Kentucky Oaks, Just Another Pretty Race?
As Jessica points out, the Oaks is always overshadowed by the Derby and this year is no exception. I make a bit of a joke about in my Oaks Dating post (the opening paragraph) but the disparity between the Derby and Oaks coverage is SO great, it’s as if the Oaks just any other graded race for 3yo fillies. Is it?
I had the pleasure of having just this discussion, via the Horseplayers Teen Party Chat Line (twitter), with Ed DeRosa (who now blogs!). I sort of stupidly took his bait about why there was no outrage re: filly races on Friday compared to the Breeders’ Cup and the party began there. The point I was trying to make is that it’s frustrating to see such a huge disparity between how the races are covered. He freely admits that, in his opinion, not only is the Oaks just another G1 race but that it gets a “tremendous amount of publicity for what it is“.
In trying to make my point, a quick twirl around the mainstream media racing sites at approximately 11am-ish this morning showed the following:
BH.com, all derby above the fold, TT.com, no Oaks above the fold, DRF (from phone), no Oaks headlines.
As of now (roughly 8pm-ish Monday night of Derby week), Bloodhorse is (and will continue to be) all Derby above the fold as their prime section is Triple Crown Mania), Thoroughbred Times is all Derby above the fold (no special Derby layout) and DRF has a new Derby homepage that actually has no news above the fold but 1 of 12 news items are on the Oaks and 10 of 12 are on the Derby (the other was on the tragic accident at Churchill). So, out of the top 3 media outlets, nothing on the Oaks above the fold.
There are currently 50 headlines about racing news, 35 of them are on the Derby while 4 of them are on the Oaks. That’s 70% of all racing coverage devoted to the Derby with 8% of all racing coverage being devoted to the Oaks.
Put aside for the moment the very valid point made by Val that this year’s Oaks is not all that interesting given how much Rachel Alexandra is overshadowing her entry mates. Did that situation slow down the Derby coverage last year when Big Brown was perceived to be a few cuts above the rest? Was last year’s deeper Oaks field covered at a reasonably higher percentage than this year’s? Without having taken the same sample at this time last year I can’t say for sure, but what are the odds that the coverage was noticeably different… 15-1, 30-1, 50-1?.
Publicity and news coverage are (sometimes) different. Just because the Oaks isn’t being well covered (har har) from a racing perspective doesn’t mean it’s not being promoted, as DeRosa points out. Not too long ago when I first started following racing I thought the Oaks was the filly equivalent of the Derby. Churchill, for the most part, promotes it as such. The Derby and Oaks both have a site with similar structure and content. The Oaks is also well attended but as one GbG commenter points out, the stellar attendance and handle might be more of a function of how Churchill structures it’s tickets and perhaps that the locals love their Oaks.
A quick visit to the Oaks Wikipedia page uncovers this:
The Oaks and the Derby are the oldest continuously contested sporting events in history and the only horse races to be held at its original site since its conception.
[…]
The Kentucky Oaks is considered by some to be the second most popular horse race in the American horse racing society due to its attendance. It attracts about 100,000 people in attendance a year since 2001’s 127th running of the Kentucky Oaks.[3] In 1980 it was about 50,000 people and by 1989 it had reached about 67,000 people.[1] The attendance at the Kentucky Oaks usually surpassed the attendance at the Preakness Stakes, the Belmont Stakes, as well as the Breeders’ Cup.
It’s worth noting that the cites are from books on the history of Louisville. I think it might be fair to say that the Oaks is the second most popular horse race in Louisville, but by using the yardstick of news coverage it doesn’t seem to ring true elsewhere.
So, Churchill promotes the Oaks as if it’s the filly equivalent of the Derby but the media either doesn’t treat it as such because it does agree OR thinks the filly equivalent of the Derby only merits 8% of coverage vs. 70% for the Derby. Either way, I stand by my original point… annoying!
Posted by dana on Apr 27 2009
Filed Under: Big Brown, 2009, Twitter, Rachel Alexandra, Industry, Kentucky Oaks, Triple Crown, Kentucky Derby, Marketing, Media, Racing
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Loading ...
I get what you’re saying. Also, if I were in charge, I’d market the hell out of Rachel Alexandra. Hey, but at least the Oaks has its own website!
In Kentucky, people take Friday off work/school to attend Oaks or Oaks parties. It’s a big deal, and a day unto itself. I personally have an exam Oaks Day afternoon, and I will be pissed if I miss Zenyatta’s race (I can’t figure out what race # it is yet) or the Oaks itself.
Interesting re: the local holiday status of Oaks day in Kentucky. I could see how it might be easy to overlook that the rest of the country relies on the media coverage to remind us about the Oaks (as it’s not ingrained in the culture of say, New York, or Illinois etc).
