"Spaced" Races And "Fresh" Horses Are Killing The Sport

[Rupert Pupkin]

It's not by choice that these horses don't run often. With the really good horses, it is often times by choice. With top horses like Bernardini, they are obviously going to give him plenty of time between races and pick their spots.

But if you see that a horse is bought at a 2 year olds in training sale for $70,000 and the horse doesn't run until he is 3 years old, it's not by choice. In 99% of these cases, the connections had the horse in training as a 2 year old and wanted to run the horse as a 2 year old, but the horse got hurt. That's why some of Phalaris' arguments are so silly. If she sees a horse that didn't run until he was a 3 year old and the horse doesn't last, she thinks that they should have run the horse as a 2 year old. she doesn't relize that they couldn't run the horse as a 2 year old. They tried to but the horse got hurt.

This isn't brain surgery. It's not that complicated. Phalaris' argument would be the same as arguing that people who take a lot of sick days from work are sick more often than people that don't take a lot of sick days. Therefore, taking sick days from work must be what is causing these people to get sick. If these people simply did not take sick days, then they wouldn't be sick. This is obviously an absurd argument. Taking sick days is not causing people to get sick. It's the opposite. People being sick is causing them to take sick days.

Some of you guys come up with these ludicrous theories, that you would know were absurd if you had any knowledgs about the business. There is practically nobody in the business who intentionally does not run their horses as 2 year olds. If Bill Mott has a big, long-striding Dynaformer colt who is a late foal and looks like a grass horse, a case like that may be the exception. With a horse like that, they may not try to run the horse as a 2 year old. But with the other 99.9% of horses, the trainers try to run them as 2 year olds. When you see a horse who doesn't make his first start until he is 3, it was not by choice.

Originally Posted by Rupert

This isn't brain surgery. It's not that complicated. Phalaris' argument would be the same as arguing that people who take a lot of sick days from work are sick more often than people that don't take a lot of sick days. Therefore, taking sick days from work must be what is causing these people to get sick. If these people simply did not take sick days, then they wouldn't be sick. This is obviously an absurd argument. Taking sick days is not causing people to get sick. It's the opposite. People being sick is causing them to take sick days.

Some of you guys come up with these ludicrous theories, that you would know were absurd if you had any knowledgs about the business. There is practically nobody in the business who intentionally does not run their horses as 2 year olds.

As to human sick days ... people wouldn't take as many of them if they weren't paid for them. Stop paying someone when they're out "sicK" ... and the number of sick days decreases dramatically.

As to horses ... you're mostly missing the point.

I don't have any large base of hard data to support it ... but I do suspect ... from years of observation .. that racing horses early and more often is more likely to result in their becoming more physically fit and able to endure the hardships of a career as a professional athlete.

Racing 3f in February ... learning to break alertly from the gate ... learning to maneuver in a pack ... learning how to dig down and give a little more ... is good preparation for the future.

Not every horse will be ready to do that .... and not every one who tries will succeed. But ... on the whole ... the methodology employed 40 years ago and more ... produced a higher percentage of professional athletes who could race 12, 15, 18 times per year without serious injury ... than today's "spacing" and "fresh horse" theories do.

Again without hard numbers ... it just seems that more G1-level horses break down and have shortened careers today ... than they did in the past ... and ...

... and this lack of frequent appearances by the best-quality horses is killing off interest in the sport.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It's not by choice that these horses don't run often. With the really good horses, it is often times by choice. With top horses like Bernardini, they are obviously going to give him plenty of time between races and pick their spots.

But if you see that a horse is bought at a 2 year olds in training sale for $70,000 and the horse doesn't run until he is 3 years old, it's not by choice. In 99% of these cases, the connections had the horse in training as a 2 year old and wanted to run the horse as a 2 year old, but the horse got hurt. That's why some of Phalaris' arguments are so silly. If she sees a horse that didn't run until he was a 3 year old and the horse doesn't last, she thinks that they should have run the horse as a 2 year old. she doesn't relize that they couldn't run the horse as a 2 year old. They tried to but the horse got hurt.

