In Wednesday’s issue of Thoroughbred Daily News, European correspondent and statistical omnivore Bill Oppenheim wrote that European buyers aren’t as interested in purchasing American-raced stakes fillies and mares for breeding because “Europeans can’t make head nor tail of American catalogues, and therefore lack the confidence to buy.”
The reason, Br’er Oppenheim contends, is that 61 percent of American black type (1,148 of 1,890 stakes in 2008) comes in the form of non-listed or -graded black-type stakes. Well, maybe that is confusing. There certainly are plenty of restricted stakes in most American racing jurisdictions (except Kentucky), and that consideration caused me to ring the offices of the Thoroughbred Owners & Breeders Association (TOBA) and speak to Andy Schweigardt, who is also secretary for the graded stakes committee that determines black-type grading for stakes in the US.
From the sums Oppenheim presented, there were 742 stakes eligible for grading in the US in 2008, and Schweigardt noted that those eligible races which don’t make the grade are marked “listed” for cataloging purposes.
I checked my trusty Keeneland January catalogs, and there indeed were not only the graded, as appropriate, but also races marked with L for listed, R for restricted, and O for non-restricted and non-listed stakes. There are also some now-defunct designations like LR (listed but restricted) and Q for non-stakes races that conferred black type for a season or two about 20 years ago.
After looking through the entire sale, I honestly don’t see that much to confuse an interested buyer. The designations are a bit of an alphabet soup but nothing past understanding, and I believe the fellows from overseas are plenty sharp enough to spoon through the broth and find the meat in the Keeneland burgoo.
That said, having only the stakes that are listed and better appear as black type would have a refreshing simplicity. The fly in the soup is that the Cataloging Standards crowd, regional racing programs, racetracks, and various political agencies would doubtless get in a dust-up if that were attempted. So…..
**********
As part of my discussion with Schweigardt, he noted that in assessing percentages of total races to graded stakes, he compared the big five major EU countries to the five major US racing jurisdictions (KY, FL, NY CA, and IL). He said, “For graded comparison, it didn’t seem fair to throw in our percentages of graded stakes against all races because we have so many races nationally. I thought they skewed the statistics” by showing US graded stakes as a tiny percentage of total races, which suggests that there should be hundreds or even thousands more black type and graded races.
By using the principal racing jurisdictions in Europe compared to the five primary racing states in the US, Schweigardt said we are “surprisingly close in number of total races, graded stakes, and G1 races, based on numbers from 2008 back through 2001.”
bloodstock in the bluegrass 
The grading process fascinates me because to me, there’s a much bigger difference between the Kentucky Derby and Prioress Stakes than there is between the Prioress and Victory Ride even though the Derby and Prioress are both Grade 1s while the Victory Ride is a Grade 3.
Obviously, each division needs its top races, but I’ve always thought that some scaling back of the Grade 1 level is necessary, and I wouldn’t blame foreign buyers for being confused.
The interesting thing about BOpp’s assessment is that he didn’t critique the upper levels. His concern was with the less black-type races, especially the listed and sub-listed stuff. Using your comparison (which is quite good), there is further compression of class (greater similarity) among the lesser black-type races and therefore greater confusion. At least, I believe that is what he is driving at.
Pingback: Br’er Oppenheim’s TDN piece inspires a rash of commentary « Sid Fernando + Observations
I am right with you, Frank.
I could not understand what Bill thought was confusing to our International clients. The catalogue page even gives you the track and the amount the horses won for each stakes race.
Interstingly on the number of Black type races, if you use the percentage of graded and listed stakes races to races run in each of the countries you mentioned then the US comes at the bottom of the list:
England 4.6%
France 5.5%
Germany 6.8%
Ireland 10.6%
Italy 2.5%
Overall for these countries it is 5.1%
In the US it is 1.5%.
If you include all Black type races in US then the percentage for the US is 3.8% which is still way below all of these countries with the exception of Italy.
