Every few years the argument that Grade One Handicaps should be eliminated from the Racing Menu raises its tired head and then a series of races comes along that puts that puppy (which seems to me born and bred of dog track sensibilities) back to sleep.
The last time I remember the anti-Grade One arguments gaining traction was in 2001. And then Point Given\'s Haskell/Travers races came along to pretty much silence that argument for a while. If you remember the races, the Haskell was a classic, the Travers a yawner.
In the Haskell, Point Given carrying 124 had to dig deep inside himself to run down the lightweighted longshot Touch Tone (115) in the stretch. The long shot players were yelling hopes and Point Given\'s backers were yelling prayers and everybody who was present at Monmouth on that glorious and pandemonious day knew they had seen something special. Two weeks later Point Given walked over his peers at equal weight in the Travers. And the hushed crowd began walking to Siro\'s.
But I guess where one comes down on this argument depends upon what one wants from Racing. If you want to see horses prove their courage, and test themselves against the great horses of the past by conceding weight to their contemporaries, you want to see Grade One Handicaps remain on the Racing Menu. If you\'re looking for something to single in a pick three with All-All (ah,what sportsmen these trawlers be) I guess even weights in all Grade Ones makes sense.
But remember this: If the Prince had not offered to have his charge carry a few extra stone in order to persuade the reluctant Earl to bet upon his once defeated steed again, there would not have been a rematch. There would not have been a Sport of Kings.
Racing has always been about conceding weight. And, it seems to me, if one doesn\'t understand this, one doesn\'t really understand the nature of Racing. One really doesn\'t understand the history, the traditions, the challenges, the greatness, the raison d\'être of Racing. One doesn\'t really understand the Sport.
Indeed, Racing without Grade One Handicaps seems to me kind of like a Heavy Weight Championship Bout where punches to the head were not allowed. I\'m not saying it wouldn\'t be enjoyable, but it certainly wouldn\'t be the same thing.
Post Edited (02-09-04 17:05)
how many people came to see PG run at the Spa that day? horse racing is built on great horses doing great things. sure, some of the more experienced bettors might appreciate weight making some more races interesting, but I think the objective of the best races each year should be to attract the best horses, and let the fans see the best of the sport. and by the way, on Travers day, you can find about 30 good betting races across the country where weight plays a role; i want to see the summer\'s best 3 yr old standing in the winners circle for the big one.
The dilemma is if you put a four horse field out there for $1,000,000, with a walkover winner, in todays age of simulcasting and the track will lose too much money on the race. No one can bet on it.
Horses don\'t have to only run in certain races at NY or Calif for a big purse. They can go to Lone Star, Remington, Calder, Delaware on their big days and in some cases the shipping will be paid for.
Also if the track cards a race that is unbettable, the gambling public will bet another race at another track--(ie-simulcasting).
Also what races are more legendary? When Forego carried 137 pounds and lost by a nose, when Dr Fager set a mile World Record carrying 132 pounds or when Cigar beat Star Standard in the Jockey Club at level weights.
To Michael D.
And?
What does that have to do with my argument.
I\'m not advocating changing the Travers into a hanidcap race.
My point was that there is room, indeed a purpose, for all kinds of Conditions in a Racing book.
And because of the Handicap Conditions of the Haskell, Monmouth had the better race for the bettor and the spectator that year.
In fact, considering that the runner up shipped in from Saratoga also (and he probably would have never shipped in to run at equal weights) without the handicap conditions Monmouth would have had a real stinker. Three local allowance horses running to pick up the rest of the checks.
Instead Point Given gave them a bit of courage, a bit of greatness, and I\'m sure many of the spectators at Monmouth that day followed him up to Saratoga for just that reason.
Post Edited (02-09-04 19:27)
very few people followed PG from Mth up to Sar because he only won by a small margin, i don\'t know where you get that crazy idea. if the horse won the haskel by 20 lengths in track record time, the sport would have had more of a superstar, and interest from the public would have increased....... and, why do you not want the travers to be a handicap race, while suggesting other gd 1 races should be handicaps? with the thousands of great betting races across the country each year, why not let the best horse, with the best connections take the top five or ten best races of the year? ........... the most legendary race in history was Secretariat winning the Belmont. i was in a crib at that time, so I really don\'t know what the conditions were, but I think he was on equal weights with the others, and that race is the most replayed in history because he won by so many length. does it really bother you that secretariat didn\'t pay $10.00 to win that day? huge crowds show up when the sport has superstars. let\'s show off racings superstars, not weigh them down.