This isn't brain surgery. It's not that complicated. Phalaris' argument would be the same as arguing that people who take a lot of sick days from work are sick more often than people that don't take a lot of sick days. Therefore, taking sick days from work must be what is causing these people to get sick. If these people simply did not take sick days, then they wouldn't be sick. This is obviously an absurd argument. Taking sick days is not causing people to get sick. It's the opposite. People being sick is causing them to take sick days.

Some of you guys come up with these ludicrous theories, that you would know were absurd if you had any knowledgs about the business. There is practically nobody in the business who intentionally does not run their horses as 2 year olds. If Bill Mott has a big, long-striding Dynaformer colt who is a late foal and looks like a grass horse, a case like that may be the exception. With a horse like that, they may not try to run the horse as a 2 year old. But with the other 99.9% of horses, the trainers try to run them as 2 year olds. When you see a horse who doesn't make his first start until he is 3, it was not by choice.

Not sure where that came from? The post qualified the theory as pertaining to top horses which you seem to agree with. Certainly trainers want their horses to race...my point, and I'll stick to mine and let others address theirs, is that because of insane breeding practices, the thoroughbred of today is too fragile to withstand long campaigns and frequent work!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Not sure where that came from? The post qualified the theory as pertaining to top horses which you seem to agree with. Certainly trainers want their horses to race...my point, and I'll stick to mine and let others address theirs, is that because of insane breeding practices, the thoroughbred of today is too fragile to withstand long campaigns and frequent work!

Yes, I agree with you. I was mainly repsonding to Phalaris, especially some of her past posts.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, I agree with you. I was mainly repsonding to Phalaris, especially some of her past posts.

Not particularly pertinent to this topic ... but ...

... Phalaris both knows and understands as much about thoroughbred racing as anyone on this planet.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Not particularly pertinent to this topic ... but ...

... Phalaris both knows and understands as much about thoroughbred racing as anyone on this planet.

Phalaris has no understading of horses at all. You should read some her past posts. She thinks that if you have a good 2 year old with a lot of potential, that you should run the horse 15 times as a 2 year old and this would increase the horse's chances of lasting and winning some big races as a 3 year and 4 year old. She thinks that you would have a better chance to win the Ky Derby if you ran your 2 year old 12 times as oppose to 4 times.

If you talk to any good trainer out there, they will tell you that this is the most absurd thing they have ever heard.

So there are two possibilities here. The first possibility is that Phalaris has no idea what she is talking about.

The second possibility is that Phalaris is a genius and guys like Pletcher, Mandella, Frankel, Zito, etc. are all idiots.

Which is it? Is Phalaris a genius and the all the great trainers are morons? I think it's slightly more probable that Phalaris has no clue what she's talking about.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Phalaris has no understading of horses at all. You should read some her past posts. She thinks that if you have a good 2 year old with a lot of potential, that you should run the horse 15 times as a 2 year old and this would increase the horse's chances of lasting and winning some big races as a 3 year and 4 year old. She thinks that you would have a better chance to win the Ky Derby if you ran your 2 year old 12 times as oppose to 4 times.

If you talk to any good trainer out there, they will tell you that this is the most absurd thing they have ever heard.

So there are two possibilities here. The first possibility is that Phalaris has no idea what she is talking about.

The second possibility is that Phalaris is a genius and guys like Pletcher, Mandella, Frankel, Zito, etc. are all idiots.

Which is it? Is Phalaris a genius and the all the great trainers are morons? I think it's slightly more probable that Phalaris has no clue what she's talking about.

Well... for some reason, what they are doing isn't stopping the amount of breakdowns, is it? The real problem lies in that the thoroughbred breed isn't as hardy as it once was. I for one am one that believes that thoroughbreds should NOT be run as two year olds at all. I don't believe that the stress on their legs is good for them when their bones aren't even closed up. Shoot... I wouldn't even sit on a horse's back until they were 3 years old, but that's just me. Perhaps there is some merit in running them more frequently as two year olds though. If facts are presented that say that bone density is IMPROVED off of more starts as a youngin, then I can't argue with that.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Phalaris has no understading of horses at all. You should read some her past posts. She thinks that if you have a good 2 year old with a lot of potential, that you should run the horse 15 times as a 2 year old and this would increase the horse's chances of lasting and winning some big races as a 3 year and 4 year old. She thinks that you would have a better chance to win the Ky Derby if you ran your 2 year old 12 times as oppose to 4 times.

