races that should not be grade 1's

[toussaud]

Bing Crosby Handicap
Blue Grass Stakes
Breeders' Futurity Stakes
Eddie Read Handicap
Frank J. De Francis Memorial Dash Stakes (they didn't even run the race last year)
Garden City Stakes
Gazelle Stakes (borderline)
Hollywood Derby
Hollywood Futurity (borderline)
Hollywood Starlet Stakes
Hollywood Turf Cup Stakes
La Brea Stakes
Norfolk Stakes
Pimlico Special Handicap
Prioress Stakes
Queen Elizabeth II Challenge Cup Stakes
Santa Maria Handicap
Santa Monica Handicap
Shadwell Turf Mile Stakes
Test Stakes
Triple Bend Invitational Handicap


the only thing i did was go back and look at the actual 4 year history of the compition level of each race.

these races IMHO do not deserve grade 1 titles for what they have been fielding

[alhattab]

Your list only scratches the surface. The whole system needs to be cleaned up for all grades. There are too many graded races in general and too many that compete for the same horses. Two general changes I would make:

1. No age-restricted stakes after say August 31 or Sept. 30 through December 31 gets a grade, except for races restricted to 2YO. There are races out there now like the Cotillion, Pegasus, QEII, etc that attract 3YO when they should be running against older horses. Look at the Beldame this year- it sucked- in part because of the Cotillion (yet another example of slots killing racing also).

2. Make some kind of rule that would eliminate competition for the same horses within a specified geography and date range to eliminate the competition for races like the Go For Wand vs. Del 'Cap or Haskell/Jim Dandy/WVA Derby.

I've proposed #2 before and someone somewhere called me an idiot, but isn't this essentially what happens in every other National jurisdiction where there is a true oversight board like the JRA, BHB or France Galop?

[cj]

I agree with a lot of them, but not the DeFrancis Dash. This race has repeatedly drawn top sprinters from around the country.

[Tom]

It certainly would be nice to have a lot less G1's, so that better fields would have to show up.

[twindouble]

Your list only scratches the surface. The whole system needs to be cleaned up for all grades. There are too many graded races in general and too many that compete for the same horses. Two general changes I would make:

1. No age-restricted stakes after say August 31 or Sept. 30 through December 31 gets a grade, except for races restricted to 2YO. There are races out there now like the Cotillion, Pegasus, QEII, etc that attract 3YO when they should be running against older horses. Look at the Beldame this year- it sucked- in part because of the Cotillion (yet another example of slots killing racing also).

2. Make some kind of rule that would eliminate competition for the same horses within a specified geography and date range to eliminate the competition for races like the Go For Wand vs. Del 'Cap or Haskell/Jim Dandy/WVA Derby.

I've proposed #2 before and someone somewhere called me an idiot, but isn't this essentially what happens in every other National jurisdiction where there is a true oversight board like the JRA, BHB or France Galop?

The condition books from track to track through out the country has always been a mixed bag when it comes to determining class or quality of horses at any level. Every track has to design it's condition book to attract horses to fill the cards for the meet, also compliment State Bred horses that include a new crop of young horses every year, State bred or otherwise. The purse structure that's implemented at any conditioned level including Stake or graded races is unique to that track along with the traditional races. Players that play multiple tracks add more risk to their gambling than a player that limits the number of tracks they play and stick to one circuit. On the other hand, if you have a big ass data bank on every track in the country and all the stats you can think of that's relative to the game and your numbers are in order, you just might become a Whale and get those nice rebates. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[lamboguy]

It certainly would be nice to have a lot less G1's, so that better fields would have to show up.very sharp! it cheapens the legitamate gradeI's.

if they regraded these stakes you would have even better legitamate GRADE I's

and you would also have less mickey mouse stallions with soft bones to go with them.

if they listenened to you tom, it would be great for racing, but you know they won't.

[ghostyapper]

There are also too many derby prep G1 races. Too easy for an ok horse to get a G1 on his resume and then they retire him early because he's got a G1.

At most there should be 2 G1 route races restricted to 3yo before the derby.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I think any of today's Grade 1 races where the horses competing fail to compete well in the Breeders Cup consistently (look back 3 or 4 years), should be at least reevaluated.