Though as always Bill does encourage debate.
See you at the sale.
Frank,
I don’t know who Br’re Oppenheim thinks is confused by US black type, but those friends of BOOP’s who are should probably stick to Europe.
Frank,
It of course begs the question, why, in this age of the internet and mass communication and collaboration we bother with graded stakes to signify the quality of the race and the runners performance? Surely we would be better served with a universal handicap rating in the catalogue!
Byron
Even if the black type is parsed out in an understandable manner in catalogues, it strikes me that the overriding cause for confusion may be the sheer numbers of horses that earn black type in the U.S.
In other words, how are Europeans to judge the quality of horses that win and place in non-graded, non-listed stakes? Even if purses and tracks are noted, that is hardly a clear way to discern the quality of a given race.
The sad and ironic fact is that the promiscuous use of minor and restricted “stakes” races in this country degrades the value of such black type in the eyes of any discerning buyer or breeder. It is essentially a cheap trick used to raise the breeding value of otherwise (mostly) ordinary horses, and apparently there are plenty of buyers who fall for it.
This trend has, not surprisingly, worsened in recent years, as racing secretaries desperately seek to increase the numbers of horses in races. So, in New York for example, races that would have been good class allowance races just a few years ago, are now “stakes” for the very same groups of horses. So a broodmare prospect now catalogued with black type as a result of such a race will, in many cases, have been no better a racehorse than allowance winners of the past.
That should be confusing to both Europeans and Americans alike. But hey, the seller, consignor and sales companies are making more money, right?
Wrong. This is yet another symptom of the decline and corruption of American racing.
Tinky,
I agree that restricted stakes — and there are some in Illinois that I know that are not if very high quality — have cheapened black type, but European buyers can easily avoid these types of black type becausen they are so designated on the catalog page. It’s easy enough to concentrate on Listed races and above, and the more discerning a buyer is, the higher up the black type scale he can go.
It’s not very difficult. Have we reached a point where everything has to be spelled out to the lowest common denominator?
Do the work.
When you read this you have to keep in mind that I’m not a horse player or a owner or a breeder or a trainer but I was raised at the track and that I have a passing interest in horse racing and aspects of the business.
While I think that the black type is over used I still think it is an adequate method of highlighting what a horse has done or produced. Where I think the confusion comes or at least where I have a problem is keeping track of whether the get is of a specific mare or a sibling the horizontal line effect if you will and I can see where that would be confusing to others who are not schooled in catalog reading.
All of that and Tinky must go until he she it decides to sign their real name.
Sid –
I’m not referring to state-bred races which are, of course, of generally poor quality, and also fairly easy to identify. I’m referring, in large part, to the (now) numerous minor stakes run at major tracks which are allowance races masquerading as stakes. As the original post pointed out, there are many stakes races that are non-restricted and non-listed stakes.
So, is it really “not very difficult” to discern whether horses that win or place in such races are true stakes caliber runners? You can tell at a glance whether the quality of the race in question was above a typical two or three-other-than allowance or not?
T.N. Trosin –
My true identity is utterly irrelevant to the merits of my posts. If you don’t care to address the substance of what I write, feel free to ignore the posts. But do us all a favor and keep the red herrings to yourself.
Tinky,
If you read my post carefully, you’ll note that I addressed those “minor stakes” you note as well as restricted stakes. To refresh your memory, I wrote: “It’s easy enough to concentrate on Listed races and above, and the more discerning a buyer is, the higher up the black type scale he can go.”
These races, designated with L, are higher on the scale than restricted (R) pr overnight stakes (O). It’s really quite easy top discern, unless, of course, you are a “newbie” or are lazy.
Sid,
Yes, I appreciate that it is easy to distinguish between Listed black type and above, and lesser black type. My point is that within the context of lesser black type, it is extreme;y difficult to judge the relative merits of the races. And that, obviously, can create confusion.