, a G2; its prep, the Ashland S, was a G3). The shortest G1 turf race was the 9f American Derby for 3yos; older horses had the 9.5f UN H, but then it was 11f or longer to win a G1. Juveniles had 6 chances to win a G1 in open company, 5 chances if they ran in filly races. (None of these races was around 2 turns by the way - the 8.5f races at Laurel were run around one turn with an auxilary finish line.)

[Cannon Shell]

The grading system is broken and every year they usually make it worse.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The grading system is broken and every year they usually make it worse.

Simple and true.

I would love to know why races like the Gazelle are still a Grade 1. It comes three weeks after arguably NY's biggest Grade 1 restricted to 3YO fillies....the Alabama. It's almost like saying " hey, don't worry if you weren't good enough for the Alabama, you can still get a Grade 1 in a much weaker spot ". And, I basically agree with the poster who asked why the Prioress is a Grade 1. OK, it's the only Grade 1 at 6F restricted to 3YO fillies. Great, who the hell said we needed one. Somebody remind me, what is the Grade 1 race at 6F restricted to 3YO colts? Off the top of my head I can't think of one. It seems to me the Acorn, Mother Goose, CCA Oaks, Alabama and Test are enough races restricted to 3YO fillies at Grade 1 level for NY.

Whatever race ends the 3YO filly series at Santa Anita probably shouldn't be a Grade 1 either. Wow....last year it produced Balance! And, while I'm ranting, why is the Garden City, a 3YO filly stake on the grass at Belmont, a Grade 1? Yes, it has had some nice fields, but this year the very mediocre Magnificent Song won it, last year while the first two finishers are nice horses it was a four horse field and a few years ago my friend Pete's horse, Indy Five Hundred, won it and she's hardly a Grade 1 quality horse.

While I am on it, I know the Carter has a lot of history, but unless this year's field is SUBSTANTIALLY better than the absolute crap that ran in it this year it needs to be downgraded. If they don't come for these races then they should not retain their ratings.

This is off the top of my head, so I am sure there are others, but frankly I would rather watch " The 400 Blows " than even think about how screwed up this game is.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Simple and true.

I would love to know why races like the Gazelle are still a Grade 1. It comes three weeks after arguably NY's biggest Grade 1 restricted to 3YO fillies....the Alabama. It's almost like saying " hey, don't worry if you weren't good enough for the Alabama, you can still get a Grade 1 in a much weaker spot ". And, I basically agree with the poster who asked why the Prioress is a Grade 1. OK, it's the only Grade 1 at 6F restricted to 3YO fillies. Great, who the hell said we needed one. Somebody remind me, what is the Grade 1 race at 6F restricted to 3YO colts? Off the top of my head I can't think of one. It seems to me the Acorn, Mother Goose, CCA Oaks, Alabama and Test are enough races restricted to 3YO fillies at Grade 1 level for NY.

Whatever race ends the 3YO filly series at Santa Anita probably shouldn't be a Grade 1 either. Wow....last year it produced Balance! And, while I'm ranting, why is the Garden City, a 3YO filly stake on the grass at Belmont, a Grade 1? Yes, it has had some nice fields, but this year the very mediocre Magnificent Song won it, last year while the first two finishers are nice horses it was a four horse field and a few years ago my friend Pete's horse, Indy Five Hundred, won it and she's hardly a Grade 1 quality horse.

While I am on it, I know the Carter has a lot of history, but unless this year's field is SUBSTANTIALLY better than the absolute crap that ran in it this year it needs to be downgraded. If they don't come for these races then they should not retain their ratings.

This is off the top of my head, so I am sure there are others, but frankly I would rather watch " The 400 Blows " than even think about how screwed up this game is.

Darn good post.

[NoCarolinaTony]

Originally Posted by oracle80

In the last 5 runnings, 3 horses who hit the board in the Blue Grass haev gone on to win grade ones. Peace Rules, Offlee Wild, and Harlans Holiday.

In the last 5 runnnings of the ARk Derby, off the top of my head I can list Flower Alley, Purge, Smarty Jones, and Aflet Alex.
I'll check and see if there were anymore.

How About Bluegrass Cat & Lion Heart (Haskell), Bandini....and What did Smarty or Alex win outside of the Derby trail? and What exactly is Purge a one race wonder.....?

NC Tony

[Linny]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The grading system is broken and every year they usually make it worse.

I couldn't agree more. First off lets begin with the premise that a G1=G1. This means that all G1's (within each division) is EQUAL. Now, does anyone think that the Donn H and the BC Classic are equal? Then why do they carry the same grade. Racing has changed and G1 horses are starting less and less often. As such we need fewer not more G1's. If races like the BC, the Derby etc are "better" or "more important" that races like the Donn or the Foster or the Florida Derby or the Hollywood Gold Cup, why do they carry the same grade. G1 races should be the elite races, not those who, back in the history of the game were won my G1 horses.