Too many Grade 1 races also leads to horses leaving racing earlier to breed which I think really hurts the game.

[ghostyapper]

I think any of today's Grade 1 races where the horses competing fail to compete well in the Breeders Cup consistently (look back 3 or 4 years), should be at least reevaluated.


I disagree with this. Horses running in the jcgc have historically not run well in the breeders cup. It doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the horses running in the jcgc though.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I disagree with this. Horses running in the jcgc have historically not run well in the breeders cup. It doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the horses running in the jcgc though.
I said reevaluated, not necessarily downgraded. I think that if it doesn't meet the Breeders Cup test, the quality of the field, using Beyer figures for example can be used. If a race fails to attract more than a couple of top Beyer horses, then it deserves even further scrutiny.

[GMB@BP]

People need to stop comparing races to what they "used" to be...that is not the criteria for the grading of races.

How anyone can claim that the Hollywood Futurity is not a grade 1, or the Santa Monica is beyond me. The Blue Grass is not a grade 1 event anymore? Is this just another rant against synthetic racing surfaces?

[GMB@BP]

The Test Stakes? really.

[NTamm1215]

The Test Stakes? really.

I know, that was one that really stuck out to me as well. Shows why you can't base this on just 3 years.

I also found it funny that the Norfolk shouldn't be a Grade I but the Oak Leaf is spared.

NT

[W2G]

Do we have more G1s now than ever before? I'm sure someone has that statistic. And if so doesn't it logically follow that we must have more high-class horses competing than ever before? I think we can all agree that is not the case.

The Graded Stakes Committee (aren't they meeting right about now?) really needs to try and fix this. Giving more weight to the 5-year statistical window of a given race over personal judgment and other factors might be a start. While a big stock-market-like "correction" to grade inflation would probably not go over well, at least a gradual but significant effort to realign grades with clear evidence of commensurate class has to be in the plans.

[toussaud]

I know, that was one that really stuck out to me as well. Shows why you can't base this on just 3 years.

I also found it funny that the Norfolk shouldn't be a Grade I but the Oak Leaf is spared.

NT


but that's exactly how you are supposed to grade it. you are supposed to look at the recent fields, judge the compitition level of the race, and determine the grade level of the race.

I did not go in the list with any preconcived judgements that some races are better than others, or some "pairs" have to stay grade 1;s (i.e hollywood 2YO races)

the test, norfolk and others are living off of glories past.


look at the norfolk stakes last 3 fields

2009

Lookin At Lucky
Pulsion
Gallant Gent
Jung Man Scott
John Scott
Dave in Dixie
Alfarabi
Came Aboard
Seattle Ruler
Lucky Rave
Sterling Outlook


2008

Street Hero
Midshipman

Believe in Hope
Del Conte
Silent Valor
Azul Leon
Tiger Blitz
Regal Ransom
Liturgical

2007

Dixie Chatter
Salute the Sarge
Shore Do
Beresford

Dodgen Bullets
Drewthegentleman
Guts
Yes It's a Cat
Rivergrade Boy


the 2008 year was a pretty good field admitting, but is neglated by the pure suckage that is the 2007 year and 2009 besides looking at lucky the rest of the field is a bunch of allowence and high level claiming 2YO's. those are not grade 1 calibur fields.

[MickJ26]

I agree with all your arguments.
Don't the Keeneland folks wield quite of bit of clout?
Knocking down their signature races from Grade I status won't sit too well with them.

[twindouble]

Purses are the driving force in racing, no different than players looking for value when they wager. Call a race what every you want, the higher the purses the better horses will show up for a good payoff and there's no question some connections over reach. Any player, trainer, owner or breeder that's blinded by a horse winning this race or that race at any track and goes all out investing or wagering is a fool. Breeders, horsemen and players I would hope to think have a much higher criteria other than a horse that won one or two graded or stake races at different tracks.

