The Vosburgh

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Tom

Another 4 horse firld at Belqueduct.
Maybe racing Sat/Sun only would help.
$105,000 Alw race and those 4 were the best they draw?
And the longest shot wins, after losing a n2l claimer last time.

Why bother?

the big races used to be what you looked forward to, and times they still are, but all too often they are the blight on a good card.

[azeri98]

Elite Power looks like a pretty good horse.

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

This race is an excellent example of why projected pars are more accurate than straight class pars.
On paper this is a Gr2 for males 3yr old and up, which is a 112 par on my scale, but these are not 112 horses. I'm assigning a projected par of 109 for this race, based on the numbers these guys have run previously. A 109 on my scale is an Ungraded Stakes race par, which I think more accurately portrays the caliber of this field.
A par of 112 will almost surely make this race come up falsely slow when making figures for this card.

The Gr2-Phoenix at Kee yesterday also projected to be slower than the par for that class.

I gave the race a final time figure of 108.
Very slow pace and the winner drew off easily.
Clm N2L race (also at 7f) went faster to the 1/4 and 1/2 by over a full second later in the card.

[ScottJ]

Regarding the Vosburgh specifically and the dirt sprint division generally, there was an extremely valid point raised by Anthony Stabile on yesterday's Talking Horses. He offered that too many trainers are intent on getting their sprinting talent to stretch out to a mile or more, often taking multiple shots at the longer distances and effectively ruining their sprint characteristics. Made for some debate and agreements during the broadcast and I would have to agree. As was said yesterday, why were there zero three-year-old dirt sprinters in yesterday's Vosburgh - an excellent point.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

Regarding the Vosburgh specifically and the dirt sprint division generally, there was an extremely valid point raised by Anthony Stabile on yesterday's Talking Horses. He offered that too many trainers are intent on getting their sprinting talent to stretch out to a mile or more, often taking multiple shots at the longer distances and effectively ruining their sprint characteristics. Made for some debate and agreements during the broadcast and I would have to agree. As was said yesterday, why were there zero three-year-old dirt sprinters in yesterday's Vosburgh - an excellent point.

That's been going on for decades, though. I remember being ticked off in the 1980's as Gulch's connections kept on running him in routes when he clearly loved to sprint. Eventually, thankfully, the figured it out and he won the BC Sprint as he was clearly destined to do.

The glory in this sport (and a lot of the money) is in the longer distances.

[PalaceOfFortLarned]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

Regarding the Vosburgh specifically and the dirt sprint division generally, there was an extremely valid point raised by Anthony Stabile on yesterday's Talking Horses. He offered that too many trainers are intent on getting their sprinting talent to stretch out to a mile or more, often taking multiple shots at the longer distances and effectively ruining their sprint characteristics. Made for some debate and agreements during the broadcast and I would have to agree. As was said yesterday, why were there zero three-year-old dirt sprinters in yesterday's Vosburgh - an excellent point.

Very good point.

Reminds me of Mind Your Biscuits. A terrific sprinter that won $4.3M in his career and was a runner-up and 3rd place finisher in BC Sprints in 2016 and 2017.

They had to stretch him out and take a shot at the BC Classic. He was a personal favorite of mine, and it stunk seeing him finish 11th in the final race of his career.

A lot of these decisions are breeding related. And I get that. Take your shot. Runhappy is a perfect example of how to take your shot, and then reel him back to what he was born to do.

[Tom]

Having been a player long before the Breeder's Cup and ever since, it is MHO that it has been the worst thing to happen to racing.

We used to have a fantastic fall championship meet, te Woodward, te Matalboro, the JCGC, te Vosburg, all great races, now reduced to .

Horses used to settle campionships on the track, now it's do as little as possible and go for the BC, to Hell with having a career. Nowadays, the fall is nothing special. The Vosburg used to be a real steak and eggs breakfast, now it's just a short stack!

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Tom

Having been a player long before the Breeder's Cup and ever since, it is MHO that it has been the worst thing to happen to racing.

We used to have a fantastic fall championship meet, te Woodward, te Matalboro, the JCGC, te Vosburg, all great races, now reduced to .

Horses used to settle campionships on the track, now it's do as little as possible and go for the BC, to Hell with having a career. Nowadays, the fall is nothing special. The Vosburg used to be a real steak and eggs breakfast, now it's just a short stack!

