ARKANSAS DERBY made into G1 !!!!!! - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

WinterTriangle · 12-04-2009, 04:34 AM

we are all very happy.

'bout time

The Arkansas Derby, at a mile-and-an-eighth, is scheduled for Saturday, April 10, 2010.

WinterTriangle · 12-04-2009, 05:01 AM

WHOOPS. I see this is a duplicate.

Mea culpa.

I'm just so wheeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! got carried away.

HOrses got here early this year. gonna drive out once a week and watch 'em on the track until mid january when racing starts.

Steve R · 12-04-2009, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WinterTriangle

WHOOPS. I see this is a duplicate.

Mea culpa.

I'm just so wheeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! got carried away.

HOrses got here early this year. gonna drive out once a week and watch 'em on the track until mid january when racing starts.

Why does a fan or handicapper care what label some arbitrary committee places on a race? The quality of the race depends entirely on the composition of the field and how the race plays out. Grading was created only to facilitate the interpretation of sales catalog pages. That could also be achieved by grading races AFTER THE FACT to better reflect the actual quality. Naming a race a Grade 1 or 2 or 3 many months before it happens is the height of arrogance and stupidity. We've all seen so-called G1s with fields that might struggle against listed SWs or even high-end allowance horses. Remember the 2008 Grade 1 Brooklyn Handicap? Frost Giant, Solar Flare, Rising Moon, Harlington, Merchant Marine, A. P. Arrow, Naughty New Yorker and Hunting. Give me a break! That was maybe a Grade 3, maybe not even. I'm sure this moronic system makes the consignors happy even though it distorts the historical record. The obvious bias against sprints is just another reason why grading as done today is useless.

FenceBored · 12-04-2009, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve R

Why does a fan or handicapper care what label some arbitrary committee places on a race? The quality of the race depends entirely on the composition of the field and how the race plays out.

To the fan or handicapper the label is a mark of excellence based on the historical record. It is not a guarantee of a quality field, though some handicappers feel defrauded by a soft field. A higher grading in this context says that more often than not the field for this race has demonstrated a higher class level over time than the fields of races with lower grades.

For example, I am happy that the Ark. Derby is now G1. On the other hand, I'm persuadable that no 'Derby preps' should be G1s. However, if some are going to be, then Oaklawn has demonstrated that they can attract fields that are of the highest quality for 3 year olds at that time of year and deserve to be considered equal to the other G1 preps, instead of on a par with the Illionois and Louisiana Derbies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve R

Grading was created only to facilitate the interpretation of sales catalog pages. That could also be achieved by grading races AFTER THE FACT to better reflect the actual quality. Naming a race a Grade 1 or 2 or 3 many months before it happens is the height of arrogance and stupidity. We've all seen so-called G1s with fields that might struggle against listed SWs or even high-end allowance horses. Remember the 2008 Grade 1 Brooklyn Handicap? Frost Giant, Solar Flare, Rising Moon, Harlington, Merchant Marine, A. P. Arrow, Naughty New Yorker and Hunting. Give me a break! That was maybe a Grade 3, maybe not even. I'm sure this moronic system makes the consignors happy even though it distorts the historical record.

True, but there is the scheduling/pointing aspect of it to consider. As long as the grading matters to the breeding industry, people racing the horses will want to know where they can point their horses to try to acquire the graded blacktype they want for the sales/breeding realms.

Of course, the process would benefit from a post facto assessment as well. Say a split grading system were initiated. At this time of year, next year's stakes received the preliminary (minimum) grading G1-U indicating that the history of the stake warrants a G1, but the quality of the 2010 field is undetermined. Then in January 2011, after all the races of 2010 have been run and we have the data to assess the overall strengths of the fields in a completely objective manner based on the horses' entire 2010 form, the secondary rating is generated and applied turning a G1-U into a G1-A, or G1-89, or whatever. Heck, over time the secondary rating might take precedence in people's minds when looking back at races in the past. I know that I would appreciate a clearer shorthand on the quality of fields from more than a few years ago. What was the strength of the fields in the 3 G1 Apple Blossom that Azeri won?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve R

The obvious bias against sprints is just another reason why grading as done today is useless.

Useless, or focused in a less than optimal way?

Steve R · 12-04-2009, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenceBored

To the fan or handicapper the label is a mark of excellence based on the historical record. It is not a guarantee of a quality field, though some handicappers feel defrauded by a soft field. A higher grading in this context says that more often than not the field for this race has demonstrated a higher class level over time than the fields of races with lower grades.

For example, I am happy that the Ark. Derby is now G1. On the other hand, I'm persuadable that no 'Derby preps' should be G1s. However, if some are going to be, then Oaklawn has demonstrated that they can attract fields that are of the highest quality for 3 year olds at that time of year and deserve to be considered equal to the other G1 preps, instead of on a par with the Illionois and Louisiana Derbies.

True, but there is the scheduling/pointing aspect of it to consider. As long as the grading matters to the breeding industry, people racing the horses will want to know where they can point their horses to try to acquire the graded blacktype they want for the sales/breeding realms.

Of course, the process would benefit from a post facto assessment as well. Say a split grading system were initiated. At this time of year, next year's stakes received the preliminary (minimum) grading G1-U indicating that the history of the stake warrants a G1, but the quality of the 2010 field is undetermined. Then in January 2011, after all the races of 2010 have been run and we have the data to assess the overall strengths of the fields in a completely objective manner based on the horses' entire 2010 form, the secondary rating is generated and applied turning a G1-U into a G1-A, or G1-89, or whatever. Heck, over time the secondary rating might take precedence in people's minds when looking back at races in the past. I know that I would appreciate a clearer shorthand on the quality of fields from more than a few years ago. What was the strength of the fields in the 3 G1 Apple Blossom that Azeri won?