Young horses improve from race to race so you can't deny them the opportunity in any way shape or form from moving up the ladder or a shot for good purses. The fact that savvy connections can find the conditions where they have a good shot for a decent purses in graded or stake races, all the more power to them. Being a handicapper it's your job to figure that out who's good at it and who isn't. Any handicapper who thinks a winning horse has competed against the best in the country at any given time, age, distance, surface or written conditions should rethink what they are doing. Not only that, if someone here thinks they can design a standard condition book for all tracks when it comes to graded or stake races are barking up the wrong tree. That won't happen in my opinion regardless of who is appointed to institute those changes. When you you have a size 13 foot you'll never fit into a size below that.

[GMB@BP]

but that's exactly how you are supposed to grade it. you are supposed to look at the recent fields, judge the compitition level of the race, and determine the grade level of the race.

I did not go in the list with any preconcived judgements that some races are better than others, or some "pairs" have to stay grade 1;s (i.e hollywood 2YO races)

the test, norfolk and others are living off of glories past.


look at the norfolk stakes last 3 fields

2009

Lookin At Lucky
Pulsion
Gallant Gent
Jung Man Scott
John Scott
Dave in Dixie
Alfarabi
Came Aboard
Seattle Ruler
Lucky Rave
Sterling Outlook


2008

Street Hero
Midshipman

Believe in Hope
Del Conte
Silent Valor
Azul Leon
Tiger Blitz
Regal Ransom
Liturgical

2007

Dixie Chatter
Salute the Sarge
Shore Do
Beresford

Dodgen Bullets
Drewthegentleman
Guts
Yes It's a Cat
Rivergrade Boy


the 2008 year was a pretty good field admitting, but is neglated by the pure suckage that is the 2007 year and 2009 besides looking at lucky the rest of the field is a bunch of allowence and high level claiming 2YO's. those are not grade 1 calibur fields.

the 2008 2 year old and breeders cup champ prepped in that race.

There is a good chance the 2009 two year old champ won there as well.

The designation is also used so trainers, owners know where to point their horses. I could argue that there are Belmont Stakes fields, in hindsight, that are not grade 1 events, that does not change that it is a grade 1 race.

[toussaud]

the 2008 2 year old and breeders cup champ prepped in that race.

There is a good chance the 2009 two year old champ won there as well.

The designation is also used so trainers, owners know where to point their horses. I could argue that there are Belmont Stakes fields, in hindsight, that are not grade 1 events, that does not change that it is a grade 1 race.


I admittingly said, the 2008 field was a pretty damn good field.

lookin at lucky will not be the 2009 champ. even if he was, the field has to consist of more than 1 horse to make it a grade 1 race.


it's the same arguement people use to make the akrnasas derby a grade 2 and not a grade 1. you can't say the arkansas derby is not grade 1 material and in the same breath, say the norfolk is a grade 1.

[Steve R]

Just wondering how Thoroughbred racing survived the first 150 years without a grading system. You all realize that grading was created originally only to enhance sales catalog pages. Yes, over the years the best horses have gravitated toward G1 races but in too many cases the correlation between graded status and field quality is tenuous at best. I consider it pretty much an unnecessary system and I prefer to evaluate races not by the graded status but by the actual makeup of the field and the dynamics of the race. I'm sure we've all seen crappy G1s and spectacular G3s or even listed races. How some elitist committee selects races for grading is not worth being concerned about. Horses don't care, and they will run the same way without knowing a race's grade or name. Basically, race grading shouldn't be taken too seriously. After all, the philosophy behind it once resulted in the short-lived (and imbecilic) [Q] black type designation. That certainly was useful.

[toussaud]

on second thought, the bluegrass should be a grade 1. this year sucked horribly but the last 2 were pretty solid groups.

[TommyCh]

When I was handicapping the Breeders Cup this year, a lot of the horses, even though they did well in Grade I or II races, I kept asking, who'd this one beat? Really? People complain about lack of a superstar in racing, but the top horses aren't running against each other either. Would Alydar and Affirmed have run against each other as often now as they did then?

This business about Rachel Alexandra versus Zenyatta for HOY is perfectly indicative. They should have run against each other. Somehow. Period.

[11cashcall]

very sharp! it cheapens the legitamate gradeI's.

if they regraded these stakes you would have even better legitamate GRADE I's

and you would also have less mickey mouse stallions with soft bones to go with them.

if they listenened to you tom, it would be great for racing, but you know they won't.

