|
|
 |
|
#1
05-29-2014, 04:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Current TC Spacing Dates Back to 1969
In another thread, a few people including myself were wondering how long the Triple Crown has been using the present schedule. We all thought it dated back to the 1960s but nobody seemed to know the exact year. The answer is 1969. So only 3 past TC winners did it under this exact schedule.
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ra...-even-tougher/ 
|
|
#2
05-29-2014, 05:23 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Citation actually won a fourth race in-between the Preakness and Belmont in 1948. I'm sure some of the other pre-1969 winners did something similar. The schedule isn't the issue.
__________________
The world's foremost expert on virtually everything on the Redskins 2010 season: "Im going to go out on a limb here. I say they make the playoffs."
|
|
#3
05-29-2014, 07:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#4
05-29-2014, 12:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
If you ask any trainer that has TC experience, they will all tell you that the schedule is a huge issue. If you ask a trainer that doesn't have TC experience, 90% of them will tell you it's a huge issue. I think that guys who are with horses every day and do it for a living may have some idea as to how long it takes horses to recover from races.
As you may have noticed in the article, Asmussen said that if there was more space between races that it would make it easier. That is obvious.
|
|
#5
05-29-2014, 01:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
why make it easier?
rupert, i know you have your opinion. why you inject what percentage of trainers you think would agree with you in there, i don't know. nor do i know that your '90% of' is accurate. yes, it's tough, it should be. else, it's nothing special. everyone knows the schedule, they space accordingly. it's not like someone will win the derby and then say what do you mean the preakness is in two weeks. three horses won it since 69, a lot more have come really close. just found this, take note of the close calls before 1969, and how many are after the latest schedule change: Failed Triple Crown attempts[edit] The following horses won the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness but were beaten in the Belmont: Pensive (1944): second to Bounding Home Tim Tam (1958): second to Cavan Carry Back (1961): seventh to Sherluck Northern Dancer (1964): third to Quadrangle Kauai King (1966): fourth to Amberoid Forward Pass (1968): second to Stage Door Johnny Majestic Prince (1969): second to Arts and Letters Canonero II (1971): fourth to Pass Catcher Spectacular Bid (1979): third to Coastal Pleasant Colony (1981): third to Summing Alysheba (1987): fourth to Bet Twice Sunday Silence (1989): second to Easy Goer Silver Charm (1997): second to Touch Gold Real Quiet (1998): second to Victory Gallop Charismatic (1999): third to Lemon Drop Kid War Emblem (2002): eighth to Sarava Funny Cide (2003): third to Empire Maker Smarty Jones (2004): second to Birdstone Big Brown (2008): Did Not Finish to Da' Tara looks like they already did make it easier, judging by how many have come close since '69.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#6
05-29-2014, 02:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This whole conversation started here about whether the TC is unduly hard on horses (unduly hard mainly because of the spacing), and if so, whether or not the schedule should be changed.
Some people say that we should not change the TC because of tradition. My opinion is that tradition is not a good enough reason to keep the TC the same. This particular spacing only goes back to 1969. It's not as if they've been doing it this way forever. In addition, times have changed and horses aren't as sturdy as they used to be. Horses can't run 20 times a year any more. I admit that horses get hurt all the time, even if you give them plenty of time between races. But that being said, I don't think you can point to any other 2 or 3 races that so many horses have come out of either totally knocked out, or injured. Sure there have been horses that have run well in all 3 TC races and come out relatively unscathed. But I think the percentages are very poor. There have been so many horses that were never the same after running in those races. There have actually been plenty of horses that were never the same after just the first two legs (Bodemeister and I'll Have Another come to mind). With regard to your pointing out that many horses have come close to winning the TC the last 36 years, that is true. And I think many horses will continue to come close. If you have a horse that is a relative standout, I would expect him to win the Derby. And if he is a very sturdy horse, he will probably win the Preakness too. But in the vast majority of cases, I would expect the horse to regress by a few lengths in the Belmont. They might regress by 1-2 lengths or they might even regress by 5-10 lengths. It's not an exact science. If you win the first two legs you are probably the best horse and I would expect the best horse to be competitive in the Belmont, even if he regresses by a few lengths. However, when you are running in a grade I against top horses, it's tough to win if you're not at your best. You may be competitive but you're probably not going to win. CC could win. I don't expect him to but it is certainly possible. I think his chances have improved the last week with the announcements that several legitimate contenders are no longer being considered for the race.
|
|
#7
05-29-2014, 03:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I would be but one of many to be disappointed should they ever decide to change how it is now. If they were to make it "easier", then who would care after getting 5 or 10 Triple Crown winners in a say 15yr or so period?
