Forde and the Ragozin guys weigh in on changing the Triple Crown
 

Forgive me for seeming a broken record on this, but, in my defense, they're the ones writing about it all the time.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colum...sportCat=horse

Here's Pat Forde's take on....guess what...changing the Triple Crown...and here is the Len Ragozin and Len Friedman article in the NY Times that he references. http://therail.blogs.nytimes.com/200...-major-reform/

Has anyone at ESPN.com not written about this now? Would bringing back the Triple Crown challenge revive the number of repeaters more than moving the races? And do the other prestigious races available on the first Saturday in June and on July 4th come up full generally? I haven't tried to keep track of it.

Ratings up 7.4% for the Derby, up 27.4% for the Preakness, up 24.0% for the Belmont since the last TC year. Let's now change anything right now. Let's market our little gelding Derby winner who might not be that good but will be around for hopefully years and draw in some of the extra TC audience this year or years to come.

Yeah one thing to think about is evidence of how things work out in the ratings when there's an effort to advertise during May sweeps. I saw ads in primetime. Move the Preakness and it's harder to capitalize on that. If the Belmont were on NBC, I bet it would've been higher from sheer momentum. It should be a package like with the Olympics or Monday Night Football. When does that contract expire and why is the Belmont separate from the first two?

I don't think that a one year reprieve should take away from the obvious need for change. Some people thought that 2007 with Curlin and Hard Spun racing in all three races and still finishing the year strong was proof that it can be done. Of course it CAN be done but the question is IS it being done? More often than not, it's not. And even in that year, Rags ran in the Belmont and only ran once more. Then we got last year and Big Brown wasn't able to finish out the year and another maiden winner won a classic for his only career stakes win. This year, I Want Revenge, Dunkirk, the Pamplemousse, and Old Fashioned (arguably four of the top six contenders going into April) didn't even get a chance to make it through the series and keep going. Another horse with just a maiden win has won the Belmont (that's four times in the past nine years). It is broke. It needs fixing.

You made your own counterpoint. I Want Revenge, Quality Road, Old Fashioned, and The Pamplemousse all represent top horses that were knocked off the trail before the TC, not because of it.

Change the breeding and you fix the problem.

Change the TC and you cheapen the breed.

Can you imagine if King Glorious ran racing 40 years ago?
I can just see it now.

After the 1948 triple crown was earned by Citation a long time passed without another one. Say KG has his way around 1970 with changing the triple crown. Some of the greatest racing in this country might not have happened.

Shecky Greene wins the 1973 derby blitzing six furlongs in 109.1.

Sham wins the Preakness setting a new track record in 134.3 whole holding off a desperate late challenge from Secretariat.

Finally, we have the true test of champions three months later in the Belmont. Secretariat, not as sharp as he might have been otherwise, nevertheless runs Sham off his feet as he wins the Belmont in spectacular fashion, stopping the timer in an amazing 147.3.

Or wait, since the Preakness was originally a half furlong shorter than the derby, maybe the Preakness would have been run at 5.5 furlongs. Shecky Greene and Mr. Prospector duke it out in a duel for the ages, astonishing the crowd with their incredible combination of both speed and stamina!

Or was that Affirmed and Alydar in the Belmont I'm thinking of? I guess we wouldn't have known that race either, so it doesn't really matter.

While we are at it, I think we should add a two year old turf sprint to the Breeders Cup.

"It has been years since we had older gelding stars like Kelso, Forego and John Henry who raced year after year and developed tremendous public followings because they were not thrown to the wolves in their early years."

Really? What about Lava Man, The Tin Man, Evening Attire, Better Talk Now, etc.? (Minus the "tremendous public followings," of course, since that's impossible in this era).

good call, different class of horses but your point is valid.

The Grapefruit had one leg that went in a different direction than the rest and was a blowout waiting to happen. Dunkirk and Old Fashioned's fates may have arguably been pre-determined by their sire's dubious reliability. I Want Revenge, the son of a modest $7,500 sire, went 'off' and should be back. It happens. Your response to this topic borders on hysteria and your reasoning is 100% faulty.

In terms of marketability, Mine That Bird could have the starpower of Funny Cide, whether or not MTB wins that much.

forego ran third in the ky derby behind secretariat and sham. i'm not quite sure what they mean by being 'thrown to the wolves' since i believe kelso ran at two, as did henry.
hell, i hope a horse hurries up and wins the tc so that this bs can stop.

I laughed :D

because there has been no TC winner since Affirmed (1978)and there was 3 in the 70's and a 25 yr lapse before that does'nt mean anything is wrong with the races,the breed etc... it's just that damm hard to accomplish. if it was commnplace every couple of years,then it would not have the same aura and exciting hold on the public. it's like oh no!! another year and no triple crown,how is racing going to survive, let's change the distances,the location,etc... the TC will always live on.

thanks for labeling the thread with Pat Forde....I avoid him at all costs.

