Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parsixfarms
I couldn't disagree with this statement more, both in terms of the relative strength of the Preakness versus the Belmont in general, or specifically with respect to this year's race.
Given trainers' desire for more time between races, the Preakness has become a race that generally is the weakest of the Triple Crown races, relegated to being less about Derby rematches and more about whether the Derby winner can keep the Triple Crown hope alive. The recent trend is for the better horses that did not win the Derby to pass the Preakness to run with five weeks rest in the Belmont.
The Preakness had a "deeper" field this year because of the perceived weakness of the 50-1 Derby winner. When the fact that highly regarded horses such as Dunkirk passed on the Preakness (and Quality Road had still not been taken out of consideration for the Belmont) was coupled with the distance, the Belmont would have been the far more ambitious spot. Rachel's presence is what made the Preakness this year. Without her, it would have been perceived as a very weak race.
(And I'll repeat that, after having run Rachel in the Preakness, I thought Jackson did the right thing by passing the Belmont.)
|
2008 - This field was so terrible in both races and unfortunately the second best horse died
2007 - Second best horse (Curlin) wins Preakness - is second to a
fresh Rags to Riches, who was the only top horse that skipped the Preakness, but she didn't run in the Derby either
2006 - Bernardini wins the Preakness - Jazil wins the Belmont - I think that says enough about the quality of those two races. The horses who skipped the Preakness were Bob and John and Steppenwolfer - hardly exuding with class
2005-2004 - essentially the same fields