Forde and the Ragozin guys weigh in on changing the Triple Crown

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

I would think that the longer the span in between races the less likely it is that a horse would be able to win all three races.How often does the Derby winner run a poor race in the Preakness?Not often and form cycle has alot to do with that.After two grueling races the winner is tested in the Belmont by fresh horses. Can he do it? They don't call the Belmont the test of champions for nothing.The best have proven they can in a five week time span.

Breeding hasn't changed as much as everyone believes.Bold Ruler was the dominant sire of sires in the late 60's-late 70's.His progeny were bred for speed yet two of the last three triple crown winners are from his sire line.The other comes from the Raise A Native line.The fact is that there are two parents.Secretariat got his stamina from his dam.Breeding today is no different.The Mr. Prospector line has been dominant in american breeding in the last twenty years but there is plenty of stamina through a number of his sons and grandsons.There are large numbers of horses who are bred to sprint,they don't show up for the Derby.The ones who show up are bred for stamina as well as speed.I don't buy the breeding argument.

Fragility is another issue.Fragile horses are subject to injury anytime they step onto a racetrack.Spacing out the races would help their chances but why would one want to make it beneficial for horses that can't withstand the rigors of the triple crown? I would think that would make it more likely that breeders wouldn't be concerned about fragility knowing that the races are spread apart to give their fragile horse a better chance of winning.

Leave the triple crown alone.

PCL,

Terrific view of the topic.

I'm reading a Tom Ainslie book ("Ainslie's Jockey Book") from 1967, and he was talking about Bold Lad, the Bold Ruler Wheatley colt trained by Eddie Neloy that was 10th in Lucky Debonair's Derby after being one of the winter book faves at 2. He was "hobbled by leg injuries" and was rested almost a year after that before winning the Roseben and Metropolitan (over Hedevar) in 1966. Point being, this was 1965-66, and Ainslie is talking about the exact same scenario.

[randallscott35]

Agree with the breeding aspect as an obvious issue. That's the reason some of the horses aren't withstanding the rigors of the crown. Don't change the crown, keep medication limited and improve the breed....and poof you will have triple crown winners. I guess I'm in the camp that I don't mind that we haven't had a Triple Crown winner in a while, it simply proves what an accomplisment it was for the horses who have done it.

[booner]

Does anyone know off the top of their head how many horses have won the first 2 legs only to fail in the Belmont since Affirmed last won the Triple Crown?

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by booner

Does anyone know off the top of their head how many horses have won the first 2 legs only to fail in the Belmont since Affirmed last won the Triple Crown?

Off the top of my head, 6 or 7.

[Danzig]

won derby, preakness and lost belmont (belmont finish after name) since affirmed :



spectacular bid-3
pleasant colony-3
alysheba-4
sunday silence-2
silver charm-2
real quiet-2
charismatic-3
war emblem-8
funny cide-3
smarty jones-2
big brown-dnf


11 horses in that list...of course there are others since affirmed to win two legs of it but not the third-such as risen star, swale, afleet alex just to name a few.

also, seven of the eleven above raced at four, with only one of them actually suffering a career ending injury in the classics. war emblem and funny cide ran the rest of the year.

[randallscott35]

Wow forgot about a couple there.