Crist on number of G1s

[FenceBored]

Steve Crist had a column on the 18th on how the Canadians are doing it right in limiting their graded races, and their G1s in particular.There will be just fewer than 5,000 races in Canada this year (there were 4,950 in 2008) and only four Grade 1's: The Woodbine Mile and Northern Dancer on Sunday, and the E.P. Taylor and Canadian International, both on Oct. 17. That works out to about 1 of every 1,200 Canadian races being a Grade 1 as opposed to the current U.S. rate of 1 in 455.
-- http://www.drf.com/news/article/107392.html
This is all very interesting, and a good topic of discussion, but the focus solely on NA racing creates a false impression. Yes, Canada has fewer Grade 1 races. In fact, of countries listed in Part I of the International Grading and Race Planning Advisory Committee's (IRPAC (http://www.ifhaonline.org/standardsBook.asp)) International Cataloging Standards book (http://www.tjcis.com/pdf/icsc09/2009_EntireBook.pdf), Canada ranks 1st of 16 for lowest percentage of G1 races from total number of flat races run. How does the US rank? Number 4. What would the US's ranking be if we still ran 74k races, but had the same number of G1s? Number 4.

The most generous in the world is the UAE with 4 of the 190 races at their meet being G1s for a 2.11% or 1 in 46.5 races. The Irish are next with 12 of 1020 flat races being G1 for 1.18% or 1 in 84 races. The full list, using Mr. Crist's "1 in x races" format is:

UAE 1/__47
IRE 1/__84
SAF 1/_118
NZ_ 1/_129
ARG 1/_130
BRZ 1/_148
FRA 1/_160
UK_ 1/_190
GER 1/_215
PER 1/_233
AUS 1/_253
CHI 1/_273
US_ 1/_437
ITY 1/_819
JPN 1/1173
CAN 1/1237

Does the US have too many G1s? Are they devalued? Maybe, but if so, what does that say about the value of G1s from some other places in the world?

[OTM Al]

You should almost combine the Irish and English numbers as the horses go back and forth there a bit.

I also don't think you can really question the strength of the Dubai G1s as the whole world shows to run in them.

Italy is #3 on that list and I wouldn't give you a dime for any of those runners. Probably worth no more than G3 status elsewhere. The good ones go to England, France or Ireland to run.

[Tom]

What does that chart mean?

1_/47 ???

[FenceBored]

What does that chart mean?

1_/47 ???

Crist chose to talk about 1 in every 47 races (1/47) instead of using a percentage figure, like 2.11% for UAE, or 0.23% for the US, or 0.08% for Canada. The stupid underscores were my lame attempt to line the numbers up, since I have little success trying to get columns to in my posts, even using the 'code' tags.

[46zilzal]

Does the US have too many G1s? Are they devalued? Maybe, but if so, what does that say about the value of G1s from some other places in the world?
yes it has, and continue to dilute quality akin to giving out trophies to every player: winning one doesn't mean much when they are commonplace.

[Tom]

Gottcha, FB.

[Java Gold@TFT]

I sent a note to Crist about this stupid article. If he thinks that the US should play by the Canadian standards then by his math the US should have 42 G-I races. So name me those 42 and name the 64 that need to go. I'll start out using the Canadian standards - no race for 2yo's, no races restricted to 3yo's, no race run on surfaces not commonly used (i.e. synthetics). Those standards by themselves may drop us below the 42 G-I mark. All 4 of the G-I's in Canada are 3 and up with two for the girls and two open to anyone. So by that standard if the BC ever goes back to Woodbine the Canadian graded stakes committee would probably have to downgrade many of the races. It's just a stupid comparison. I don't know why Crist wasted his time.

[Java Gold@TFT]

And of course Zil will defend a graded system of 4 G-I's in a country with ONE racetrack of any signifigance.

[46zilzal]

And of course Zil will defend a graded system of 4 G-I's in a country with ONE racetrack of any significance.


They could easily have more. That track has a very good course, top quality racing with probably close to the largest daily average of starters of ANY meet of it's length.

I heard the same thing in a parallel story about Harvard students on 60 Minutes. They were claiming that because they received more "A's" that they were somehow smarter than the Harvard students of days go by.

Lower the limits of what it takes to get an A or win a grade one and the entire system shows how shallow it has become. Quality has a wider, and therefore diluted definition.

I witnessed one of the greatest in Q-horse racing:a Palomino named Kaweah Bar. Racing, and winning until he was 11, this gelding was a phenomenon unlike any I ever saw. LONG TERM perfection, repeated.......This was before there was graded stakes in their races

[illinoisbred]

They could easily have more. That track has a very good course, top quality racing with probably close to the largest daily average of starters of ANY meet of it's length
I really don't understand why most of the major U.S. stables are not running a string there.From what I've seen the racing is great and the purse money is incredible.

[cj]

I really don't understand why most of the major U.S. stables are not running a string there.From what I've seen the racing is great and the purse money is incredible.

A few reasons, rubber being the most obvious.

[illinoisbred]

A few reasons, rubber being the most obvious.
You're probably right. It's a long meet and it's difficult for even an apparently healthy horse to withstand the body soreness that seems to often develop after several races on synthetics.Arlington always starts strong then about 2 months into the meet entries dwindle down to 6-7 horse fields. From what I hear this body soreness is the culprit.