I love the history of the game and am saddened to see races like the Ladies Handicap run for $65k, with no grade, no fanfare. It's one of the oldest races in the US. It seems to me that it should have some honored position in the summer with all the history polished and shining every year, but it doesn't. Same for the Fall Highweight and the now dead Lawrence Realization. Sadly though, the game has changed and the best horses cherry pick spots and appear 4-5 times a year.

Originally Posted by Linny

I couldn't agree more. First off lets begin with the premise that a G1=G1. This means that all G1's (within each division) is EQUAL. Now, does anyone think that the Donn H and the BC Classic are equal? Then why do they carry the same grade. Racing has changed and G1 horses are starting less and less often. As such we need fewer not more G1's. If races like the BC, the Derby etc are "better" or "more important" that races like the Donn or the Foster or the Florida Derby or the Hollywood Gold Cup, why do they carry the same grade. G1 races should be the elite races, not those who, back in the history of the game were won my G1 horses.

I love the history of the game and am saddened to see races like the Ladies Handicap run for $65k, with no grade, no fanfare. It's one of the oldest races in the US. It seems to me that it should have some honored position in the summer with all the history polished and shining every year, but it doesn't. Same for the Fall Highweight and the now dead Lawrence Realization. Sadly though, the game has changed and the best horses cherry pick spots and appear 4-5 times a year.

The problem is that the BC has disrupted and ruined just about every part of racing.
Grade one races used to be just that, grade one races. In order to earn accolades and status you had to run and compete in them.
Now the BC has overshadowed everything. races like the Fall Highweight and Lawrence no longer matter, and attendance is no longer required at early year grade ones as noone remembers them at the end of the year anyway, its all BC based.
BC is the worst thing that ever happened to racing. Its rendered most of teh year meaningless and turned a bunch of races that used to be real nice and important into 5 horse "prep" races. Extremely sad.

I also believe that all Grade I's arent equal. Are you to tell me that Seek Gold is equal to Invasor or Barbaro. I think we should have fewer Grade I's. However, I also recognize that there needs to be Grade I's for different type of horses. We need a Grade I for those horses who sprint, can go 1 1/16, 1 1/8 and 1 1/4. We need turf as well. I think three Grade I's per "group" if perfect.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

I also believe that all Grade I's arent equal. Are you to tell me that Seek Gold is equal to Invasor or Barbaro. I think we should have fewer Grade I's. However, I also recognize that there needs to be Grade I's for different type of horses. We need a Grade I for those horses who sprint, can go 1 1/16, 1 1/8 and 1 1/4. We need turf as well. I think three Grade I's per "group" if perfect.

Dumb idea, and would only weaken racing further. All you would be doing is further strengthening the hold that the BC has on racing.
You'd be taking away the little incentive that owners and trainers have now to campaing top horses, and they'd run three times a year as opposed to 5-6.
Do you even think about what you write?

Originally Posted by oracle80

The problem is that the BC has disrupted and ruined just about every part of racing.
Grade one races used to be just that, grade one races. In order to earn accolades and status you had to run and compete in them.
Now the BC has overshadowed everything. races like the Fall Highweight and Lawrence no longer matter, and attendance is no longer required at early year grade ones as noone remembers them at the end of the year anyway, its all BC based.
BC is the worst thing that ever happened to racing. Its rendered most of teh year meaningless and turned a bunch of races that used to be real nice and important into 5 horse "prep" races. Extremely sad.

Amen Oracle. It has turned racing into a 6 month campaign (if that long) for some horses. Now three year olds are different since they have to "earn" their way into the Derby. I know we are speaking of the best of the best--but these horses are way makes our sport. On the Derby trail, you get real good racing from Feb to June. Then you get a little low until the fall when the three yeard olds gear up again for the big fall purses. We essentially get 7-9 months of good three year old racing. When it comes to older horses--well we get from Sept to Nov if we are lucky. The Breeders Cup intention is good, but it sure has screwed up racing for the older horses.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by oracle80

The problem is that the BC has disrupted and ruined just about every part of racing.
Grade one races used to be just that, grade one races. In order to earn accolades and status you had to run and compete in them.
Now the BC has overshadowed everything. races like the Fall Highweight and Lawrence no longer matter, and attendance is no longer required at early year grade ones as noone remembers them at the end of the year anyway, its all BC based.
BC is the worst thing that ever happened to racing. Its rendered most of teh year meaningless and turned a bunch of races that used to be real nice and important into 5 horse "prep" races. Extremely sad.

Of course if there was no BC we likely wouldn't have ever seen Lava Man, Invasor, and Bernardini ever race against each other this year. Bernardini would have been retired after the JCGC and Invasor would have probably run in the Clark. Lava Man might have gone up for the $1 million turf race in Canada. About the only other difference in their schedules is that Invasor might have run in the Woodward this year.

[Pointg5]

Of course he doesn't...

