|
|
 |
|
|
|
#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, 03:26 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?
|
|
#8
05-29-2014, 03:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I like the idea of the Whirlaway Slam
|
|
#9
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
|
|
#10
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.
|
|
#11
05-29-2014, 08:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
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.
|
|
#13
05-30-2014, 01:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
First, there is almost universal acceptance that the way they breed these horses has changed dramatically. They no longer are the sturdy horses we grew up with but have become a soft, fragile animal. The current training methods only make them softer. As much as I hate to admit it, it's becoming increasingly clear that they need more time between races than horses of the past. I may not necessarily believe this but obviously, many top trainers do. With that in mind, more spaces between the races would probably lead to more of the horses that are considered top horses running back in the Preakness. Each year, you usually have a couple of contenders that can have their Derby efforts tossed because of legitimate excuses that then skip the Preakness and run in the Belmont. You also get several that skip the Preakness just because it comes back so close and there is no reason to run back. Palace Malice, Union Rags, Summer Bird, Jazil, Birdstone, and Empire Maker are six that have run in Kentucky, skipped the Preakness, and won the Belmont in the last 11 seasons with Birdstone and Empire Maker both ending TC bids. So my belief is that with more top horses coming back in the Preakness, it makes that a tougher race to win. The same feeling holds true for the Belmont. The next reason I feel it would be tougher is because it would require the horses to hold their form for a longer period of time. The more time between the races, the more that can go wrong in training and the easier it is to lose their sharpness. A third reason is one that would be in conjunction with shortening the races. Listen, whether we like it or not, people aren't breeding horses to run 10f+ anymore. I remember once reading that 70% of the races in this country are run at 8f and under and that's what it seems breeders are aiming at. Nobody is trying to breed a Derby winner anymore. They are breeding 8-9f runners and hoping they can just be the best of the bunch and outlast the others to 10f. Look at a horse like California Chrome. The vast majority of the so-called "experts" will tell you that they believe his best distance is probably 9f. The 2yo champ from last year, Shared Belief, just made his return and I bet if you were to ask people what distance they'd prefer to see them match up at, it would be 8.5-9f. You could line up Groovy, Gulch, Very Subtle, Safely Kept, Xtra Heat, Meafara, On the Line, Kona Gold, and Artax and make it a 10f race and three of them will hit the board and one will win. But that is not the best distance for any of them and the best race for that group would be a 6f sprint where all of them can give their best. What I'm getting at is a 9f Derby would be a tougher race to win than a 10f one and a 10f Belmont would be tougher to win than a 12f one. Why? Because the conditions would suit more of the horses and make them legit contenders. It's only logical that the more contenders that fit the conditions, the tougher it is to win. Some people are set in their ways and will scream tradition and I respect that. But while changing it up will make it different, it won't necessarily make it easier.
__________________
The real horses of the year (1986-2020) Manila, Java Gold, Alysheba, Sunday Silence, Go for Wand, In Excess, Paseana, Kotashaan, Holy Bull, Cigar, Alphabet Soup, Formal Gold, Skip Away, Artax, Tiznow, Point Given, Azeri, Candy Ride, Smarty Jones, Ghostzapper, Invasor, Curlin, Zenyatta, Zenyatta, Goldikova, Havre de Grace, Wise Dan, Wise Dan, California Chrome, American Pharoah, Arrogate, Gun Runner, Accelerate, Maximum Security, Gamine
|
|
#14
05-30-2014, 02:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 --Dunbar
__________________
Curlin and Hard Spun finish 1,2 in the 2007 BC Classic, demonstrating how competing in all three Triple Crown races ruins a horse for the rest of the year...see avatar photo from REUTERS/Lucas Jackson
|
|
#15
05-30-2014, 02:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The current system is kind of a double-edged sword. The distance of these races eliminates a lot of contenders because there simply aren't that many horses out there that can get 1 1/4 miles. But the spacing is the great equalizer (especially when it comes to the Belmont) because after you win those first two race, you're going to be pretty knocked out going into that final leg. By the way, I'm sure most of you will disagree with me, but of those 6 horses that skipped the Preakness and won the Belmont, I'm not sure a single one of those horses (maybe one) would have won the Belmont had they not skipped the Preakness. I think the key to them winning the Belmont was skipping the Preakness and being fresh for the Belmont. I think it gave them a huge advantage.
|
|
#16
05-30-2014, 10:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#17
05-30-2014, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#18
05-31-2014, 12:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
--Dunbar
__________________
Curlin and Hard Spun finish 1,2 in the 2007 BC Classic, demonstrating how competing in all three Triple Crown races ruins a horse for the rest of the year...see avatar photo from REUTERS/Lucas Jackson
|
|
#19
05-31-2014, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#20
05-31-2014, 03:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It's ludicrous, some of the arguments on here, about how it's the time between racing causing the lack of TC winners. So many times, racing circumstances were what prevented the sweep. Sometimes a better horse came along to deny the Triple Crown (Touch Gold for instance), or really bad race circumstances (Afleet Alex). Heck, just look at Touch Gold again. I could make a case that with a little luck, he might have won the Triple Crown. He was best in both the Belmont and Preakness, and if my old memory serves me correctly, he didn't run in the Derby because he lacked earnings. I could be mistaken there, but still, he was the best horse in both the Preakness and Belmont. I recently posted a list of the last twelve or so horses going for the sweep in the Belmont, and things that happened to them that contributed to their losses. All Rupert did was summarily dismiss these things and then spend the next month reiterating that the 2-3 week format was to blame. For certain, Point Given, Smarty Jones, Afleet Alex and Real Quiet would have won the TC if it were not for jockey shenanigans. I don't even know how that can be countered. War Emblem and Alysheba I think had legitimate excuses, but I can't say for certain they would have won or not. Hell, I even think that had Barbaro not broken down out of the gate (nothing to do with race spacing), he'd have completed the sweep, overrated and overhyped Bernardini notwithstanding. The arguments in favor of spacing are empty and easily beaten with simple logic and reasoning! How on Earth did Point Given and Afleet Alex manage to win the Preakness and Belmont after running such monster losing races (due to jockey ineptness) in the Derby?????? The best race Smarty Jones ever ran was his lone loss in the Belmont! All this leads me to the conclusion that some people are hopeless contrarians. I just never thought I'd be seeing Rupert in the starring role of King Glorious in this particular movie.
|
Hybrid Mode