Where do you get the crazy idea the interest would increase?? THP stated his points for handicaps in his first post. Do you really think the \"public\" would have noticed a 20 length win in track record time? Horse racing fans with any sense of history would discount a track record if the horse carried less weight than he should have. Casual sports fans with a slight interest in racing would not have noticed or cared about a 20 length victory in anything but the Derby.
You think the racing public wants to see GR1 races turn into 10 length romps?? I see your point. Watching Dallas annihilate Buffalo 52-14 is much more enjoyable than a 32-29 yawner like this yrs SB. Cmon Michael, Secretariat didn\'t romp because of level weights, he was a superior horse regardless of the weight. He proved it over and over again with superior performances just like the greats of the past. You say you were in a crib in \'72. I suggest reading about great champions of the past, perhaps you will see THPs point. THP\'s story about the Prince captures the essence of his argument. Silver Charm reminding us of great races past with weight being a factor does also. I don\'t think seeing the best of the sport is a 10 length romp against overmatched opponents. There are too many other races to choose from for a trainer. When they don\'t run we are left with a bunch of overmatched horses. Is this really what we want with our \"best\' races?? Handicaps level the playing field, hopefully increase field size, and stimulate wagering. If a horse is as great as he is supposed to be, he should win regardless.
Post Edited (02-10-04 00:39)
P-Dub wrote:
\"There are too many other races to choose from for a trainer. When they don\'t run we are left with a bunch of overmatched horses. Is this really what we want with our \"best\' races??\"
The answer is HELL NO.
Besides trainers who think this way there people, or so I\'ve heard, who actually calculate speed figures and for a fee advise owners on which venue to ship to, to win the most money they possibly can while facing the easiest possible competition.
Can you imagine this???
Why not ship your horse wherever MDO is, get no break in weights and if say Congaree shows up, run for third or fourth money in a 500K race when you could have gone to Turfway or somewhere else and run for the same amount of money.
Your the owner which one are you going to choose??? Which place would your advisor tell you to go???
And how can places like Turfway (etc) afford to put on Cards like this???
To some, Horseracing really is a sport and not just an avenue where the most important thing is the pari-mutuels (although we like it to be sometimes) What if the Patriouts had to carry around an extra 10 pounds on there back because they are supposed to be \"superior\" or Jordan had to wear 10 pound ankle weightsto make the competition fair. How about this? The best horse, with the best ride, whos trainer did the best job wins. And if its 30 lengths so be it. I\'ll just have to search for my value else where.
would the bills-cowboys game have been better if the cowboys had to win the game by the vegas line in order to get the trophy? no other sport would even consider handicapping its superstars in order to give bettors more action. let\'s consider this a sport for maybe 1% of the races per year, the other 99% of the races can continue to be havens for gambling action.
Just got back from a few days away, haven\'t really caught up with the board. But it seems to me the easiest way to balance competition (parity?) without having all the problems handicaps bring (racing secretaries not doing their jobs, like the one who told us he didn\'t want his weights to determine the winner of a race), is to have the horses weight themselves. Use a well thought out system of allowance conditions and make it uniform, so trainers can\'t go running away to run someplace else-- they would carry the same weight both places.
A job for the NTRA?
TGJB wrote
\"Use a well thought out system of allowance conditions and make it uniform, so trainers can\'t go running away to run someplace else\"
Give me break, this makes so much sense it has no chance of ever happening.
Also nice picture.
Actually, handicapping for parity does exist in professional and collegiate sports through the mechanism of salary caps and scholarship limitations.
But let\'s just talk about the even playing field here. If you think what is best for the sport of horseracing is that the best horse gets every chance to win every race, then in addition to equal weights I think you better start advocating staggered starts and racing lanes.
But then, maybe not.
Because horse racing is not track and field or ice skating. And it is not football or basketball.
It\'s horse racing. With a traditon hundreds of years old. And the wisdom underlying that traditon is a horse race is not about who is the best horse, but who is the best horse under the conditions.
And therefore greatness in horse racing is not determined by setting track records under ideal situations (in fact, Julie Krone once apologized to Woody Stephens for setting a track record at Monmouth on one of his mounts) but by exhibiting the courage to overcome when faced with challenging, and perhaps unfair, conditions.
That\'s the essence of the Sport to me.
Post Edited (02-10-04 15:32)
OK, fair enough............. i think reasonable people can disagree over this one.
Handicap racing is a thing of the past when the options for owners and trainers were much more limited. racing secretaries simply can no longer act without outside influences. I thought the purpose was to put all of the horses on essentially equal footing or at least close the gap. If I as an owner or trainer can put pressure on a track to keep my weight down what is the point. might as well just race wieght for age.
