1. HISTORY LESSON
2. 2YO PATTERN RACES IN 2006
3. 1988 COMPARISON

A brief look at the history of the development of race planning since 1965 is a good way to understand the meaning of 'The Pattern' along with how 'Classic', 'Pattern', 'Group', 'Listed' & 'Black Type' races relate to each other. In summary :-

• British racing had developed over more than 200 years through to the 1960s with a group of important races being well known. These races had attained their position mostly through tradition and not through central planning. They included the five 'Classic' races for three year olds - 1000 & 2000 Guineas, The Derby & Oaks and the St Leger - each with long histories (back to 1776 for the St. Leger for example).
• By the 1960s there were a number of reasons to look into the structure of races, in particular at the top level, to see whether they provided a suitable framework to test the best horses and to provide competitive racing. In 1965 the Jockey Club set up the 'Pattern of Racing Committee' who were tasked with reporting on the overall programme of races.
• This committee made a number of recommendations, primarily that the traditional set of Classic and important races should be the basis of the new structure but with modifications. They identified a range of 'Prestige' & 'Feature' races to support the Classics to produce a framework of tests for the best horses. Of interest to 2yo racing they also said :-
• 2yo races should be limited in value in early season to discourage the breeding of precocious horses.
• The 2yo programme should lead up to a set of championship races in the Autumn.
• Another committee then sat in 1967 to look at the programme of Classic, Prestige & Feature races to apply the appropriate modifications to produce the top level programme of races. The result of this activity was that the three race types (Classic, etc.) were merged to form The Pattern Race Programme ('The Pattern'). The first season under the Pattern had 131 races but this soon dropped to around 100. The term 'Classic' was well enough entrenched and defined to survive in everyday use although the races were part of The Pattern.
• At this point we have Pattern Races so where do 'Group Races' fit in? In the late 1960s the better French races had much higher prize money than in Britain & Ireland (because of the State monopoly on betting). The penalty system they used in their best races was based on prize money won. This arrangement led to many of their better races being won by foreign runners which led to calls within France to restrict entrants from abroad.
• The resolution of this problem was the creation of the European Pattern Race programme in 1970 with race penalties based on the quality of previous races won. To implement this the three countries involved - France, Britain & Ireland  (Germany & Italy joined later) - had to agree on a categorisation for the best races. The agreement produced the Group Race System with the categories roughly defined as :-
• Group 1 - Championship races of international significance. Run without penalties and to a weight for age/sex scale.
• Group 2 - Major races just below Championship standard and also noteworthy internationally. Penalties for previous Pattern Race wins.
• Group 3 - Other important races, usually of domestic significance, including Classic Trials. Penalties for previous Pattern Race wins.
• Therefore, the Group races in Britain were the Pattern races split down into categories but covering exactly the same contests. This is why the terms Group & Pattern are interchangeable.
• To complete the story we should now consider 'Listed Races'. To understand their position requires a detour to define a 'Black Type' race. In sales catalogues it is usual to print the names of horses that have won or placed in better races in Bold typeface, capitalised for winners. The Pattern Races provided an obvious definition of these better races. However, there was a general push from the breeding industry to widen the number of races which would attract 'black type' in sales catalogues. This can be dressed up in various ways but boils down to more people wanting to be able to claim 'membership' of an exclusive club to attempt to increase their perceived value.
• At the level below the Pattern Races were a range of races, of variable quality, which aspired to higher status. These races were termed 'Listed' and were under only loose regulation by Breeders' Associations, Catalogue Standards Committees and so forth. In 1986 the regulation of the British Listed Races was taken over by the Flat Race Pattern Committee and therefore under better quality control.
• 'Listed' is therefore a fourth level below the Group 1-3 races and not part of The Pattern. They provide a way of identifying races which attract better class runners each year with some of the horses progressing from these races to run in Group races. Also, because The Pattern is not fixed and races can be added, removed as well as being promoted or demoted between Groups then the 'Listed' level is a proving ground for races which might move up to Group level.

