Steve Haskin's latest: 'Leave Crown Alone'

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Didn't he win 7 of 8 Triple Crown races between '94-'96 with 5 different horses?



Just for the scorekeepers out there:

Lukas won the Strub the last time it was run at 10f, with Victory Speech.

Victory Speech also won the Swaps Stakes, giving Lukas back-to-back winners of that race after Thunder Gulch won the year before. Cat Thief also won it for him, while Grand Slam, Prince Of Thieves, and Corporate Report all placed 2nd.

In the last 28 runnings there have only been 2 renewals of the Woodward run at 10f.

The last 2 times the Meadowlands Cup was run at 10f, Lukas had Slew City Slew in the race. He placed both times. He also won it with Twilight Agenda.

The Iselin hasn't been run at 10f for over 30 years. Lukas has sent Lady's Secret, Gulch, Serena's Song, and Farma Way to the post for that race.

In 2 of the last 3 runnings of the Super Derby at the distance of 10f, Lukas trained the runner-up (AP Arrow, Commendable). He also won it with Editor's Note when it was run at 10f.

Once again distorting facts with truths. I hate this forum. It's so much better when people make stuff up. You had to ruin it. Thanks.

[dalakhani]

I can't believe I actually agree with Dwayne about this. The breed has changed and its time for the sport to change with it especially on the biggest stage.

How relevant is a 12f dirt race for 3 year olds or for that matter any horse? There is no chance that they will ever run it again and a vast majority werent bred to do it anyway so what does it prove?

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

How relevant is a 12f dirt race for 3 year olds or for that matter any horse? There is no chance that they will ever run it again and a vast majority werent bred to do it anyway so what does it prove?

Er...that only the best can do it? Drat, I hate it when that happens! The Mt. Everest analogy is so appropriate. If you want to climb a shorter mountain to make it easier, fine, but don't expect the same accolades for doing it.

If people want to run their horses in shorter races, do it, and maybe, just maybe, we would stop having full fields in the TC races--save them for the horses that can actually get the job done and if nobody enters, you'll get your wish for change. People were climbing over each other to get in the Derby and Preakness with a large number going to the Belmont this year. You can't have your prestigious cake and eat it too. The point is they should be one of the hardest if not the hardest things to do in this sport. We haven't had a TC winner in decades and I say good--if mediocrity is what they want to celebrate, then count me out. You want to be a champion? Run like one.

[letswastemoney]

You wouldn't be able to compare the races to past Triple Crown races.

A lot of the fun would be lost if you changed the distance

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

You wouldn't be able to compare the races to past Triple Crown races.

A lot of the fun would be lost if you changed the distance

You are aware that of the 11 TC winners, only the last three have won it under it's current format aren't you? Some winners won it when they had to run the Preakness a week after the Derby. I think one won the Preakness four days after the Derby. Some won it when the Belmont was only two weeks after the Preakness. Some won it when it was four weeks after the Belmont. Perhaps if you had given Smarty Jones or Real Quiet an additional week of rest before the Belmont, they too could have won it. Perhaps if you had made some of those that won the Belmont four weeks after the Preakness instead run it two weeks later, they wouldn't have won. It's sort of misleading to talk about all the tradition when it's already been changed several times and only the last three have won it the way it's currently set up.

It's still my contention that a shorter race is going to be harder to win. I believe that if the Derby were 9f, we'd have more horses that fit the conditions of the race and were logical contenders. This would be even more true for a 10f Belmont. In any race where you have more logical contenders, more legitimate threats, that race is going to be harder to win, not easier. It may be a little easier to run but harder to win because more horses are capable of winning and therefore you margin for error is much smaller. Personally, I'd much rather see the races become more of a combination of speed and stamina than what they have started to become lately and that's the best 9f outlasting the other 9f in a crawlfest to the finish. At the end of every Derby, you usually only have 1-2 horses that are still running at the end. In the Belmont, we are lucky to get one.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

You are aware that of the 11 TC winners, only the last three have won it under it's current format aren't you? Some winners won it when they had to run the Preakness a week after the Derby. I think one won the Preakness four days after the Derby. Some won it when the Belmont was only two weeks after the Preakness. Some won it when it was four weeks after the Belmont. Perhaps if you had given Smarty Jones or Real Quiet an additional week of rest before the Belmont, they too could have won it. Perhaps if you had made some of those that won the Belmont four weeks after the Preakness instead run it two weeks later, they wouldn't have won. It's sort of misleading to talk about all the tradition when it's already been changed several times and only the last three have won it the way it's currently set up.