If you talk to any good trainer out there, they will tell you that this is the most absurd thing they have ever heard.

So there are two possibilities here. The first possibility is that Phalaris has no idea what she is talking about.

The second possibility is that Phalaris is a genius and guys like Pletcher, Mandella, Frankel, Zito, etc. are all idiots.

Which is it? Is Phalaris a genius and the all the great trainers are morons? I think it's slightly more probable that Phalaris has no clue what she's talking about.

And you will also read those trainers say that times are changing....and who is changing the times? The breeding industry. Trainers answer this change by pleasing their clients with less starts against weeker horses = better stallion resume.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Phalaris has no understading of horses at all. You should read some her past posts. She thinks that if you have a good 2 year old with a lot of potential, that you should run the horse 15 times as a 2 year old and this would increase the horse's chances of lasting and winning some big races as a 3 year and 4 year old. She thinks that you would have a better chance to win the Ky Derby if you ran your 2 year old 12 times as oppose to 4 times.

If you talk to any good trainer out there, they will tell you that this is the most absurd thing they have ever heard.

I believe the same things ...

... and so did Ben Jones, Jimmy Jones, Hirsch Jacobs, Sunny Jim Fitzsimmons, Moody Jolley, Max Hirsch, Syl Veitch, Preston Burch, John Gaver ... and many many other Hall-Of-Fame trainers ... who develop0ed champion after champion after champion.

Your definition of a "good" trainer ... is very different from mine. A good trainer to me is one who brings out and sustains the talent of the horses in his care.

The ones I mentioned did that a heck of a lot better than any of the ones you cited.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I believe the same things ...

... and so did Ben Jones, Jimmy Jones, Hirsch Jacobs, Sunny Jim Fitzsimmons, Moody Jolley, Max Hirsch, Syl Veitch, Preston Burch, John Gaver ... and many many other Hall-Of-Fame trainers ... who develop0ed champion after champion after champion.

Your definition of a "good" trainer ... is very different from mine. A good trainer to me is one who brings out and sustains the talent of the horses in his care.

The ones I mentioned did that a heck of a lot better than any of the ones you cited.

I don't anything about what went on 40 years ago, but times have clearly changed. Nowadays if you try to run a good horse 15 times a year, you will not be successful.

By the way, do you think that there aren't any good trainers any more? You would have to be a fool to believe that. You understand as well as anyone how capitalism works. If there is a field or indusrty where there is a lot of money to be made, you will get some very talented people in that field. Horseracing is no exception. There are obviously a lot of great trainers out there right now. They will all tell you that you must run your horses sparingly. You can't possibly think that all these guys are incompetent. Times have obviously changed. I'm sure there are a number of factors including the breed, the track surfaces, the medications, and a number of other factors that have made things far different today.

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Phalaris has no understading of horses at all. You should read some her past posts. She thinks that if you have a good 2 year old with a lot of potential, that you should run the horse 15 times as a 2 year old and this would increase the horse's chances of lasting and winning some big races as a 3 year and 4 year old. She thinks that you would have a better chance to win the Ky Derby if you ran your 2 year old 12 times as oppose to 4 times.

If you talk to any good trainer out there, they will tell you that this is the most absurd thing they have ever heard.

So there are two possibilities here. The first possibility is that Phalaris has no idea what she is talking about.

The second possibility is that Phalaris is a genius and guys like Pletcher, Mandella, Frankel, Zito, etc. are all idiots.

Which is it? Is Phalaris a genius and the all the great trainers are morons? I think it's slightly more probable that Phalaris has no clue what she's talking about.

Ten years ago, I wrote a column that in part discussed the fate of the previous season's Derby starters. There was a very neat division: all of the horses with only four starts or less at 2 had sustained premature injury. All but one of the rest were still in training.

In 15 years, I have never seen compelling evidence that current trends of racing and training horses produce better horses; "better" defined as horses capable of proving their worth by winning more races, for more seasons, against the best divisional rivals. Transcendant greats of the sport are great because their greatness was a pattern, not an instance.

