Short Field Sizes

[stark]

What's your favorite reason(s) for why there seems to be so many 6 horse fields (or less)?

1. Foal crops are decreasing.
2. Changes in Lasix rules.
3. Burned out owners leaving the game (tax laws)
4. Purse money.
5. Casino money at some tracks but not others.
6. PETA playing a larger role.
7. Trainers who don't know how to train.
8. Too many racetracks running at the same time.
9. TV betting instead of on-track experience.
10. Other.

[stark]

There's lots of examples I could have chosen, y'all know them, especially in California.
But the ones staring me in the face today are the Belmont undercard races this coming Saturday....

Grade 1 Acorn $500,000......5 horses
Grade 1 Just A Game $500,000.....5 horses (note--Chad Brown has a chance)
Grade 1 Woody Stephens $400,000....6 horses
Grade 1 Ogden Phipps $500,000.....5 horses
Grade 1 Met Mile $1,000,000......5 horses

C'mon man, we're better than that, no?

https://www.equibase.com/premium/eqbHor ... -20220611D

[BaroqueAgain1]

Since we don't normally think of the East Coast as being short on horse population, are there any dominant, we-don't-want-to-run-against-him/her horses in those G1 stakes? I haven't seen the fields yet, so I'm not sure.

[stark]

Since we don't normally think of the East Coast as being short on horse population, are there any dominant, we-don't-want-to-run-against-him/her horses in those G1 stakes? I haven't seen the fields yet, so I'm not sure.

I added a link to the entries above, enjoy!

[MissNMecke]

I think the main reason the fields are so short is that breeding is the focus now, not racing. No one wants to 'de-value' their mare or stallion by having them lose. So you get fields with one good horse in it and a bunch of mediocre runners whose trainers are hoping the chalk has an off day. The rest of the time, with the exception on the Derby and Breeders Cup, the trainers of the best horses spend the year avoiding any real competition, looking for stakes races where their horses are the sure thing.
Makes it difficult to get excited about potential rivalries. Especially when 10 starts seem to be the lifetime number nowadays.

[stark]

I think the main reason the fields are so short is that breeding is the focus now, not racing. No one wants to 'de-value' their mare or stallion by having them lose. So you get fields with one good horse in it and a bunch of mediocre runners whose trainers are hoping the chalk has an off day. The rest of the time, with the exception on the Derby and Breeders Cup, the trainers of the best horses spend the year avoiding any real competition, looking for stakes races where their horses are the sure thing.
Makes it difficult to get excited about potential rivalries. Especially when 10 starts seem to be the lifetime number nowadays.

So, you're saying a lot of trainers have been gelded?

[MissNMecke]

Lol. Somewhat. A lot of the others seem to have them tucked just really tight.

Truth is, in reality, it's all about the money now. More than ever. It used to be about proving who had the better horse.

[Miss Woodford]

Thoroughbreds don't race enough. Even the claimers don't race as much as they used to, and at higher levels you're lucky to get 6 starts in a season. I'm sure the work tabs are as crowded as ever.

The non-graded Bed O'Roses on Saturday is a 4-horse field. Can't even give away money to these trainers.

edit: Bed O'Roses is a G2, fool am I

[Flanders]

The foal crop is 1/2 the size it was 30 years ago while the number of Graded Stakes has remained almost exactly the same. G1 and G2 stakes have also increased in number, while G3s went down. If the number of Graded Stakes was also cut in half, I think it would make the field size maybe bigger but its hard to say honestly. Owners may then just go for where ever the money is instead of a Graded stakes.

1990:
44,143 foals born in NA
451 Total Graded Stakes (94 G1, 130 G2, 227 G3)

2020:
~20,500 foals born in NA
448 Total Graded Stakes (99 G1, 135 G2, 214 G3)

Owners/trainers look for the easiest spot for their horse and can do this because there are so many similar races carded in a months time. But then sometimes you see a race that is oversubscribed because that type of race isn't carded enough. I think tracks need to reevaluate what races to run. Maybe add some more of the popular races, cut out some of the lower entry races.