I wonder how much of an effect not only the BC races have ruined racing, but Dubai as well, although lately the effect seems to be minimal, mainly our 2nd tier horses go or horses at the end of their careers looking for a big paycheck....

I started following racing back in late 1998, so I don't have much of a frame of reference for how often horses raced at one time...

Originally Posted by oracle80

Dumb idea, and would only weaken racing further. All you would be doing is further strengthening the hold that the BC has on racing.
You'd be taking away the little incentive that owners and trainers have now to campaing top horses, and they'd run three times a year as opposed to 5-6.
Do you even think about what you write?

I disagree with you 100%. Do you ever think about what you write? You are speaking of the very top horses. Which there are only about 2-4 top horses in each division each year. If you have less Grade I races then you will get larger fields therefor making it harder for the elite to win. We wouldnt see the JCGC with a 4 horse field if you know you only have 3 chances to get your horse a Grade I win. Supply is low therefore demand to be in those races is high. Come on, think with your big head before you speak.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Amen Oracle. It has turned racing into a 6 month campaign (if that long) for some horses. Now three year olds are different since they have to "earn" their way into the Derby. I know we are speaking of the best of the best--but these horses are way makes our sport. On the Derby trail, you get real good racing from Feb to June. Then you get a little low until the fall when the three yeard olds gear up again for the big fall purses. We essentially get 7-9 months of good three year old racing. When it comes to older horses--well we get from Sept to Nov if we are lucky. The Breeders Cup intention is good, but it sure has screwed up racing for the older horses.

Then why the hell would you wanna REDUCE grade ones?!!!!
Don't you even understand that that viewpoint is counter to the one you cite here?
What we need is higher purse money in the grade ones and a movement to make racing matter all year long again like it used to.
Its horrible what the BC has done.
Tagg was on ATRAB and he was talking about Showing Up and how he planned a very light campaign next spring and summer but already falls lined up.
Now look, Tagg is doing the right thing by his horse and owners, no doubt. I'm not bashing him. But think about how sad it is that in November, Tagg is telling us that the best American grass horse who will be racing next year already has an abrreviated fall campaign mapped out.
You make the spring and summer grade one purses high enough, and guys will start saying screw it, lets just run and win some races and money.
The BC weakens racing further every year that goes by.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

I disagree with you 100%. Do you ever think about what you write? You are speaking of the very top horses. Which there are only about 2-4 top horses in each division each year. If you have less Grade I races then you will get larger fields therefor making it harder for the elite to win. We wouldnt see the JCGC with a 4 horse field if you know you only have 3 chances to get your horse a Grade I win. Supply is low therefore demand to be in those races is high. Come on, think with your big head before you speak.

Your just not that bright if you cant see that fewer opportunities that mean anything means fewer races by top horses.
Supply isn't low, purse money is. Graded status is the only motivation they have to run at all, you take that away and you can just forget the whole thing.
You really don't get the business at all.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Of course if there was no BC we likely wouldn't have ever seen Lava Man, Invasor, and Bernardini ever race against each other this year. Bernardini would have been retired after the JCGC and Invasor would have probably run in the Clark. Lava Man might have gone up for the $1 million turf race in Canada. About the only other difference in their schedules is that Invasor might have run in the Woodward this year.

You must be young, because you are wrong.
Not that long ago, a few decades ago horses ran against each other all year long. They had to in order to win titles.
They play keepaway now because they know they have the BC to settle it.
WIthout the BC, you'd see teh matchups all year. Unless you wanan explain to me that you are so smart that 85 years of history before the BC when thsi ALWAYS happened was an abberation, lol.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Then why the hell would you wanna REDUCE grade ones?!!!!
Don't you even understand that that viewpoint is counter to the one you cite here?
What we need is higher purse money in the grade ones and a movement to make racing matter all year long again like it used to.
Its horrible what the BC has done.
Tagg was on ATRAB and he was talking about Showing Up and how he planned a very light campaign next spring and summer but already falls lined up.
Now look, Tagg is doing the right thing by his horse and owners, no doubt. I'm not bashing him. But think about how sad it is that in November, Tagg is telling us that the best American grass horse who will be racing next year already has an abrreviated fall campaign mapped out.
You make the spring and summer grade one purses high enough, and guys will start saying screw it, lets just run and win some races and money.
The BC weakens racing further every year that goes by.

I agree that the Breeders Cup weakens the racing year long. However, increasing purses to Grade I's is not the answer. Reducing the number of Grade I races is the key to spur competition in these races. Then you have to take these Grade I races and spread them throughout the year. Then you will have a horse in training all year long. Most trainers like to get 2 or 3 races into their horse before the Grade I event. If you have 3 Grade I's then each trainers wants to get 2 or 3 preps, then those horses are racing anywhere from 6-9 times per year which I am fine with because it is all year long. In addition, it will increase the field for each Grade I race.