There's no stars in racing? Is that right?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Do you realize I listen to 12 plus hours of ATR a week watch at least 40 races a day.. I love racing as much as anyone Steve. Your love for the game is wonderful as is many of us.. How you can think that list represents anything special is disheartening. Could Einstein get with in 15 lengths of Candy Ride, Would Music Note be close to a Winning Colors. Kip Keno couldn't have qualified for the BC mile in 87..Miesque would have been hosed down before he got to the wire.. Come on and tell it like it is.. Racing hasn't had a real star that wasn't Media made in a while.. Mind you I loved Smarty to death but even he was a bit of a paper tiger.

Best horse I have seen in a while is Zarkava..Now that filly was a star

It doesn't bother me that the best now are 10 lengths short of the best then. That list represents a variety of horses that have stuck around, have very credible resumes and fan recognition. They all meet criteria to be a star runner in today's environment. What they are versus the best of yesteryear isn't germane to the initial point being made.

Just because nothing I see in the theater these days holds a candle to the eras that produced Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind, The Bicycle Thief, All About Eve or Sweet Smell of Success doesn't mean there haven't been good films made since that were enjoyable.

The experience of the moment is as good as you choose to make it. And I know you love racing...

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Kasept

It doesn't bother me that the best now are 10 lengths short of the best then. That list represents a variety of horses that have stuck around, have very credible resumes and fan recognition. They all meet criteria to be a star runner in today's environment. What they are versus the best of yesteryear isn't germane to the initial point being made.

Just because nothing I see in the theater these days holds a candle to the eras that produced Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind, The Bicycle Thief, All About Eve or Sweet Smell of Success doesn't mean there haven't been good films made since that were enjoyable.

The experience of the moment is as good as you choose to make it. And I know you love racing...

Sure there are OK movies/horses on the tracks but they aren't stars..In the case of Kip they are bearly squares .. Commentator needs 8-12 weeks between starts and has never won in my memory when he wasnt afford an easy lead and has never won when headed. I get as much pleasure from Reptilian Smarts as I do from a slug like Music Note. At the very least Reptilian fills the box every few weeks and makes a boring Feb. 12 bearable. Watching that one paced Music Note plod past a few distance challenged fillies is painful in a G1. Stars are surely the wrong description. You are fishing and frankly your audience aint buying it.. They know better!

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Kasept

It doesn't bother me that the best now are 10 lengths short of the best then. That list represents a variety of horses that have stuck around, have very credible resumes and fan recognition. They all meet criteria to be a star runner in today's environment. What they are versus the best of yesteryear isn't germane to the initial point being made.

Just because nothing I see in the theater these days holds a candle to the eras that produced Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind, The Bicycle Thief, All About Eve or Sweet Smell of Success doesn't mean there haven't been good films made since that were enjoyable.

The experience of the moment is as good as you choose to make it. And I know you love racing...

The part in bold makes me ask you this question again. If all that matters is that a horse meets the criteria of being a star in today's game and a comparison to the best of yesteryear isn't important, why are you against changing the TC? The new TC runners (and eventual winners) will be the best in that environment and it shouldn't matter that they aren't comparable to Secretariat and Affirmed right?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

The part in bold makes me ask you this question again. If all that matters is that a horse meets the criteria of being a star in today's game and a comparison to the best of yesteryear isn't important, why are you against changing the TC? The new TC runners (and eventual winners) will be the best in that environment and it shouldn't matter that they aren't comparable to Secretariat and Affirmed right?

Why would you mess with the Triple Crown? Its a greatest thing in horse racing why screw with it?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Why would you mess with the Triple Crown? Its a greatest thing in horse racing why screw with it?

well put

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Why would you mess with the Triple Crown? Its a greatest thing in horse racing why screw with it?

I'd like to ask you two questions:

1. If they changed it to 9f, 9.5f, and 10f and made it the first Saturday in May, Memorial Day, and the Fourth of July........would you stop watching? Do you think that any people who are already fans would stop watching?

2. Do you think that the general public, those that aren't racing fans but that tune in for the TC races and have a chance to get turned on to the game, do you think that they actually know the conditions of the races? Would the Derby not still be a social event if it was 9f when 90% of the people that are watching don't even know what a furlong is?

I'd be willing to bet that most people don't know what a furlong is, don't know where the races are held, don't know the distances, and don't know how many previous TC winners there have been. Changing the TC races wouldn't bother them in the least bit. The only people that would know that the conditions aren't the same would be racing fans and even a lot of those that you see at the tracks and otb's around the country don't even know the conditions and wouldn't know if you changed them. And Kasept is telling us that we shouldn't compare the horses of today to those of yesterday anyway so why do we need to keep running them under the same conditions? Why not change the conditions and just love and admire the new winners for what they are and comparisons to past champions isn't important?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I'd like to ask you two questions:

1. If they changed it to 9f, 9.5f, and 10f and made it the first Saturday in May, Memorial Day, and the Fourth of July........would you stop watching? Do you think that any people who are already fans would stop watching?