It's still my contention that a shorter race is going to be harder to win. I believe that if the Derby were 9f, we'd have more horses that fit the conditions of the race and were logical contenders. This would be even more true for a 10f Belmont. In any race where you have more logical contenders, more legitimate threats, that race is going to be harder to win, not easier. It may be a little easier to run but harder to win because more horses are capable of winning and therefore you margin for error is much smaller. Personally, I'd much rather see the races become more of a combination of speed and stamina than what they have started to become lately and that's the best 9f outlasting the other 9f in a crawlfest to the finish. At the end of every Derby, you usually only have 1-2 horses that are still running at the end. In the Belmont, we are lucky to get one.

yes, it's true that there have been changes over the years...the preakness used to be before the derby-the derby used to be in mid-week. but the belmont has been run at 12f since 1926, so it's the other races that have changed more recently.
the argument isn't that it's been changed before-the argument for changing it from most seems to be to make it easier to win. everyone knows that most horses kept from winning the tc have been hamstrung by the belmont. thusly, if you change the belmont, you have more t.c. winners. yippee. making it easier, imo, is not a valid argument for change. after all, if it was easy, anyone could do it-it would no longer take a special horse. so what's the point in having it at all?

i agree with haskin. better to do without a tc winner than to dumb it down.

[Cannon Shell]

The only thing about the Triple Crown that should be changed is having the last race on a different network. The Triple Crown is the one enduring tradition of the sport that actually works and has gained in popularity.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, it's true that there have been changes over the years...the preakness used to be before the derby-the derby used to be in mid-week. but the belmont has been run at 12f since 1926, so it's the other races that have changed more recently.
the argument isn't that it's been changed before-the argument for changing it from most seems to be to make it easier to win. everyone knows that most horses kept from winning the tc have been hamstrung by the belmont. thusly, if you change the belmont, you have more t.c. winners. yippee. making it easier, imo, is not a valid argument for change. after all, if it was easy, anyone could do it-it would no longer take a special horse. so what's the point in having it at all?

i agree with haskin. better to do without a tc winner than to dumb it down.

Depends on whether you think it's easier to win. I think the 100m is a harder race to win than the 1500m when I'm watching track and field. Do you agree that more horses can handle 9f than 10f? Nowdays, you might only get a horse or two that can effectively handle the 10f. Don't you think that a race that has 6-7 horses that are capable of handling the distance effectively would make that race tougher to win than one where you only have 1-2? I really think it would make it even harder. Plus, adding a couple more weeks between each race and bringing back the TC bonus would encourage more trainers to run back their good horses in all three races. Perhaps if there were two more weeks between the Derby and Preakness, a bigger purse and the bonus system in place, Birdstone runs in the Preakness and then doesn't have the freshness advantage over a worn-down Smarty Jones.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

Er...that only the best can do it? Drat, I hate it when that happens! The Mt. Everest analogy is so appropriate. If you want to climb a shorter mountain to make it easier, fine, but don't expect the same accolades for doing it.
If people want to run their horses in shorter races, do it, and maybe, just maybe, we would stop having full fields in the TC races--save them for the horses that can actually get the job done and if nobody enters, you'll get your wish for change. People were climbing over each other to get in the Derby and Preakness with a large number going to the Belmont this year. You can't have your prestigious cake and eat it too. The point is they should be one of the hardest if not the hardest things to do in this sport. We haven't had a TC winner in decades and I say good--if mediocrity is what they want to celebrate, then count me out. You want to be a champion? Run like one.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

Er...that only the best can do it? Drat, I hate it when that happens! The Mt. Everest analogy is so appropriate. If you want to climb a shorter mountain to make it easier, fine, but don't expect the same accolades for doing it.

If people want to run their horses in shorter races, do it, and maybe, just maybe, we would stop having full fields in the TC races--save them for the horses that can actually get the job done and if nobody enters, you'll get your wish for change. People were climbing over each other to get in the Derby and Preakness with a large number going to the Belmont this year. You can't have your prestigious cake and eat it too. The point is they should be one of the hardest if not the hardest things to do in this sport. We haven't had a TC winner in decades and I say good--if mediocrity is what they want to celebrate, then count me out. You want to be a champion? Run like one.