Useless, or focused in a less than optimal way?

It's much ado about nothing. Racing thrived without grading when Man o' War, Citation, Dr. Fager and scores more great horses were running. A post-race grading scenario will not affect at all the fan or handicapper's perception of excellence. A G1 assignment to a race after it has been run in 2009 would still show up in the pps in 2010. Once a post-race grading system is in place, the effect is exactly the same, except it acknowledges that a crappy race was a crappy race.

I agree that no Derby preps should be G1. If the Kentucky Derby is G1, by comparison no prep race comes close to that depth of quality. On the other hand, if the top three in the Derby all came out of the Wood Memorial, an argument could be made, after the fact but not before, that it could be a G1.

I understand there is no point in challenging many of the things that racing's hierarchy has introduced over the years, regardless of how stupid it may be. And yes, having seen many of the greats race before grading was introduced and recalling that I didn't need someone to tell me that the rivalry between Dr. Fager and Damascus represented the highest level of competition, I do believe the current system is useless and, worse, misleading.

bisket · 12-04-2009, 02:41 PM

its about time. this race should have achieved grade1 status years ago

Linny · 12-04-2009, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve R

Why does a fan or handicapper care what label some arbitrary committee places on a race?

Fans care because if they like a particular race and see it getting good fields they want it upgraded. Oaklawn in particular has worked very hard to develop a good 3yo program and the Ark. Derby has sent out horses like Afleet Alex, Curlin, Lawyer Ron and Summer Bird in the last few years. All have gone on to G1 acclaim. Fan of OP, whether local or not lke to see their efforts rewarded by giving the track's premier 3yo race a G1.

OTM Al · 12-04-2009, 03:52 PM

I would applaud this move much more if the Gr 1 status carried real weight in determining anything on the TC trail. Unfortunately, this race counts exactly in the same way as tonight's Gr 3 Delta Jackpot and the brand new Gr 3 Sunland Derby. I've always thought the Derby qualifications should also be based on the grading, not purse shares in a way something like this:

By stakes grading rules, a Gr 3 must have a purse of $100,000, $150,000 for a Gr 2 and $250,000 for a Gr 1. The placing share of those amounts should determine qualification. So even if they are giving $600,000 for the purse of a Gr 3 like the Sunland Derby and the winner gets 60%, the qualifying amount should only be $60,000, not $360,000.

Sure this new grading is great for Oaklawn and I am happy for them as they deserve the notoriety, but otherwise, what real difference does it make? Oh yeah, in the breeding shed......

Bruddah · 12-04-2009, 04:54 PM

Being a life long fan of Oaklawn racing, I am happy about the Industry's recognition of the Ark Derby as being (one) of the best 3 yo Derby Preps. I believe no 3 yo Derby Prep deserves a ranking, until the quality of the field and comnpetition has been thorughly examined, and that would be after the final Triple Crown Race for the year has been run. Also, no 3 yo Derby Prep should be given Grade I status. This would be reserved for the Triple Crown races only and all others could receive a Grade II at best.

It's beyond me how the Ark Derby, Fl Derby etc. could be given the same graded ranking as the Ky Derby Derby, Preakness or Belmont.

(JMHO)

strapper · 12-04-2009, 08:47 PM

Well deserved honor for Oaklawn Park's stepping stone to the Ky. Derby. A great place to winter your 3yo!

Steve 'StatMan' · 12-04-2009, 08:55 PM

Like the grading system or not, this was long deserved, congrats Oaklawn and Oaklawn fans!

bane · 12-05-2009, 02:04 AM

Congrats, not only that the race finally got it but that Oaklawn has 2 Gr 1's now!

sidenote: New Mexico finally has a graded race now, Sunland IMO has become what Aksarben use to be, glad to see her get a graded race!

WinterTriangle · 12-05-2009, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linny

Fans care because if they like a particular race and see it getting good fields they want it upgraded. Oaklawn in particular has worked very hard to develop a good 3yo program and the Ark. Derby has sent out horses like Afleet Alex, Curlin, Lawyer Ron and Summer Bird

And Smarty Jones.

Upgrading to G1 status as well as the purse increases just ups the reputation of Oaklawn, and the AR Derby because it IS a stepping stone to the TC races. While other tracks are falling down, they are increasing purses and getting better horses, and packing the racetrack with 30K people on a normal saturday.

I understand what ya'll are saying about G1's and graded status.

I'm just happy for my home track because I want it to continue to prosper.

startngate · 12-05-2009, 09:29 AM

I'm happy it's finally a Grade I. It has deserved it for a few years now.

Funny how times change.

Back in the 90's Oaklawn refused to even acknowledge the Graded Stakes it actually had because they were upset with the fact that the Apple Blossom wasn't a Grade I. There were no mentions of Grades in the condition book, in the program, or in any press releases.

Steve R · 12-05-2009, 09:33 AM

If elevating the Arkansas Derby to a G1 makes OP fans happy, that's great. My point is that post-grading is the only legitimate way to evaluate a race and it is best illustrated by the fact that, by existing grading standards, the 1973 Marlboro Cup was an ungraded event. The field included TC winner and HotY Secretariat, dual classic winner and champion Riva Ridge, champion Cougar II, champion Key to the Mint, Canadian HotY (and champion at 2, 3, 4 and 5) Kennedy Road, plus G1 winners Annihilate 'Em and Onion. In addition, the race resulted in a new world record for 9f. A grading system that fails to acknowledge the 1973 Marlboro Cup as one of the highest level races in history is...useless.