2. Do you think that the general public, those that aren't racing fans but that tune in for the TC races and have a chance to get turned on to the game, do you think that they actually know the conditions of the races? Would the Derby not still be a social event if it was 9f when 90% of the people that are watching don't even know what a furlong is?

I'd be willing to bet that most people don't know what a furlong is, don't know where the races are held, don't know the distances, and don't know how many previous TC winners there have been. Changing the TC races wouldn't bother them in the least bit. The only people that would know that the conditions aren't the same would be racing fans and even a lot of those that you see at the tracks and otb's around the country don't even know the conditions and wouldn't know if you changed them. And Kasept is telling us that we shouldn't compare the horses of today to those of yesterday anyway so why do we need to keep running them under the same conditions? Why not change the conditions and just love and admire the new winners for what they are and comparisons to past champions isn't important?

The worst thing that could happen to the TC is a couple of non great horses winning it. Being hard makes it special.

[ninetoone]

Even if/when a modern day horse wins the TC, the old timers won't be satisfied. It'll be against a weak crop, blah blah blah...

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The worst thing that could happen to the TC is a couple of non great horses winning it. Being hard makes it special.

Like Omaha maybe? Should I really believe that Real Quiet was two inches away from being great but since he was two inches on the wrong side, now he's not?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Like Omaha maybe? Should I really believe that Real Quiet was two inches away from being great but since he was two inches on the wrong side, now he's not?

Didn't Omaha campaign successfully in Britain as a 4yo and didn't he nearly win the prestigious 20-furlong Ascot Gold Cup as well?

Yes, he did.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I'd like to ask you two questions:

1. If they changed it to 9f, 9.5f, and 10f and made it the first Saturday in May, Memorial Day, and the Fourth of July........would you stop watching? Do you think that any people who are already fans would stop watching?

2. Do you think that the general public, those that aren't racing fans but that tune in for the TC races and have a chance to get turned on to the game, do you think that they actually know the conditions of the races? Would the Derby not still be a social event if it was 9f when 90% of the people that are watching don't even know what a furlong is?

I'd be willing to bet that most people don't know what a furlong is, don't know where the races are held, don't know the distances, and don't know how many previous TC winners there have been. Changing the TC races wouldn't bother them in the least bit. The only people that would know that the conditions aren't the same would be racing fans and even a lot of those that you see at the tracks and otb's around the country don't even know the conditions and wouldn't know if you changed them. And Kasept is telling us that we shouldn't compare the horses of today to those of yesterday anyway so why do we need to keep running them under the same conditions? Why not change the conditions and just love and admire the new winners for what they are and comparisons to past champions isn't important?

I watch Mdn 3200's from Turf Paradise so of course I would watch the triple crown.. You don't yet it.. First you have the Derby which is an incredible event and race..Two weeks later which is unprecidented in TB racing you have to shorten up and face new faces..Then 3 weeks later you need to go once around on the only track of its kind in the USA.. It is friggin hard and then after you win it you go down in hostory FOREVER among the true greats. You freshen up (both trainer and horse) and prep for the Travers at the graveyard of favorites. Honestly its fn perfection.. I love it just teh way it is!!

[dalakhani]

[quote=freddymo]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I'd like to ask you two questions:

1. If they changed it to 9f, 9.5f, and 10f and made it the first Saturday in May, Memorial Day, and the Fourth of July........would you stop watching? Do you think that any people who are already fans would stop watching?

2. Do you think that the general public, those that aren't racing fans but that tune in for the TC races and have a chance to get turned on to the game, do you think that they actually know the conditions of the races? Would the Derby not still be a social event if it was 9f when 90% of the people that are watching don't even know what a furlong is?

I'd be willing to bet that most people don't know what a furlong is, don't know where the races are held, don't know the distances, and don't know how many previous TC winners there have been. Changing the TC races wouldn't bother them in the least bit. The only people that would know that the conditions aren't the same would be racing fans and even a lot of those that you see at the tracks and otb's around the country don't even know the conditions and wouldn't know if you changed them. And Kasept is telling us that we shouldn't compare the horses of today to those of yesterday anyway so why do we need to keep running them under the same conditions? Why not change the conditions and just love and admire the new winners for what they are and comparisons to past champions isn't important?[/QUOTE

I watch Mdn 3200's from Turf Paradise so of course I would watch the triple crown.. You don't yet it.. First you have the Derby which is an incredible event and race..Two weeks later which is unprecidented in TB racing you have to shorten up and face new faces..Then 3 weeks later you need to go once around on the only track of its kind in the USA.. It is friggin hard and then after you win it you go down in hostory FOREVER among the true greats. You freshen up (both trainer and horse) and prep for the Travers at the graveyard of favorites. Honestly its fn perfection.. I love it just teh way it is!!