Just to add a few thoughts to this thread.
Along with some of the other ways mentioned, all major sports also \"handicap\" through the draft in which the \"worst\" teams draft first (or at least get in a lottery to draft first). I am not sure that the leagues really want parity but they at least want to give every team some \"opportunity\" to be competitive.
The idea of a standard set of allowance conditions in racing makes a lot of sense to me.
Of course, this is way down on my list of priorities right now. Let\'s clean up the drug problem (the momentum seems to have been lost with the delay in extended testing for graded stakes) and then fix the flawed business model.
After we get to the point where we can all legally and conveniently watch and wager on(with a reasonable net takeout) any race in North America with some assurance that the horses are running clean...
Then we can worry about standard allowance conditions...
Chris
I\'m in accord with Thehoarseplayer. To me its easy. You have your weight for age races and you have your handicap contests. The handicaps make for interesting wagering and without the wagering aspect the game doesn\'t exist. You all said it in the thread.
On another note I\'m sure disappointed Funny Cide is not back. I was worried about Mega Death so I didn\'t bet. I knew Fitz was an up and coming horse also. I don\'t know now. Maybe his wins weren\'t as dominant as I thought. I don\'t know why he\'s not back to that form.
How about having the Graded Stakes Committee also consist of Three Racing Secretary/Handicappers who are independent of ALL TRACKS. They can weight the horses then there really is no political angle like now.
Lets face it with simulcasting people are going to bend in order to get horses (ie-content) for their big races. Look at the Donn, how does MDO get assigned only 122. Easy, politics to get the trainer to ship him in for the race.
The tracks can still have their own Secretary/Handicapper for Overnights or Non-Graded, but if someone wants Graded Black Type he must play by their weights.
The Allowance idea is good but after thinking about it there are also flaws. Look at last year when the 400K American Oaks was an ungraded stakes and the winner (Dermot Weld trainee) actually dropped weight next out in the Flower Bowl because the win was in a race that was ungraded even though it was a Grade I field.
the DRF poll (hardly scientific) this week asks the question: \"should gd 1 handicaps be changed and run at scale weights instead\". 60% of the 1,800 fans responding say yes.
You all do realize that some people believe that weight does not matter! I do not believe that and I\'m certain no one around here believes it either, but there\'s a huge number of otherwise very sharp handicappers that think it\'s a non-issue.
Furthermore, from a betting perspective, many of those that concede it is a factor in determining the outcome of races believe it is overrated on the board. They believe that given two horses of equal ability with one carrying more weight, the higher weighted horse is a better value more often than the other way around.
Finally, some people think horses have varying weight carrying ability that is not related exactly to size.
Not sure how you resolve an issue on which outside the TG world there is very little consensus.
I will let TGJB respond himself but I am pretty sure his suggested \"well thought out system of allowance conditions\" was not the current scale weights. I am pretty sure he was thinking of wins at different levels and dates and maybe even something more sophisticated including money earned (not necessarily just for races won).
I agree that sometimes you can find \"loopholes\" in such conditions but if they are \"well thought out\" and evolve over time as shortcomings are identified, I think this could work.
I also like the idea of having some sort of \"impartial\" weighting of horses such as they regularly do in Europe based on the consensus subjective opinions of a panel of experts. It would have to be updated regularly (probably weekly or bi-weekly) but that approach could work as well and the weightings could even be used for other purposes such as ranking BC entrants and for Eclipse awards at year end to replace the current voting method (i.e., the highest weighted horse wins in each category). You could still use the current voting method for HOY and the non-equine awards.
Either one would be a big improvement over what we have today.
Chris
True handicap races are pretty much long gone. The days when really good horses might routinely be expected to concede 20 or 30 pounds to stakes horses are rocking-chair memories. (It\'s hard enough to get top-class horses to run against current, in-form, stakes-class horses, let alone concede major amounts of weight to them.) Forego carrying 130+ in most of his races, Ta Wee winning the Fall Highweight under 140 pounds and picking up weight for the Interborough Handicap in her next start - these things were well on their way to the waste bin of history when Delp thought he had the best horse ever but whined about him having to carry 130 pounds.
It\'s part of a trainer\'s job to complain about weights - that\'s nothing new. One important thing that\'s changed in the landscape of racing over the last few decades is the trend of horses racing only a handful of times, with every loss a serious liability. If you\'re campaigning a modern potential champion, the last thing you want to do is unnecessarily risk running your horse in a race where he might lose. Back when horses might run 10 or 20 times a season, a few losses along the way were more forgivable.