Was thinking the exact samething.Revamp the whole system.Example: you dont race in a Gr.1 race until you win at least 2 Gr.2 races & so on.
No more of these gotta fill the feilds(5 in the gate :lol: ) to appease
some owner/s while some maiden running 3rd on a bias track.Seen it a
few times. Pathetic.

[Show Me the Wire]

When I was handicapping the Breeders Cup this year, a lot of the horses, even though they did well in Grade I or II races, I kept asking, who'd this one beat? Really? People complain about lack of a superstar in racing, but the top horses aren't running against each other either. Would Alydar and Affirmed have run against each other as often now as they did then?

This business about Rachel Alexandra versus Zenyatta for HOY is perfectly indicative. They should have run against each other. Somehow. Period.

Too much money is involved and at risk now. In the old days it was more about egos, my horse is better than yours. In fact that really is the basis of racing competition, my horse is better than yours.

Now racing is a large business motivated by money and how to maximze profit and is no longer motivated by competition between egos to prove whom owns the better horse.

[TommyCh]

Yeah, I know. But then we mustn't cry about the state of the game, right? Ironically, it's the people at the top of the game, the owners and breeders, who are ruining it.

[Show Me the Wire]

Yeah, I know. But then we mustn't cry about the state of the game, right? Ironically, it's the people at the top of the game, the owners and breeders, who are ruining it.


Without the change racing wouldn't have grown at all. Bottom line, one of the things people like to do is gamble. Horse racing had a monopoly on legalized gambling, that is why horse racing was so popular before the spread of state lotteeries, Indian casino's, etc.

Once the monopoly of the gambling money disappeared the industry had to change. We can question if the change is for the better, but it will never go back to the way it was, unless racing is granted a monopoly again.

[Bochall]

Sure, there are lots of reforms we would all like to make to the Graded system, but one major problem stops it: Track owners would have to CEDE POWER to a governing body that would mandate these changes....fuggedaboutit!!! Yes, i would like Gr1 races to have higher purses than Gr2 and so on for Gr3 and other black type non graded races(ex: the Delta Jackpot is worth darn near a million and it draws a mediocre field). Instead of horses qualifying(for Triple Crown or BC) based on Gr EARNINGS it should be a points system based on FINISH position. Field size will be taken into account. I agree with all who say there are too many graded races, esp Gr1. Make Bochall the Dear Leader Of Horseracing and i immediately grade the tracks and set up a tier system. Then i close (or merge as they do with rural high schools) a bunch of em down and CONSOLIDATE. The rest is just details i wont bore ya'll with, but i finish with this. We should listen to the simple questions newbies ask about the game (from an organizational standpoint). They wonder why so many races? so many tracks? why are the good horses (division rivals) running on the same day at different tracks? etc etc etc...

[Steve R]

Here is a perfect example of why grading races the way they are done now borders on idiocy.

These are the fields of two G1 races run in North America in 2009.

One had six starters that included a single 2009 G1SW, one overnight SW and four horses that had not won a stakes race all year.

The other had twelve starters that included two 2009 classic winners, eight G1SWs, three G2SWs and one that hadn't taken a stakes race all year.

No amount of spin can hope to equate the class level of these two events. It's an exercise in absurdity.

Perhaps purses can induce the horses to differentiate themselves by class, and if one insists on grading, do it after the race, not six months or a year before. It would still satisfy the objective of the sales companies and actually improve the quality of the information.

[twindouble]

The idea of this thread is to some how create a more consistency in determining class in graded racing, like the so-called blue chip stocks on wall street. Only the best should be allowed to race in graded races, everything below that don't matter. The problem is, who the hell is going to determine who the best is to qualify? How do young horses get from where they are as FTS's to get there that race at different tracks through out the country? Who's going to determine what races at what track measures up? Who's to say Mine That Bird wouldn't have qualified for the Derby by some elite board. What a horse earns can be very deceptive when it comes to class.