:tro:

I wouldn't stop with the TC. I'd change the way 2yos and 3yos are raced from the start. I don't think the TC races themselves are what needs to be changed. I don't know where Indian Charlie comes up with me wanting the Derby at 6f or any of that other nonsense though. And perhaps he didn't see Secretariat's Gotham or his Marlboro Cup. Sham wasn't going to beat Secretariat at either of those distances. And as I keep saying, I agree with changing the breed. But I also know that's NOT going to happen. So since that's not going to happen, we have to make the changes elsewhere. You say that changing the TC would cheapen the breed. Have you not noticed how the breed has become weaker and weaker over the years without the TC races being touched? In this country, over 70% of the races are run at one mile or less. It's probably over 90% at 9f or less. There is huge money running less than 10f. The TC races are but three races on the calender. If you were breeding a horse, which would you try to do? Try to breed a horse that's going to excel at the distances of those three races, one of which you'll likely only run once in you life, or try to breed a horse that can fit in the majority of the races that they run during the year? The breed is different because the racing is different. Changing up the way they breed them, the way they train them, the way they race them, the way they medicate them.....and then asking them to do the same thing as horses of 50 and 60 years ago doesn't make sense.

I would change it to first saturday of May, July, and September. These poor horsies get tired and whatnot.

Quite simply. I agree. Let's get away from the 100+ year old tunnel vision and improve the series.

According to Mountaineer's track handicapper - Mine That Bird will run next in the West Virgina Derby.

you're agreeing with a point that includes the statement that big brown didn't finish out the year? he raced how many more times after the belmont? now it's the t.c. series' fault that he took a chunk out of his hoof that forced him to miss the bc? exactly how many times after mid june does a horse have to run to be considered as having finished a year?

the racing isn't at fault. early retirements have far more to do with the value of the horse than the injury. they acknowledged rags could have come back, they chose to breed her instead. big brown wasn't forced into retirement, they wanted the easier money to be had from stud fees.
success in these races is what's causing retirements, not too much or too gruelling racing.
the only one of the four that's officially retired in that list of 'top contenders' is old fashioned. i want revenge and pamplemousse are on the shelf, and they say dunkirk will return-we'll see.

Deb,

There's no point in trotting out reality. Never mind that Big Brown was delayed making that one start at two and then had to be put away... Never mind that he was problematic from the feet up from word go... Somehow that will be made the fault of the Triple Crown too.

I think turf writers draw straws as to who has to write about changing the Triple Crown. Next year, it will be somebody else.

It's funny... racing has changed the weights, the distances and heck, even the surfaces. Now we want to change the timing of races. At what point does someone have the lightbulb go off where they say, "Hey, it's not the races, the surfaces, the distance or the weights. It's the horse."

Yeah, I think Brown and Ragozin are the Galileo of the present era. Just as Galileo had to combat the Jesuit supporters of the Aristotelian world view, Ragozin and Brown have to deal with the old racing paradigm. Look how much they've contributed to the game. I mean their 'catch' phrases alone have armed an entire generation of otherwise clueless horseplayers. They've emboldened them the way ALL IN has inspired a generation of amateur poker players.

BOUNCE

NEW TOP

etc.

:rolleyes:

All for $30 (or whatever) a day.

ha ha ha

Only in ****in' America.

There can always be a competing Triple Crown estalished for 3 year olds. Time will tell if this 2 weeks between the KD and Preakness survives.

Part of the issue is that TRAINERS have changed. Most of today's trainers have no idea how to race a horse every 2 weeks.

As for 2yo racing and the TC all the TC winners ran at 2, some of the alot. There was a time when 2yo's meant for the classics were started in June or so. They would then be ready to run in the stakes at Saratoga. Now the classic type colt is held out to break his maiden at Saratoga, run back in the Champagne and then the BCJ. The Hopeful is a glorified NW1x and the Futurity is the same. I remember when Seattle Slew's late start and 3 race juvie campaign was considered radical and many people disagreed with his getting the 2yo championship, not because he wasn't the best but because of his record of a maiden, allowance and (G1) Champagne. The belief was that he didn't "prove" himself in stakes. (Keep in mind that in that era the Champagne was the equivalent of the BCJ.)

Affirmed and Alydar began their rivalry in June of their 2yo season and Secretariat debuted on July 4th. After that start, he still ran a nice race juvie campaign. Today, Laurin would be considered a butcher!

In light of the fact that we have had several close misses (Smarty Jones, Real Quiet) in recent years, I don't think a dramatic shift is needed. If Real Quiet was a hair's breadth away, can it be impossible?

The whole idea of the triple crown is to prove the horses ability to win three gruelling races in 1 month. Maybe instead of changing the triple crown to suit modern training and breeding, they should modify the training and breeding to suit the triple crown.

Pat Forde is a dope.

I was almost ready to change my avatar, but I think I'll go with it a little longer. Some people need the reminder.

