Belmont Stakes blanket finishes

[Calzone Lord]

I only have Belmont Stakes charts going back to 1991. Is anyone aware of an edition of this race where the top 5 finishers, finished within less 2 lengths of each other?

The year Drosselmeyer won, the top five were only separated by 3 lengths...but virtually every year, it's a long way back to the 5th place finisher. In fact fifth place is usually beaten by a city block in this race.

Obviously, 12 furlongs on dirt is the perfect recipe for a huge margin of victory. Since 1973, five different editions of the Belmont Stakes have been won by more than twelve lengths.

Considering field sizes have only been so large in recent years, I'd wouldn't be surprised if this is the first time in the 146 year history of the race, where the top five finishers, finished within less than 2 lengths of each other.

Obviously, Norumbega ran a much faster final time going 12 furlongs on dirt in race #3.

Needless to say, blanket finishes coupled with slow final times, equal relative mediocrity.

They're saying California Chrome grabbed a quarter at the start, that's the rumor on Twitter anyway. Still, he REALLY did not have to do much in order to beat this hapless field today.

[Mack]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Needless to say, blanket finishes coupled with slow final times, equal relative mediocrity.

Well, considering they went faster than Palace Malice did last year and he's turned out to be decidedly un-mediocre, I'm cautiously optimistic about a couple of these.

[Port Conway Lane]

Chart is difficult to read but...the closest I could find up to this point
1950
1-Middleground 1 length
2-Lights Up anywhere from 1/4 to 3/4
3-Mr. Trouble head
4-Greek Song anywhere from 1 1/4 to 1 3/4
5-Hawley Neck
6-Greek Ship 1
7-Hill Prince 15

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Mack

Well, considering they went faster than Palace Malice did last year and he's turned out to be decidedly un-mediocre, I'm cautiously optimistic about a couple of these.

That's a silly point because the track was much faster this year, obviously.

Matterhorn, who finished 8th beaten 10 lengths this year, clearly ran a faster final time than Palace Malice did last year.

In fact, Norumbega ran 2:27.13 on the dirt earlier in the day. That was the fastest clocking for 12 furlongs, on dirt, at Belmont since Point Given won the 2001 Belmont by 12.25 lengths in 2:26.56

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Mack

Well, considering they went faster than Palace Malice did last year and he's turned out to be decidedly un-mediocre, I'm cautiously optimistic about a couple of these.

you can't compare times from one day to the next, a year apart is impossible. they'd sealed the track the night before the big day just in case of rain, i'm not surprised they had a fast surface.

[Mack]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

That's a silly point because the track was much faster this year, obviously.

Matterhorn, who finished 8th beaten 10 lengths this year, clearly ran a faster final time than Palace Malice did last year.

In fact, Norumbega ran 2:27.13 on the dirt earlier in the day. That was the fastest clocking for 12 furlongs, on dirt, at Belmont since Point Given won the 2001 Belmont by 12.25 lengths in 2:26.56

Was referring to the fig, which I believe was 98 for Palace and 100 for Tonalist?

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Mack

Was referring to the fig, which I believe was 98 for Palace and 100 for Tonalist?

Yeah, but that's a final time figure that doesn't factor in pace.

Palace Malice chased fractions of 23.11, 46.66, and 1:10.95 -- he stuggled home a winner through a final quarter in a standard-bred like 27.58 seconds in the 2013 Belmont.

This year, the fractions were much slower and the racing surface much faster.

[Mack]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Yeah, but that's a final time figure that doesn't factor in pace.

Palace Malice chased fractions of 23.11, 46.66, and 1:10.95 -- he stuggled home a winner through a final quarter in a standard-bred like 27.58 seconds in the 2013 Belmont.

This year, the fractions were much slower and the racing surface much faster.

Fair enough. Just saying that after last year's Belmont, I'm pretty sure we could have called Palace Malice a mediocre horse who beat a hapless field. I don't even think he'd cracked triple digits on Beyers yet, and now he's the deserving leader in the clubhouse for 2014 HOY.

[parsixfarms]

Speaking of blanket finishes, I'm having a very hard time trying to figure out what to make of the result in the Phipps. It was an exciting race, but was it a good race? Did Antipathy (who, given where she was in the first quarter of the race, may have run the best race) and Belle Gallantey really improve that much, or did none of the "big three" show up with an "A" performance?