Back to Top of Page

The opening section of the article covered how the Pattern Race system developed for all racing ages. The table below gives the dates for all of the British 2yo Pattern Races for the 2006 season. There are 33 races scheduled and they are split in the table by the four race distances between 5f to 8f that they are run over. Note that the colours used are Group 1 Races in bold black, Group 2 Races in blue and Group 3 Races in red.

	5f	6f	7f	8f
JUN	21st, Queen Mary (Asct, F) 22nd, Norfolk (Asct)	20th, Coventry (Asct) 23rd, Albany (Asct, F)
JUL		12th, Cherry Hinton (Nmkj, F) 13th, July Stakes (Nmkj) 29th, Princess Margaret (Asct, F)	14th, Superlative (Nmkj)
AUG	3rd, Molecomb (Gdwd)	4th, Richmond (Gdwd) 23rd, Gimcrack (York) 24th, Lowther (York, F)	2nd, Vintage Stakes (Gdwd) 12th, Sweet Solera (Nmkj, F) 26th, Solario (Sdwn) 27th, Prestige (Gdwd, F)
SEP	9th, Flying Childers (Donc)	2nd, Sirenia (Kton) 16th, Mill Reef (Nwby) 16th, Firth Of Clyde (Ayr, F) 28th, Cheveley Park (Nmkt, F) 29th, Middle Park (Nmkt)	8th, Champagne (Donc) 28th, Somerville Tattersall (Nmkt)	7th, May Hill (Donc, F) 23rd, Fillies' Mile (Asct, F) 23rd, Royal Lodge (Asct)
OCT	8th, Cornwallis (Asct)		14th, Dewhurst (Nmkt) 14th, Rockfel (Nmkt, F) 21st, Horris Hill (Nwby)	8th, Autumn (Asct) 21st, Racing Post Trophy (Donc)

Those races in the table which have an 'F' next to them are for fillies only. A number of the other races are limited to colts and geldings only where there is an equivalent fillies race - for example the Gimcrack Stakes has an exact counterpart at the York Ebor Meeting for the fillies with the Lowther Stakes. In general fillies only race against colts in a handful of Pattern Races during the year. Most notably in the 5 furlong section whereby the only three Group races after Royal Ascot are open to both sexes.

Back to Top of Page

    The previous sections have made the point that the races that make up The Pattern, and their status, is not fixed. In this context it is interesting to ask how the format of better races for 2yos has changed. For example, if we compare the 2006 schedule to an earlier year, let us take 1988, then what differences show up?

    The headline change has been the increase in the number of races by 7 from a total of 26 in 1988 up to 33 in 2005-6. The 7 new Group races are summarised in the table below :-
 

     Also, between 1988 and 2005 four existing races have gone up in status from Group 3 to Group 2, they are the Coventry Stakes, Queen Mary, Vintage & the Rockfel Stakes.

       If you look at the previous changes with no prior knowledge a natural question would be to ask what improvement there has been to require 7 new Group races and four promotions of existing races. This is a difficult one to answer although the increase in strength in British racing and more foreign competition would undoubtedly be offered as possible explanations.

    A more cynical view is that it is the same problem that gets an airing each year in respect of A level results - if 90% of students pass is this a good or bad thing? The usual question posed on the news would be - Are 'A' levels getting easier? We should all be encouraged to shout at the reporters that they are asking the wrong question. The correct one is - What are we trying to achieve with our education and examination systems?

    Similarly, with the Pattern Race system the answer to the 'ease' question is that it is obviously easier to win a Group race in 2005 than it was in 1999 or 1988. If the aim of the Pattern Race system is to provide a tough set of examinations that identify the best performers in a championship series then it has drifted away from that goal. If the aim is to provide a wide range of 'products' that can be marketed as quality racing and give more opportunities for the largesse to be spread around then the increase is a good thing.

    Whether you are an athletic purist, marketer or anti-competition disciple who believes 'every pony should get a rosette' your view will be different on the changes. The important point to agree on is that, like examinations, people really do want to know who are the elite athletically or academically. If the 'examination' system in place does not identify the elite then other systems will be added to do the job. The three level Group Race system will end up getting partitioned into four or some other solution. Perhaps we could have 'Prestige' and 'Feature' Group 3 races? But that's where all this started in 1965.

Back to Top of Page