Man, you are LUCKY that you even have the chance to see Zenyatta! I hope she races in something at Belmont, maybe the JCGC? The race #/time isn’t posted at DRF yet… I have to find out too so I can make sure I can bust out of work in time!
I find it very hard to believe that “The Oaks and the Derby are the oldest continuously contested sporting events in history”.
Ha. Sorry. No. They aren’t even the oldest continual sporting events in the sport.
Ridiculous.
yes, proceed with caution re: crowdsourced content!
Actually, O_Crunk, the Kentucky Derby (along with the Kentucky Oaks and Clark Handicap) are the longest continuously run sporting events in America.
So “the history of sport” was a little over the top, but no single horse race in the United States has been run continuously for longer.
The key there is continuously.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/derby_days.html
I guess the way to look at is The Derby is a Nationwide Cultural Event while the Oaks is a Kentucky Cultural event, part of a 2 day celebration of racing.
I attended the Oaks in ‘03 and the attendance/excitement is just as present as on Derby Day, especially for the local attendees.
That’s more believable, but only in the context of America not just “history”.
But which America are you talking about? The USA or North America?
The context is key. With context it isn’t quite as grand as it sounds.
I hate to sound like a raving feminist conspiracy-theorist but…I suspect the lack of Oaks coverage (or at least the largely disproportionate coverage) is the direct result of gender biases held by the largely-male thoroughbred racing media. It struck me particularly when reading Andrew Beyer’s latest column in the Washington Post, when he said:
“Ever since the cigar-chomping entrepreneur Matt Winn built the Derby into a national event in the early part of the 20th century, Churchill has been regarded as a savvy operator and promoter. In recent years it has transformed the Kentucky Oaks (often a forgettable event) into a mega-attraction, too, and more than 100,000 people will watch the fillies run on Friday.”
Seriously, was it necessary to add that the Oaks are “often a forgettable event”? Thinking back over the years, I don’t find that to be the case at all. And, just how many Derbies have been equally forgettable? Quite a few, actually.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/26/AR2009042602253.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
The Kentucky Oaks has a fantastic history of being won by fillies who went on to become top broodmares. While I may be a fan of the Alabama as the race I would most like to win with a 3YO filly, in a blind-choice pick I’d rather have a foal from a Kentucky Oaks winner than any other US G1 filly race.
Val - I would have to agree with you re: gender biases held by media.
Kincsem - very interesting. I plan on doing a poll about the best race for 3yo fillies as I’m interested to find out what people think. Obviously the Derby is the top of the top for breeding for the colts, but what is it for the fillies?
AND, is that gender bias in part because of the believe that colts are more important in breeding (besides the general old “boys are better mentality)? I don’t know a damn thing about breeding but are males perceived to be more important in breeding? and more importantly, are they?
Breeding - Males are more important to the industry. A stallion can reproduce 100 times a year, a mare once. The impact of stallions is much greater than mares. 3yo colts aren’t in their prime, BUT it is close enough for owners to start figuring out their value at stud, so the 3yo year is important. ROI.
Sex Bias - Nonsense. The Derby is open to fillies. It’s not a sex bias it’s a class bias. Just like Zenyatta last year, she ran in a class w/ restrictions (you have to be a filly or mare). The oaks is run under more restrictions than the Derby. There is nothing stopping any filly from running w/ the colts. The Oaks are not the equivalent of the Derby because of this.
With all due respect, Patrick, males are not more important to the industry, while running or in breeding. Yes, they may, like men everywhere, drop their seed into every possible female vessel, but if the quality of that mare isn’t strong or compatible, then all that will be produced is little morons…I mean, slow horses. Good breeders know this; the other group of idiots that contribute to overbreeding do not, or don’t care. It’s all about the all-mighty dollar as opposed to the science, the finesse of breeding.
No one is arguing that the Oaks is the equivalent of the Derby, just that it deserves more attention and respect. Yes, the Derby is open to fillies, but why is it that more fillies don’t run in it? Why isn’t Rachel Alexandra? Is it because she isn’t as talented or couldn’t whip their asses? Nope. It’s because American thoroughbred racing is gender (or sex) biased. Enough restricted races are written for 2- and 3-year old fillies that there is no impetus for racing in mixed gender races, particularly at an earlier age when female horses are more developed than their male counterparts and win against them more often. There is no science to back up splitting the genders—it all revolves around money. I feel like a broken record, but one just needs to examine Aussie racing to understand how competitive—at every level, from graded stakes to bottom level claimers—female horses are against their male counterparts. So until the culture or attitude towards racing fillies vs. colts/geldings changes, we will always see male-dominated races receive a greater proportion of attention than they deserve.
