Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
I will agree you are right when you can actually provide statistical backup to your assertion that the TC is too hard on horses. Only three runners in the Derby came back for the Preakness and they ran 1, 2, 4. And the winner and place horses are coming back for the Belmont.
That Bloodhorse piece Steve linked to lays out very well why the Triple Crown is so hard to win. And the biggest factor is just that there are a lot more horses foaled today than in the past. And that many more horses going to the gate in the TC races. As the article states, Smarty Jones beat more rivals in losing the Triple Crown than did any of the actual winners.
For racing, the biggest benefit is having a TC on the line- that's what gets people to Belmont, and what makes them watch on TV. Whether CC wins or loses is irrelevant in terms of audience. Does anyone really think, if CC wins, the average non-racing fan is going to say, "Wow, normally I don't even know what the Travers is, but now I cannot wait!"
Changing the schedule would be nothing other than a business decision and some things should be beyond the reach of what is most profitable. The TC should belong to the fans.
|
You beat me to it on statistical proof, as perception or opinion shouldn't be the driving force for changing it.
I'm still at a loss to figure out what horses careers were 'ruined' by the triple crown.
The current system produced three winners in five years, over one fourth the total tc winners. Also a lot of horses who won two of three, many who aren't on the list above because they won a different combination...riva ridge, swale, afleet Alex, risen star are just a few. Then you have horses who spoiled the effort of horses on the above list, who also continued to have successful careers after having run in all three tc races. Even genuine risk, who ran first, second,second continued on.