Which brings us to the point...how do we define "best"? How does a horse run like a champion? By staggering an extra couple of furlongs less slow than the other staggering horses? If Rachel Alexandra runs in the belmont in two weeks and can't get the final 2 furlongs, does that suddenly mean that she isnt the best three year old in the country?

In the days when you had multiple races beyond 10f on dirt being run, the idea of a 12f belmont made sense. Now, how many dirt races are there beyond 10f on dirt? How many are run even at 10f these days? Regardless of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, as steve said the business of horse racing has changed.

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

In the days when you had multiple races beyond 10f on dirt being run, the idea of a 12f belmont made sense. Now, how many dirt races are there beyond 10f on dirt? How many are run even at 10f these days? Regardless of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, as steve said the business of horse racing has changed.

Very true. So when do you say the hell with tradition and change with the times?

The Brooklyn is a race that has gone from G1 at 1 1/2 to G 3 at 1 1/8 and back to a G3? at 1 1/2 since I have followed the sport. What is the purpose of the Brooklyn at that distance? I guess it is a prep for the idiotic new BC race, the Marathon. Some allowance horse will gain black type by winning it. It used to be part of the Handicap Triple Crown along with the Suburban and Met Mile, back in the day when horses carried weight.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Which brings us to the point...how do we define "best"? How does a horse run like a champion? By staggering an extra couple of furlongs less slow than the other staggering horses? If Rachel Alexandra runs in the belmont in two weeks and can't get the final 2 furlongs, does that suddenly mean that she isnt the best three year old in the country?

In the days when you had multiple races beyond 10f on dirt being run, the idea of a 12f belmont made sense. Now, how many dirt races are there beyond 10f on dirt? How many are run even at 10f these days? Regardless of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, as steve said the business of horse racing has changed.

so, since there aren't many, there shouldn't be any? sorry, i disagree. lukas' contention that all belmont winners are nowhere to be found, that they all end up in a foreign country and none are standing in lexington, couldn't be further from the truth. kind of hard to take anything he says about the belmont very seriously when he makes such ridiculous claims. as for staggering home-yes, some of the horses do, while others do not. the race is called a test-of course some will fail it.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Which brings us to the point...how do we define "best"? How does a horse run like a champion? By staggering an extra couple of furlongs less slow than the other staggering horses? If Rachel Alexandra runs in the belmont in two weeks and can't get the final 2 furlongs, does that suddenly mean that she isnt the best three year old in the country?

In the days when you had multiple races beyond 10f on dirt being run, the idea of a 12f belmont made sense. Now, how many dirt races are there beyond 10f on dirt? How many are run even at 10f these days? Regardless of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, as steve said the business of horse racing has changed.

I think that is why it makes sense to keep the Triple Crown the way it is. Some not so great horses have staggered home and won some very "big" races, but it will never happen in the Triple Crown because of the make-up of the series. I think this is a very good thing.

Why do you want to enable inferior horses to stand in the ranks of Affirmed?

Personally, if there is never another Triple Crown winner again, I'll be fine with it. I'm sure there will be more than enough thrilling races to make up for it.

As for your question regarding Rachel Alexandra - I don't think many felt less of Smarty Jones after the Belmont.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

I think that is why it makes sense to keep the Triple Crown the way it is. Some not so great horses have staggered home and won some very "big" races, but it will never happen in the Triple Crown because of the make-up of the series. I think this is a very good thing.

Why do you want to enable inferior horses to stand in the ranks of Affirmed?

Personally, if there is never another Triple Crown winner again, I'll be fine with it. I'm sure there will be more than enough thrilling races to make up for it.

As for your question regarding Rachel Alexandra - I don't think many felt less of Smarty Jones after the Belmont.

actually, i think he earned more respect from a lot of folks in that defeat than he had in any of his victories.

[dalakhani]

Interesting. Merlinsky said that the belmont is relevant because "only the best can do it" and you guys are telling me a horse that loses that race is still flattered by it. How is that?

Smarty Jones was the best 3 year old of 2004. What does a 12f race have to do with it? If Smarty staggers home a little less slow, does that make him any more of a champion and does the fact that he staggered home as slow as he did make him any less of one? Any meaningful race he had raced in and any meaningful race he would have raced in for the rest of his career would have been 10f at most.

So how was the belmont relevant to his quality as a racehorse? That he could gallantly stagger to the line after running further than his pedigree would suggest that he should? A true test of champions should be a test that a true champion can realistically meet. So I ask...Was smarty jones not a true champion?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

As for your question regarding Rachel Alexandra - I don't think many felt less of Smarty Jones after the Belmont.