--Dunbar

To blame The Triple Crown is ridiculously. It's a chain reaction that takes place. The sound breeding has gone downhill as it surrendered to speed at all costs. It has produced brittle runners. Training methods of yesteryear has given way to just keeping them in one piece. In turn they run less races at 2. They run less Triple Crown preps at 3. By the time the Triple Crown series is done those that were brittle begin to breakdown some even before that. The Triple Crown is not the problem. Past winners had the talent and the right foundation that is lacked today.

I don't understand why everyone can't understand that nobody is blaming the TC. We, at least I, would love for people to breed and train them different and to keep the TC the way it is. That would be my first choice. But I also know that they aren't going to do that. I'm saying that if they are going to change the ways it's done, then it only makes sense to change what you are asking them to do to adapt to what you have. It would be like baseball coming up with bats and balls that allow players to routinely hit 600-700 foot home runs but leaving the stadiums at the same size they are now. You have to adapt the playing conditions to the athletes and equipment being used to play. If they start breeding guys to be 8ft tall, would it make sense to leave the basket at 10ft?

First of all:

Tfds thek sdfioio sdafkljljk. I dsafkj asfdj ewiofd dfas, dje tw eioru dsljk!!

Furthermore:

Wdfjk eiof erwjkl ewiousfkewp quifslk eiouf, 34 fdsie thpe! Prsfjk, sfduios sfdiouew.

I would think that the longer the span in between races the less likely it is that a horse would be able to win all three races.How often does the Derby winner run a poor race in the Preakness?Not often and form cycle has alot to do with that.After two grueling races the winner is tested in the Belmont by fresh horses. Can he do it? They don't call the Belmont the test of champions for nothing.The best have proven they can in a five week time span.

Breeding hasn't changed as much as everyone believes.Bold Ruler was the dominant sire of sires in the late 60's-late 70's.His progeny were bred for speed yet two of the last three triple crown winners are from his sire line.The other comes from the Raise A Native line.The fact is that there are two parents.Secretariat got his stamina from his dam.Breeding today is no different.The Mr. Prospector line has been dominant in american breeding in the last twenty years but there is plenty of stamina through a number of his sons and grandsons.There are large numbers of horses who are bred to sprint,they don't show up for the Derby.The ones who show up are bred for stamina as well as speed.I don't buy the breeding argument.

Fragility is another issue.Fragile horses are subject to injury anytime they step onto a racetrack.Spacing out the races would help their chances but why would one want to make it beneficial for horses that can't withstand the rigors of the triple crown? I would think that would make it more likely that breeders wouldn't be concerned about fragility knowing that the races are spread apart to give their fragile horse a better chance of winning.

Leave the triple crown alone.

:tro: :tro: :tro:

People are trying to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to changing the Triple Crown. Nobody's stopping them from getting G1s for these horses that can't stand the rigors. There are ways for them to go on to lucrative stud deals without putting their horses through the strain. It's not like they can't achieve a lot of things and make a lot of money without winning the TC or even just one of the races. They aren't being deprived of a darn thing. The horses that win all 3 of these races are supposed to be elite. I like Real Quiet a lot and I think he's underrated as a stallion, but honestly, he's not in Affirmed's league. Some people are trying to bring the mountain to Mohammad here and really the only way they have figured out how to do it is by wearing it down to a hill first.

PCL,

Terrific view of the topic.

I'm reading a Tom Ainslie book ("Ainslie's Jockey Book") from 1967, and he was talking about Bold Lad, the Bold Ruler Wheatley colt trained by Eddie Neloy that was 10th in Lucky Debonair's Derby after being one of the winter book faves at 2. He was "hobbled by leg injuries" and was rested almost a year after that before winning the Roseben and Metropolitan (over Hedevar) in 1966. Point being, this was 1965-66, and Ainslie is talking about the exact same scenario.

Agree with the breeding aspect as an obvious issue. That's the reason some of the horses aren't withstanding the rigors of the crown. Don't change the crown, keep medication limited and improve the breed....and poof you will have triple crown winners. I guess I'm in the camp that I don't mind that we haven't had a Triple Crown winner in a while, it simply proves what an accomplisment it was for the horses who have done it.

Does anyone know off the top of their head how many horses have won the first 2 legs only to fail in the Belmont since Affirmed last won the Triple Crown?

Off the top of my head, 6 or 7.

won derby, preakness and lost belmont (belmont finish after name) since affirmed :



spectacular bid-3
pleasant colony-3
alysheba-4
sunday silence-2
silver charm-2
real quiet-2
charismatic-3
war emblem-8
funny cide-3
smarty jones-2
big brown-dnf


11 horses in that list...of course there are others since affirmed to win two legs of it but not the third-such as risen star, swale, afleet alex just to name a few.

also, seven of the eleven above raced at four, with only one of them actually suffering a career ending injury in the classics. war emblem and funny cide ran the rest of the year.

Wow forgot about a couple there.

And we have a winner.