[Gemini]

Thoroughbreds don't race enough. Even the claimers don't race as much as they used to, and at higher levels you're lucky to get 6 starts in a season. I'm sure the work tabs are as crowded as ever.

The non-graded Bed O'Roses on Saturday is a 4-horse field. Can't even give away money to these trainers.

Actually, the Bed o' Roses has G2 status. Anyways, I had the same thought when entries came out. Fifth place pays $9,000...which after the entry/starting fees would net a profit of $5,700. Wouldn't that buy a decent amount of hay and feed? How do people make a living by leaving money on the table?

[stark]

what he said......

Craig Milkowski
@TimeformUSfigs

I don't see much way to sugarcoat the lack of horses on the Belmont Stakes day card. It is disappointing. I'm sure we'll get some nice performances, but as a bettor it is not good.

[BaroqueAgain1]

I took a look at the fields (thanks stark), and I wonder if the presence of Echo Zulu discouraged some from entering the Acorn. It was also kind of cool to see that at least one West Coast trainer is trying to contribute to the field size in the Just a Game by shipping in Leggs Galore.
It's true that the Ogden Phipps has only five entrants, but that quintet is pretty fabulous.

[Missbeholder]

Since we don't normally think of the East Coast as being short on horse population, are there any dominant, we-don't-want-to-run-against-him/her horses in those G1 stakes? I haven't seen the fields yet, so I'm not sure.

The only race on Saturday that might qualify as one of those "I don't want to run against that monster" kind of race is the Met Mile. With Flightline and Speaker's Corner in there........well, even Jackie's Warrior bowed out to run the day before in the True North. And Asmussen was probably not a village idiot for doing it, either!!

[Tessablue]

Lots of reasons. Too many stakes, not enough horses, high purses in non-stakes races disincentivizes connections from taking a shot in stakes races, dirt races are becoming passe, early retirement and conservative placing of top horses, consolidation into supertrainer barns keeps horses apart and/or drives horses with other connections out of the division. This Belmont card has some tremendous matchups that a bunch of no-hopers would do little to enhance, but it does impact willingness to bet on the races. And I would definitely believe that the individual horses involved scared some competitors off this year. The Phipps and Met boast 8 G1 winners in their ten combined entries, and the best horses in those races are very good. Echo Zulu and Jack Christopher are complete standouts in their divisions. The Just a Game is the Brown Invitational but who else even is in that division? Meanwhile, the Jaipur and the Manhattan are rock-solid competitive fields that should be fun to bet.

Personally, I'm really looking forward to seeing these horses and watching these races. Systemic issues aside, I can't complain about watching the best horses run against each other. And on the betting side of things? Well, there are 28 entries in the last two races on the Belmont card. That should suffice.

[Slewfan2]

Since we don't normally think of the East Coast as being short on horse population, are there any dominant, we-don't-want-to-run-against-him/her horses in those G1 stakes? I haven't seen the fields yet, so I'm not sure.

The only race on Saturday that might qualify as one of those "I don't want to run against that monster" kind of race is the Met Mile. With Flightline and Speaker's Corner in there........well, even Jackie's Warrior bowed out to run the day before in the True North. And Asmussen was probably not a village idiot for doing it, either!!

I doubt JW was going to run - he’s not a miler. I get that Speaker’s Corner is very good, but he’s not nearly close to being the kind of horse you try and avoid - especially for a race like the Met Mile. Same with Flightline. I think it’s ridiculous that it’s a 5 horse field

[Slewfan2]

Lots of reasons. Too many stakes, not enough horses, high purses in non-stakes races disincentivizes connections from taking a shot in stakes races, dirt races are becoming passe, early retirement and conservative placing of top horses, consolidation into supertrainer barns keeps horses apart and/or drives horses with other connections out of the division. This Belmont card has some tremendous matchups that a bunch of no-hopers would do little to enhance, but it does impact willingness to bet on the races. And I would definitely believe that the individual horses involved scared some competitors off this year. The Phipps and Met boast 8 G1 winners in their ten combined entries, and the best horses in those races are very good. Echo Zulu and Jack Christopher are complete standouts in their divisions. The Just a Game is the Brown Invitational but who else even is in that division? Meanwhile, the Jaipur and the Manhattan are rock-solid competitive fields that should be fun to bet.