[thespaah]

I really don't understand why most of the major U.S. stables are not running a string there.From what I've seen the racing is great and the purse money is incredible.
High taxes on earnings from purses and employee compensation?

[Indulto]

I sent a note to Crist about this stupid article. If he thinks that the US should play by the Canadian standards then by his math the US should have 42 G-I races. So name me those 42 and name the 64 that need to go. I'll start out using the Canadian standards - no race for 2yo's, no races restricted to 3yo's, no race run on surfaces not commonly used (i.e. synthetics). Those standards by themselves may drop us below the 42 G-I mark. All 4 of the G-I's in Canada are 3 and up with two for the girls and two open to anyone. So by that standard if the BC ever goes back to Woodbine the Canadian graded stakes committee would probably have to downgrade many of the races. It's just a stupid comparison. I don't know why Crist wasted his time.I disagree. I thought it was a good article. The only beneficiaries of an excess of graded stakes are breeders who want black type.

Too many G1s run with small fields; often because races in the same division at different tracks are run on the same day. Even for BC preps that doesn't make sense, since a horse unable to run that day -- but who might be a week later -- has no opportunity. The fans don't get to see races as competitive as they might, either.

Too many graded stakes have purses in excess of the minimum for their grade which don't draw quality fields to match those purses. If such a race is not won by a horse who previously won at that grade level or by one who finished ahead of such a horse, then IMO the purse should revert to the minimum for the grade as well as become a candidate for downgrading. I also advocate reducing purse money distribution for all in-the-money finishers on a sliding scale for races that don't fill to capacity or perhaps some standard for race type and course.

[Java Gold@TFT]

I disagree. I thought it was a good article. The only beneficiaries of an excess of graded stakes are breeders who want black type.

Too many G1s run with small fields; often because races in the same division at different tracks are run on the same day. Even for BC preps that doesn't make sense, since a horse unable to run that day -- but who might be a week later -- has no opportunity. The fans don't get to see races as competitive as they might, either.

Too many graded stakes have purses in excess of the minimum for their grade which don't draw quality fields to match those purses. If such a race is not won by a horse who previously won at that grade level or by one who finished ahead of such a horse, then IMO the purse should revert to the minimum for the grade as well as become a candidate for downgrading. I also advocate reducing purse money distribution for all in-the-money finishers on a sliding scale for races that don't fill to capacity or perhaps some standard for race type and course.
I merely ask people who makes suggestions like this just which races would they downgrade? Pick your poison if you want to eliminate the conflicts between G-I races so that there aren't two G-I's competeing for the same horses on the same weekend or a week apart. So head to head which races lose their G-I status so these conflicts don't happen - Sword Dancer or Arlington Million? Hopeful or Del Mar Futurity? JCGC or Goodwood? Beldame or Lady's Secret or Spinster? Alcibiades or Frizette? Flower Bowl or QE II? Blue Grass or SA Derby or Wood Memorial?

Crist wrote that in order to be on a par with Canadian standards we need to eliminate more than 60 G-I's so think about the list. Some I would have no problem downgrading but would I want to see any of the races I just mentioned to be downgraded? No, I think they have earned their status as G-I's through their histories and how the best horses are pointed toward them. There will always be yearly fluctuations as far as field size and quality. Even going back in time when there was a dominant horse around the field sizes shrunk. Heck the 1978 Travers was a 4 horse field with Affirmed and Alydar in it. Only 2 other owners wanted to take a shot to be G-I placed on the pedigree page? the 1980 Woodward was a walkover. No one wanted a G-I placing on their pedigree page?

JMO

[Cholly]

A start would be to eliminate GI status for any 3yo races before the KY Derby. Demote the SA Derby, Wood, Blue Grass, and FL Derby to GII status. C’mon, they’re prep races. When in the same time period you have not only all four of those PLUS the ARK Derby, Hawthorne, and now the LA Derby offering big money, that’s a huge dilution of what talent is available. Considering the number of concurrent options, there’s scant chance for any of these races to end up being a clash of champions.

And while you’re at it, strip all 2yo races of GI status. They’re baby races, with most of the contestants still eligible to run N2X. Maybe the Breeders Cup Juvenile should retain its GI—but that’s it.

[FenceBored]

Canada's numbers are artificially low due to the Canadian-bred restrictions on a number of their high profile races such as the races comprising the Canadian Triple Crown and the Canadian Triple Tiara. Restricted races, at least by North American rules, are ineligible for Graded status. Canadians, given the choice, prefer to have those races restricted over having them have Graded status. Without those restrictions I don't doubt that the Canadian numbers would be as high, percentage wise, as the US numbers. The fact that the percentage of all blacktype races for Canada (234/4950 or 4.73%) is higher than the US figure (1948/49951 or 3.90%) would seem to support this.

The average percentage of G1 races in a major racing country (excluding UAE, which is a special case) is 0.50%, or to use Mr. Crist's layout, 1 in 200. How is 0.023% (1 in 437) "devalued" when it is still less than half the major racing country average, i.e. twice as 'valuable' as the average G1?