It's tough and needs to be tough or just about any average Joe horse could win it.
|
|
#8
05-29-2014, 03:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If you want to change the Triple Crown series to reflect the realities of modern, up to the minute, thoroughbred racing...why stop with just the spacing? How about making the Kentucky Derby 9 furlongs. The Preakness 8.5 furlongs. The Belmont Stakes 10 furlongs? That with a nice five weeks of spacing between each. 126 pounds is also an usually high amount of weight. Why not make it 122lbs for colts and geldings? The name "Triple Crown" has only been around since the 1930's. That phrase wasn't even coined when Sir Barton first completed the sweep. Why not re-name it the "Grand Slam" 1st leg: Derby (9 furlongs) 2nd leg: Preakness (8.5 furlongs) 3rd leg: Belmont (10 furlongs) 4th leg: Travers (10 furlongs) The extended spacing will work out great. I suppose if "Grand Slam" sounds too corny -- why not call it 'The Whirlaway Slam' -- since he's the only horse to officially win all 4 of those races. All kidding aside -- why fix what isn't broken?
|
|
#9
05-29-2014, 03:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I like the idea of the Whirlaway Slam
|
|
#10
05-29-2014, 03:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Seriously, if CC can't do it this year then it's never going to happen UNLESS we get an even more pathetic 3yo crop in the coming years. Which would be hard to believe. This years crop makes 2008's crop look like 2007's.
|
|
#12
05-29-2014, 04:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
tradition is what's going on at the time. that's not why i say don't change it.
i say don't change it because there's no reason to. especially after looking into the current amount of close calls, and the fact that you had 1/4th of the tc winners after the current setup was put in place. two of the three ran at four. most of those who almost made it ran again at three with success, and ran at four, also successfully. the ones who didn't, one retired due to breeding demand (smarty) another due to breakdown. as for i'll have another, weren't there soundness questions from the get go about him?
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#13
05-29-2014, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
seems to me if you treat these horses like hothouse flowers, fragile as hell, that's what you'll get. this horse is a home bred, wasn't kept out of the paddock, away from romping because they didn't want blemishes on him for the sale. they ran him, he's got a great foundation, he hasn't been babied and coddled.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#14
05-29-2014, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
i'd love to see another handicap triple for older horses too, like they used to have. offer bonuses again, like they used to in the tc. get the horses out of the barns! offer up some real money so people will race them.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#15
05-29-2014, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I agree, don't fix what isn't broken. If it's next to impossible, great. Baffert thinks the Derby-Preakness timing is just fine, esp. for the KD winner because the Derby winner's still riding high and can swing right into it in good form. The Derby horses this year held form going into that race as they usually do. There's a benefit to the Belmont being frickin' hard to get for a number of reasons. Belmont Park's moved races to the undercard to make for an even bigger day, I can't see them moving. Obviously "the first Saturday in May" isn't something the Derby's giving up. The MJC needs to let it go.
|
|
#16
05-29-2014, 08:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#17
05-30-2014, 02:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I agree with you that you shouldn't fix what isn't broken. But I think the TC is partially broken. It's not totally broken because it is still extremely popular and there are a lot of great things about it. But I think it is partially broken because it ruins so many horses and I think it has gotten to the point where it is really too difficult to win all three. It's all relative. If CC wins this year and then another wins the TC in the next 5-10 years, I will say I was wrong. It may in fact be a fluke that no horse has won in 36 years. I don't think it's a fluke but I could be wrong. But at what point would you guys agree that I am right? What if CC loses this year and not a single horse wins the TC in the next 24 years? That would make it 60 years with no TC winner. At that point would you admit that maybe it's too difficult? By the way, if it was simply a matter of difficulty I probably wouldn't care. But it's more than just difficult. It's really hard on the horses and I think it ends a lot of careers. So a combination of those two things makes me think that it may be worth tweaking just a little bit. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 05-30-2014 at 02:45 AM.
|
|
#18
05-30-2014, 02:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Don't get me wrong. I think it should be extremely difficult to win the TC. It should be so difficult that only the kind of horse that comes around once a decade should be able to do it. But I think it's to the point where it's much tougher than that. I think we are to the point now where it takes a "Super horse" that only comes around once every 25-50 years. I could be totally wrong because the fact that there hasn't been a winner in 36 years could be a fluke. If you have an event that normally happens 10% of the time, it would not be that unusual to have an 0 for 36 streak. Looking at 36 events is not really that big of a sample. It could be a fluke but I don't think so. Anyway, it is to the point where some people in the industry including owners, trainers, and track operators think that this is a discussion worth having. The powers that be will discuss this and weigh the pros and cons to making a change. As I said before, if they do make a change I hope it is only a minor change. If they shortened all the distances and did it over 8-9 weeks, I think that would ruin it. Those races would just be like any other races. I wouldn't want that to happen.
|
|
#19
05-30-2014, 06:04 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#20
05-30-2014, 06:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
Linear Mode