I've heard this many times, and I think it misdiagnoses the problem. The problem is that with cheap travel and many racing circuits (and now with slot revenue), it becomes super-easy for top racehorses to avoid each other. We were actually already seeing this before the BC- for instance, the 2 year old and the older grass races at the Oak Tree meet at Santa Anita in the 1970's and 1980's were already drawing a separate group of top horses in the division who were not running in the big races on the East Coast in those divisions. If you imagine that same scenario now, it would only be worse- you'd have a group of horses running in the Kentucky races, another group down in Florida, a third group in New York, a fourth group at Parx, and a fifth group in California. They'd just avoid each other.

The BC means they all come together at least once. The real problem with the BC is that the economic imperatives of the event and its function matching top horses together are in conflict; you see that as we've gotten away from the original model of the thing and especially in races such as the Dirt Mile which cannibalize the other BC races. But without the BC, a lot of top horses would just duck each other.

[Tom]

bBut my point is they weren't ducking in the 70s. We had great races of horses who raced often an in the top races.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Tom

bBut my point is they weren't ducking in the 70s. We had great races of horses who raced often an in the top races.

By the 1980's, you had things like Landaluce not shipping back to run in the East Coast "championship" races. That trend was going to continue (if you have any doubt, look at who trained Landaluce and what he did during the next decade and a half). The Breeders' Cup confirmed something that was already happening- the traditional "championship" races were no longer drawing all the top horses.

[the little guy]

It's a mistake to form strong opinions weeks before a race is run, or even drawn, but the BC Sprint probably comes down to Jackie's Warrior vs Jack Christopher. To be fair, Gunite seems far from impossible. I'm not sure who else is even significantly relevant.

Anthony's point on Talking Horses on Saturday was extremely good. There are likely good sprinters out there every year whose connections keep running them in the wrong races. Winning the Belmont Derby might ultimately prove an unfortunate occurrence for Classic Causeway. He's run in exactly one dirt sprint...his debut where he won by nine lengths with a 92 Beyer. How he has never tried that again is way beyond me. Winning weak Derby preps confused them, and then getting an incredibly good, bias aided, trip in a subpar turf Grade 1 threw them for a further loop. Life is complicated...and horse racing is even more confusing and difficult. However, sometimes the answers are easier than they appear.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

By the 1980's, you had things like Landaluce not shipping back to run in the East Coast "championship" races. That trend was going to continue (if you have any doubt, look at who trained Landaluce and what he did during the next decade and a half). The Breeders' Cup confirmed something that was already happening- the traditional "championship" races were no longer drawing all the top horses.

To be honest, I don't recall a lot of West Coast horse shippimg east. But that is still my point, the best west horses were running in races out west and the east were running in the east and midwest. Today, most are hardly running anywhere. California's fall season is worse than NY's.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Tom

To be honest, I don't recall a lot of West Coast horse shippimg east. But that is still my point, the best west horses were running in races out west and the east were running in the east and midwest. Today, most are hardly running anywhere. California's fall season is worse than NY's.

West Coast horses shipped every year. I even remember Phone Trick coming in to race Groovy before the Fall. But until the end of the 80s or early 90s, West Coast horses always came. The Championships were decided the right way back then, by a year's work, and a series of races, instead of bob and weave and putting your eggs in one basket. Of course, back then, Eclipse voters probably also followed racing all year. They had to.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by the little guy

It's a mistake to form strong opinions weeks before a race is run, or even drawn, but the BC Sprint probably comes down to Jackie's Warrior vs Jack Christopher. To be fair, Gunite seems far from impossible. I'm not sure who else is even significantly relevant.

Anthony's point on Talking Horses on Saturday was extremely good. There are likely good sprinters out there every year whose connections keep running them in the wrong races. Winning the Belmont Derby might ultimately prove an unfortunate occurrence for Classic Causeway. He's run in exactly one dirt sprint...his debut where he won by nine lengths with a 92 Beyer. How he has never tried that again is way beyond me. Winning weak Derby preps confused them, and then getting an incredibly good, bias aided, trip in a subpar turf Grade 1 threw them for a further loop. Life is complicated...and horse racing is even more confusing and difficult. However, sometimes the answers are easier than they appear.

Everytime I figure out the answeres, they change the questions.

What do you think the BC Dirt Mile has done to help either the sprinters or classic distance horses?

To me, it would be a nice undercard ungraded stake for the undercard at CD or Belmont, but nowhere else.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Tom

Everytime I figure out the answeres, they change the questions.

What do you think the BC Dirt Mile has done to help either the sprinters or classic distance horses?

To me, it would be a nice undercard ungraded stake for the undercard at CD or Belmont, but nowhere else.

I like mile dirt races....around one turn.

I think it was a completely unnecessary race, mostly done to make money for the BC, that has definitely hurt both the Classic and Sprint over the years.