Personally, I'm really looking forward to seeing these horses and watching these races. Systemic issues aside, I can't complain about watching the best horses run against each other. And on the betting side of things? Well, there are 28 entries in the last two races on the Belmont card. That should suffice.

But you know, horses lose all the time, even the greatest horses in history...nothing ventured, nothing gained. In talking about the Met on Twitter, Gulch came up - he was such a throwback horse, really remarkable. He clearly was a natural sprinter/miler, not a router, but he ran in all these huge races and ran well, almost all the time. The fact that he did run so well in those longer races enhanced his reputation - even though he didn’t win most of them. **Are people so afraid to lose races these days? Running well in the Met could be a big deal, more than winning a lesser stakes.

[whitehorse]

are there any dominant, we-don't-want-to-run-against-him/her horses in those G1 stakes?

Life is Good and Jackie’s Warrior are both dodging Flightline in the Met Mile.

[Tessablue]

are there any dominant, we-don't-want-to-run-against-him/her horses in those G1 stakes?

Life is Good and Jackie’s Warrior are both dodging Flightline in the Met Mile.

Life is Good, the horse with two on-track works since Dubai? They are so terrified of Flightline that they pushed back their horse's entire work schedule?

But you know, horses lose all the time, even the greatest horses in history...nothing ventured, nothing gained. In talking about the Met on Twitter, Gulch came up - he was such a throwback horse, really remarkable. He clearly was a natural sprinter/miler, not a router, but he ran in all these huge races and ran well, almost all the time. The fact that he did run so well in those longer races enhanced his reputation - even though he didn’t win most of them. **Are people so afraid to lose races these days? Running well in the Met could be a big deal, more than winning a lesser stakes.

Losing has never been less profitable, I'm afraid. And with the same people owning and training every horse, the impetus for competition diminishes even further.

I've been thinking about it a bit more though, and I think it's possible that we're still seeing some effects of COVID interrupting training in 2020. These older horses had disrupted schedules at 2/3 years old, and that can have long-term effects. Wouldn't surprise me if we get a bit of a lull this year and the next, then things rebound a little. The stakes issue does need to be dealt with either way, however.

[Slewfan2]

are there any dominant, we-don't-want-to-run-against-him/her horses in those G1 stakes?

Life is Good and Jackie’s Warrior are both dodging Flightline in the Met Mile.

Life is Good, the horse with two on-track works since Dubai? They are so terrified of Flightline that they pushed back their horse's entire work schedule?

But you know, horses lose all the time, even the greatest horses in history...nothing ventured, nothing gained. In talking about the Met on Twitter, Gulch came up - he was such a throwback horse, really remarkable. He clearly was a natural sprinter/miler, not a router, but he ran in all these huge races and ran well, almost all the time. The fact that he did run so well in those longer races enhanced his reputation - even though he didn’t win most of them. **Are people so afraid to lose races these days? Running well in the Met could be a big deal, more than winning a lesser stakes.

Losing has never been less profitable, I'm afraid. And with the same people owning and training every horse, the impetus for competition diminishes even further.

I've been thinking about it a bit more though, and I think it's possible that we're still seeing some effects of COVID interrupting training in 2020. These older horses had disrupted schedules at 2/3 years old, and that can have long-term effects. Wouldn't surprise me if we get a bit of a lull this year and the next, then things rebound a little. The stakes issue does need to be dealt with either way, however.

That’s a very good point. So is the Covid one...

Belmont is my favorite track, and they did attract fantastic horses...the racing will hopefully be superior as a result. Maybe this is just the new normal, for all the reasons you mentioned above, and we have to adjust.

[BaroqueAgain1]

Today's 7th at Belmont, a 1 1/8-mile Allowance for 3yo+up F&M on the turf, ended up with just TWO runners.
Won by Baby Blythe (American Pharoah) over Chad Brown's Investmentstrategy (Kingman).