In my case, that would have been impossible.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

In my case, that would have been impossible.

I knew you were a meanie pants.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I can't believe I actually agree with Dwayne about this. The breed has changed and its time for the sport to change with it especially on the biggest stage.

How relevant is a 12f dirt race for 3 year olds or for that matter any horse? There is no chance that they will ever run it again and a vast majority werent bred to do it anyway so what does it prove?

It's a fallacy that the breed has changed. It takes hundreds of years for significant evolutionary movement in a breed. What's changed are the training methods and nature of the financial aspect of breeding/sales/racing.

The training changed because of the value of the animals involved, trainers cautiousness with them due to their value, and ownerships' need for a return on the much greater investment(s) involved. You don't see Neil Howard, John Shirreffs, and Shug McGaughey having trouble developing horses as an example, because with the owners they are associated with, there is no urgency to earn back what's been invested within year one of the owner's horses on the racetrack.

The Belmont and similar classic distance events are relevant because identifying horses that can excel at those distances are harbingers of the traits the breeding side of the game is supposed to be seeking. The great mystery from the people saying the race distances should be shortened, is that if you do, you only serve to further enhance the sprint and middle distance sire types that are exactly the ones alledgedly 'weakening the breed'. A.P. Indy is the predominant sire of this generation. Which two wins of his confirmed his attributes as a future sire? The Belmont and BC Classic.

In the meantime, in the last two sophomore seasons, Smooth Air and Musket Man have demonstrated perfectly that endurance/stamina are completely obtainable from any sprint-pedigreed horse. If you train them old school, long and slow, supposedly fragile 6f horses bred to go short can magically go 8.5-10f. As a result of the methods of old style training by Bennie Stutts and Derek Ryan, those two have succeeded at distances no one thought they could possibly 'get'.

Screwing around with the Triple Crown distances, and spacing, would be a guaranteed road to ruin for the breed for racing.

[Smooth Operator]

Originally Posted by Kasept

It's a fallacy that the breed has changed. It takes hundreds of years for significant evolutionary movement in a breed. What's changed are the training methods and nature of the financial aspect of breeding/sales/racing.

The training changed because of the value of the animals involved, trainers cautiousness with them due to their value, and ownerships' need for a return on the much greater investment(s) involved. You don't see Neil Howard, John Shirreffs, and Shug McGaughey having trouble developing horses as an example, because with the owners they are associated with, there is no urgency to earn back what's been invested within year one of the owner's horses on the racetrack.

The Belmont and similar classic distance events are relevant because identifying horses that can excel at those distances are harbingers of the traits the breeding side of the game is supposed to be seeking. The great mystery from the people saying the race distances should be shortened, is that if you do, you only serve to further enhance the sprint and middle distance sire types that are exactly the ones alledgedly 'weakening the breed'. A.P. Indy is the predominant sire of this generation. Which two wins of his confirmed his attributes as a future sire? The Belmont and BC Classic.

In the meantime, in the last two sophomore seasons, Smooth Air and Musket Man have demonstrated perfectly that endurance/stamina are completely obtainable from any sprint-pedigreed horse. If you train them old school, long and slow, supposedly fragile 6f horses bred to go short can magically go 8.5-10f. As a result of the methods of old style training by Bennie Stutts and Derek Ryan, those two have succeeded at distances no one thought they could possibly 'get'.

Screwing around with the Triple Crown distances, and spacing, would be a guaranteed road to ruin for the breed for racing.

That's a good post right there, Steve.

Have always felt that stamina and durability go hand-in-hand.


Would love to the BCC contested at twelve panels.

[Riot]

I feel horses have changed. Look at them. Natural evolution isn't the selection process, breeders are. Select for it or lose it, that's genetics 101. A breed can be markedly changed in only 2-3 generations. It happened in Quarter Horses with Impressive. It happened in Arabians. I think it's definitely happened in TB horses. The TB horses today do not look, to me, like the TB horses of the 1980's, nor of the 1970's, nor of the 1940-50s.

Like Steve pointed out, horse genetics are selected for by the breeders for success at sales and commercial breeding, not for winning classic races at classic distances. Not for breeder-owners having classic- winning horses (that make their money on the track, not the shed) then bringing them home as stallions.

That said, I completely agree, leave the Triple Crown alone. Don't dumb it down to fit the animals and trainers and breeders of today. Let them figure out how to get it back.