I think the larger problem that the Oaks has is that there’s nothing different about it. The Derby has that 20 horse field. It’s the first time colts are asked to go a mile and a quarter. It’s the first step on a journey that could lead to the Triple Crown.
The Oaks is a Friday race, it always seems like it’s raining, and there’s no incentive to go on to the other races.
In addition, the great events in any sport are the ones that mark you as The Best. The Oaks is always hurt by the fact that the Derby is an open race, not restricted by anything other than age. It makes it more special when a Genuine Risk or a Winning Colors wins the Derby, but it lowers the value of the Oaks.
“Why isn’t Rachel Alexandra? Is it because she isn’t as talented or couldn’t whip their asses? Nope. It’s because American thoroughbred racing is gender (or sex) biased.”
Which guy stopped her from entering the Derby?
I love the Oaks. I can’t wait to watch Rachel run. All the support, sisterly or brotherly, for the Oaks getting more attention is great. Now you need to get thousands of additional fans to watch her in person, and ten times that amount to watch her on TV. If you can prove viewership and attendance equality…
I’m all for it. This new rush of blogging in support of your cause is a fantastic first step.
The Distaff this year could be the greatest EVER
“Which guy stopped her from entering the Derby?”
Her owners and/or trainer. The bias is not necessarily external, but from within.
[…] first, a bit about the Oaks (”Just another pretty race“? I prefer not to think so). Post positions for the race, which grew to eight starters, were […]
While there are plenty of ways to race under cover of restrictions for 2yo and up fillies there is always more money for running in less restrictions. The decision to run fillies under restrictions comes down to trainer and owner, not us. but if i ever have a good 2yo filly i’ll be at the BC juvenile, not the restricted race cause I agree fillies develop (generally) faster than their male counterparts.
And you kind of prove my point - “but if the quality of that mare isn’t strong or compatible, then all that will be produced is little morons” If you have a GREAT filly and match her up to a GREAT stallion there’s still a chance you get a dud of a foal. However, if you breed an ok stallion to 100 fillies chances are you’ll get 1 or 2 great foals and live for another season of breeding. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a breeder who would rather have a Great mare over a good stallion.
The “greatness” of the Derby is a social construct. Before Matt Winn took it over in the early part of the last century, no one cared about it–he made it a Big Deal. It doesn’t showcase the best horses, it doesn’t determine who the best horse is. It’s a Big Event, as determined by those (media, mostly, and those have a vested interest in making sure it gets attention) who determine what makes a Big Event.
Wow, great stuff y’all!
Patrick - I should have clarified that my question about the comparison of colts and mares in breeding was not about volume but about quality. For example, is there a school of thought that believes more traits are passed from the sire than the dam? I sort have the impression that there are some who believe this but am not sure.
I can almost, ALMOST buy the argument about open company ruling out the possibility sex bias… if this was Europe and it was more commonplace to run fillies/colts together. But, for whatever reason(s), Americans have hang ups about mixing fillies with colts so no matter how rational that line of reasoning is, I don’t think it holds up. However, I am looking forward to you getting that stellar 2yo filly!
Ian - great points. It’s too bad there isn’t a clear, well promoted racing for 3yo fillies. Hardcore fans are even unclear on the Triple Tiara! Others have also indicated (at least to me in direct conversations on this topic) that they feel the Alabama or the Test is more of a “defining” race for 3yo fillies. I’m definitely going to do a poll on this, I wanna see what people think. Already a few interesting comments here and on twitter. And, above all, I’m glad to see you note that Friday is a negative in terms of perception of importance!!
Val - thank you!! excellent points all around.
E - I’m with Val re: point above re: bias and agree with your other points.
T - totally agree re: social construct… plus obviously it’s the defining race for a prominent stallion career (until proven otherwise, at least). Those two things = giant marketing push/media coverage.
The most popular sires are the ones who stamp their young meaning that they seem to have dominant genes, but I know my brother would tell you it’s a fool’s game, it’s 50% sire 50% dam end of story. But because sires produce more they are more valuable, or have the ability to be more valuable cause they can pass their genes on more often.
I agree their is a hesitation for owners to run fillies against the boys, it’s not based on sound premises or anything w/ a modicum of sense. And I agree w/ whomever said that the Oaks probably gets more coverage than it should because it is positioned as the Filly Derby (which is wrong because that makes it sound like the Derby is only for Colts, and that’s what gets me the most angry, they do it on purpose). I don’t think any 3yo filly race really stands out in my mind. I’d go w/ the BC Distaff as the biggest race for 3yo fillies even though it’s open to older. All these Gr I races for 3yo fillies waters everything else down. they have an inordinate amount of stakes races.
Hey now, Missy! Thoroughbred Daily News (TDN) had an Oaks story on the front page of today’s edition.