Yeah, but when was the last time a horse competed (meaning was at least in the money) in all three triple crown races and then went on to race in the travers? Point Given?

[philcski]

[quote=dalakhani]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Yeah, but when was the last time a horse competed (meaning was at least in the money) in all three triple crown races and then went on to race in the travers? Point Given?

Hard Spun ran in all three, the Haskell, and on Travers Day.

[Soaring Softly]

[quote=dalakhani]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Yeah, but when was the last time a horse competed (meaning was at least in the money) in all three triple crown races and then went on to race in the travers? Point Given?

Point Given was off the board in the Derby before winning the Preakness, Belmont, and Travers.....sandwiching a Haskell win inbetween. The last horse to hit the board in all three TC races and then win the Travers was Thunder Gulch 14 years ago (Derby/Belmont winner, 3rd in Preakness).

None of the Triple Crown in-the-money finishers since 1995......Silver Charm, Real Quiet, Charismatic, Funny Cide, Smarty Jones, and Afleet Alex.....even competed in the Travers, which more accurately answers your question.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I'd like to ask you two questions:

1. If they changed it to 9f, 9.5f, and 10f and made it the first Saturday in May, Memorial Day, and the Fourth of July........would you stop watching? Do you think that any people who are already fans would stop watching?

2. Do you think that the general public, those that aren't racing fans but that tune in for the TC races and have a chance to get turned on to the game, do you think that they actually know the conditions of the races? Would the Derby not still be a social event if it was 9f when 90% of the people that are watching don't even know what a furlong is?

I'd be willing to bet that most people don't know what a furlong is, don't know where the races are held, don't know the distances, and don't know how many previous TC winners there have been. Changing the TC races wouldn't bother them in the least bit. The only people that would know that the conditions aren't the same would be racing fans and even a lot of those that you see at the tracks and otb's around the country don't even know the conditions and wouldn't know if you changed them. And Kasept is telling us that we shouldn't compare the horses of today to those of yesterday anyway so why do we need to keep running them under the same conditions? Why not change the conditions and just love and admire the new winners for what they are and comparisons to past champions isn't important?

to answer your first question, people would still watch the world series if it was five games. or basketball if it was shortened. but i'd imagine they'd feel the change was not for the better and that they had been possibly cheated of two games.
as for your second point, why would changing the distance do any more to increase fan base than what the distances are now? what does measuring a furlong have to do with drawing viewership? also, having races close together like they are now doesn't allow the event to dim in our relatively short memories. you drag out the series, you lose the drama, hype and excitement.

exactly what do you feel would be accomplished by making these changes to shorter distances and greater spacing? a horse who is a success would be just as valuable to breeders as they are now, the purses would still be too small to make it worthwhile to race rather than breed, and any minor injury would still necessitate retirement, as risk would still outweigh possible rewards in returning a horse to the track.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Danzig

to answer your first question, people would still watch the world series if it was five games. or basketball if it was shortened. but i'd imagine they'd feel the change was not for the better and that they had been possibly cheated of two games.
as for your second point, why would changing the distance do any more to increase fan base than what the distances are now? what does measuring a furlong have to do with drawing viewership? also, having races close together like they are now doesn't allow the event to dim in our relatively short memories. you drag out the series, you lose the drama, hype and excitement.

exactly what do you feel would be accomplished by making these changes to shorter distances and greater spacing? a horse who is a success would be just as valuable to breeders as they are now, the purses would still be too small to make it worthwhile to race rather than breed, and any minor injury would still necessitate retirement, as risk would still outweigh possible rewards in returning a horse to the track.

These people who want to change teh triple crown also think Angelina needs new Boobs or Megan Fox needs liposuction.. Things dont have to me flawless to be magnificent..

Originally Posted by freddymo

These people who want to change teh triple crown also think Angelina needs new Boobs or Megan Fox needs liposuction.. Things dont have to me flawless to be magnificent..

It would be nice if they both got rid of the prison tats...but yeah.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Danzig

to answer your first question, people would still watch the world series if it was five games. or basketball if it was shortened. but i'd imagine they'd feel the change was not for the better and that they had been possibly cheated of two games.
as for your second point, why would changing the distance do any more to increase fan base than what the distances are now? what does measuring a furlong have to do with drawing viewership?

exactly what do you feel would be accomplished by making these changes to shorter distances and greater spacing?