I'm not disputing the facts that condition books be it graded races, stakes races or otherwise is hard to get a handle on when it comes to determining the quality of horses and how that translates from track to track including times, field size, surfaces, track configuration and so on. Not that it's impossible to figure that out to an acceptable degree, depends on how much experience you have handicapping a particular circuit.

[WinterTriangle]

I hope they bump the Arkansas Derby up to a G1.

for all practical purposes, it is a G1, just not in name.

[twindouble]

I hope they bump the Arkansas Derby up to a G1.

for all practical purposes, it is a G1, just not in name.

Here in America horses start their career as 2yo's, the greater majority of them anyway. The sheer number of them every year presents a problem for tracks offering conditions and purses that in some way represents the "quality" of the horses "class" as these horses progress and mature as 3yo's. Even as a 3yo's there's still room for improvement and others come into their own between 3 and 4 yo. The richest race of the season is the BCClasic for 3yo's and up, rightfully so because the best 3yo should take on older horses. Zenyatta, a 5yo mare put the boys to shame at that distance. What does this have to do with anything, well I'm sure Gio Ponti and others will go on to win other graded races and some will question the quality and class of the fields they beat and it will still boil down to a handicapper's opinion when they bet against those horses or go with them.

My point here is, what's being proposed in this thread is more complex than just picking what races should be considered grade 1 and defining class is a more elusive than most think regardless of what changes are made. I always looked at class as a moving target. To say any race should be a grade 1, 2, or 3 and others shouldn't is a matter of perspective. In any given year mediocre horses can win any one of them or very good horses can come out of them. Figuring that out is called handicapping. So put your spread sheets, stats and numbers to work and good luck next year.

[Cholly]

I hope they bump the Arkansas Derby up to a G1.

for all practical purposes, it is a G1, just not in name.

I would agree that if any of the pre-Derby races are Grade I’s, then the Arkyderby should receive equal billing.

But no matter how you cut it, all of the pre-Derby races are prep races. And to accord Grade I status to any prep race is a contradiction in terms of how I feel a Grade I race should be defined: “an ultimate goal of a champion wherein he (she) establishes their supremacy among their peers”.

The SA/FL/AK/LA/Il Derbies +the Wood are events where often horses are holding something back if they have already qualified for the Big Derby. Also, with that many races simultaneously tapping the available talent pool, they are regional events--not meetings of the nation’s best.

[FenceBored]

The SA/FL/AK/LA/Il Derbies +the Wood are events where often horses are holding something back if they have already qualified for the Big Derby. Also, with that many races simultaneously tapping the available talent pool, they are regional events--not meetings of the nation’s best.

Papa Clem shipped into Oaklawn from California to win the Ark Derby.

I Want Revenge relocated from California to NY to use the New York preps.

Musket Man shipped up from Tampa to Hawthorne for the Ill Derby for extra cash after the Tampa Bay Derby.

Pletcher said he would have shipped Dunkirk up for the Wood if he'd known how the GP track would play on Fla Derby Day.

Seems to me there's a whole lot of shuffling going on to find the best opportunities, providing us with some great head to head matchups.

[Linny]

I don't have a problem with G1 status for the major Ky Derby preps, in fact I think the Ark Derby has been snubbed. My reasoning is that these races do in fact bring together the best available at that time within their division. Sure, in any given year the Blue Grass is not likely to be as "good" as the BCC but it featured (mostly) horses that were regarded as the leaders in their division.

The ones that are bogus are the mid summer 2yo races. Th Hopeful and the DelMar Futurity used to be "destination" races for colts that had proven themselves in MSW and then in lesser stakes. Now both of these races are mostly glorified NW1x races featuring the best of the maiden winners from their respective meets.

In general while I think the level of their racing overall is exceptional, Keeneland has seen a bit of "grade creep" with races like Vinery Madison getting G1 and the Shadwell Turf Mile (which has had almost no impact in the BC Mile) getting upgraded over the Oak Tree Mile which at one time was sending out winner after winner of the BC Mile.

[Wickel]

Speaking of snubbed, how about the Sunland Park Derby? It'snot even graded! While it doesn't deserve to be G-1, or even G-2, it's defintely a G-3 at the very least. And guess what? It produced the 2009 Kentucky Derby winner to boot!!