Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Merlinsky
Er...that only the best can do it?  Drat, I hate it when that happens! The Mt. Everest analogy is so appropriate. If you want to climb a shorter mountain to make it easier, fine, but don't expect the same accolades for doing it.
If people want to run their horses in shorter races, do it, and maybe, just maybe, we would stop having full fields in the TC races--save them for the horses that can actually get the job done and if nobody enters, you'll get your wish for change. People were climbing over each other to get in the Derby and Preakness with a large number going to the Belmont this year. You can't have your prestigious cake and eat it too. The point is they should be one of the hardest if not the hardest things to do in this sport. We haven't had a TC winner in decades and I say good--if mediocrity is what they want to celebrate, then count me out. You want to be a champion? Run like one. |
Which brings us to the point...how do we define "best"? How does a horse run like a champion? By staggering an extra couple of furlongs less slow than the other staggering horses? If Rachel Alexandra runs in the belmont in two weeks and can't get the final 2 furlongs, does that suddenly mean that she isnt the best three year old in the country?
In the days when you had multiple races beyond 10f on dirt being run, the idea of a 12f belmont made sense. Now, how many dirt races are there beyond 10f on dirt? How many are run even at 10f these days? Regardless of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, as steve said the business of horse racing has changed.