I have absolutely zero interest in increasing the fan base. I don't suggest that the changes be made for that reason at all. I know that you don't think that the rigors of the series has anything to do with the high number of premature retirements but I think it does. Not just the series but the entire prep season. As I've said before, ideally I'd like them to keep things the way they are to breed a sturdier horse that can withstand tough training and racing. But I feel like that horse has left the barn and isn't coming back. So that's why I think the races need to fit the horses and the training. Horses end up with more injuries now because they aren't built or conditioned to do this anymore. Sure, some of the injuries don't have to be career ending (Smarty or Empire Maker for example) and of course, the lure of the millions in the breeding shed has as big an impact on some of the decisions as the injuries do. But there are also lots of legitimate injuries, more than I remember seeing even 10 years ago. I feel that shortening the races would make them a little bit more competitive (based on my belief that more horses would actually fit the conditions of the race better and the more horses that can fit the conditions and be competitive, the harder a race is to win). I feel that spacing the races out more would fall in line with what a lot of the trainers feel is best for the horses and would encourage more of them to run back in all three races. Along with spacing them out, I'd re-institute the old bonus system for performances in all three races. I'd limit the number of entries into the races so that only the best performing horses from the preps get in and decrease the chances of bad racing luck causing deserving horses of a chance. I'd institute bonuses to races after the TC to add purse increases to races that attract the top performing TC horses. I think these things would help stem the tide of so many of the Derby also-rans skipping the Preakness and would help keep the same horses running more throughout the series which would help with name recognition for the fans that do watch them. And I do think it would lead to more horses making it through the series and continuing on because of less injuries. I think it would make for better races in the series, especially in the Belmont because horses would be able to come back and run their best instead of their worst because they are so worn out.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I have absolutely zero interest in increasing the fan base. I don't suggest that the changes be made for that reason at all. I know that you don't think that the rigors of the series has anything to do with the high number of premature retirements but I think it does. Not just the series but the entire prep season. As I've said before, ideally I'd like them to keep things the way they are to breed a sturdier horse that can withstand tough training and racing. But I feel like that horse has left the barn and isn't coming back. So that's why I think the races need to fit the horses and the training. Horses end up with more injuries now because they aren't built or conditioned to do this anymore. Sure, some of the injuries don't have to be career ending (Smarty or Empire Maker for example) and of course, the lure of the millions in the breeding shed has as big an impact on some of the decisions as the injuries do. But there are also lots of legitimate injuries, more than I remember seeing even 10 years ago. I feel that shortening the races would make them a little bit more competitive (based on my belief that more horses would actually fit the conditions of the race better and the more horses that can fit the conditions and be competitive, the harder a race is to win). I feel that spacing the races out more would fall in line with what a lot of the trainers feel is best for the horses and would encourage more of them to run back in all three races. Along with spacing them out, I'd re-institute the old bonus system for performances in all three races. I'd limit the number of entries into the races so that only the best performing horses from the preps get in and decrease the chances of bad racing luck causing deserving horses of a chance. I'd institute bonuses to races after the TC to add purse increases to races that attract the top performing TC horses. I think these things would help stem the tide of so many of the Derby also-rans skipping the Preakness and would help keep the same horses running more throughout the series which would help with name recognition for the fans that do watch them. And I do think it would lead to more horses making it through the series and continuing on because of less injuries. I think it would make for better races in the series, especially in the Belmont because horses would be able to come back and run their best instead of their worst because they are so worn out.

but you're operating under the assumption that the horses are dropping out and not running late at three and at four due to injury, due to racing knocking them out.

my contention is that for most of these horses, their successes are what's bringing up premature retirement because their stud fees outweight the risk and reward of racing.

if you made the derby shorter, lengthened the time between that and the preakness, and then shortened the belmont and spaced it out..and a horse won two, or all three. you really think that horse will be around for the bcc, or run at four? no way.

if anything, the breed is better served by having a horse who withstood the rigors of a spring campaign and did well in the classics going to stud with all the hype-they did exactly what you're asking for. they most likely could go on and win more, but they don't want to chance a loss and a tarnishing of their record, so off to stud a horse goes. but he showed an ability to run in the spring, and to succeed in the tc. what you want to do would showcase horses without abilitiy to withstand rigorous racing.

look at mdo and birdstone. they didn't get knocked out by the tc, and both ran and won after.

smarty and afleet alex both had done well before the tc, did well in those races, so their connections felt no need to run them after, to risk them-they had done what was needed to get their lucrative retirement. there was no real reason those horses couldn't run on later-except money.