I realize that today's trainers have gotten the idea that asking horses to run as infrequently as possible is the only reasonable idea and I'm sure that they'll tell you so. Perhaps they've had to learn to deal with cripples who can't walk down the shedrow without chipping and that's the only way to get even a few starts out of them. (There was a time when horses whose conformation predisposed to chips were called "culls." Now people pay millions for them, so that they can produce more of their kind. So I suppose it behooves trainers to get a requisite win or two out of them to ensure their chance at triple-digit books.) Perhaps they're just sure this must be right, just like people were once sure that low heel/long toe increased stride length. I admit that I know more first-hand about training horses for other disciplines than racing, but you don't have to take my word for it that there may be other viable or even better ways of keeping racehorses on four feet. You could, for example, look to what Hall of Fame horsemen from other times did, and pretty much without exception, they accomplished more, with products of training and racing strategies that demanded more.

What trainers today are doing is not working, unless you live for two- or three-race wonders who get hurt early, or horses who don't run more than once every several months. The current situation with 2YOs - who once, with regularity, became major players at 3 and often beyond - is particularly dismal. One would be hard-pressed to find a time since they started racing 2YOs in the 1800s when you saw more loss to injury and more discontinuity of form from 2 to 3 and beyond. Sure, maybe it has nothing to do with the fact that 2YOs used to start earlier, race more often and at shorter distances. It could be global warming. It could be anything.

But rather than - as a blind, knee-jerk response - call someone an idiot for pointing out that professional, highly reputed horsemen used to use a strategy that yielded better results, why not at least consider why what they were doing may have been working better? If only a moron would run a 2YO more than three or four times, if it were invariably destructive, then why did so many legendary trainers do so, and get so many of those horses through the campaigns that BB has reminded us of? Why can't the Zitos, Mandellas and Pletchers present us an unending parade of high-class 2YOs that are major stakes winners at 3 and 4 with their infinitely superior strategy of barely racing them?

And yes, in response to a later post, I am aware of the popular idea that since horses are so much faster today than they used to be that they require more time between starts. I am not sure where this idea is coming from, in that I see little evidence of fast-track major stakes events producing faster times, except possibly at sprint distances. Maybe there's more cushion on those tracks, resulting in slower times - but if that's the case, I'd better not be hearing a single peep from anyone who believes this that the harder, faster tracks are responsible for horses getting hurt. It just doesn't go both ways.

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Ten years ago, I wrote a column that in part discussed the fate of the previous season's Derby starters. There was a very neat division: all of the horses with only four starts or less at 2 had sustained premature injury. All but one of the rest were still in training.

In 15 years, I have never seen compelling evidence that current trends of racing and training horses produce better horses; "better" defined as horses capable of proving their worth by winning more races, for more seasons, against the best divisional rivals. Transcendant greats of the sport are great because their greatness was a pattern, not an instance.

I realize that today's trainers have gotten the idea that asking horses to run as infrequently as possible is the only reasonable idea and I'm sure that they'll tell you so. Perhaps they've had to learn to deal with cripples who can't walk down the shedrow without chipping and that's the only way to get even a few starts out of them. (There was a time when horses whose conformation predisposed to chips were called "culls." Now people pay millions for them, so that they can produce more of their kind. So I suppose it behooves trainers to get a requisite win or two out of them to ensure their chance at triple-digit books.) Perhaps they're just sure this must be right, just like people were once sure that low heel/long toe increased stride length. I admit that I know more first-hand about training horses for other disciplines than racing, but you don't have to take my word for it that there may be other viable or even better ways of keeping racehorses on four feet. You could, for example, look to what Hall of Fame horsemen from other times did, and pretty much without exception, they accomplished more, with products of training and racing strategies that demanded more.

What trainers today are doing is not working, unless you live for two- or three-race wonders who get hurt early, or horses who don't run more than once every several months. The current situation with 2YOs - who once, with regularity, became major players at 3 and often beyond - is particularly dismal. One would be hard-pressed to find a time since they started racing 2YOs in the 1800s when you saw more loss to injury and more discontinuity of form from 2 to 3 and beyond. Sure, maybe it has nothing to do with the fact that 2YOs used to start earlier, race more often and at shorter distances. It could be global warming. It could be anything.

But rather than - as a blind, knee-jerk response - call someone an idiot for pointing out that professional, highly reputed horsemen used to use a strategy that yielded better results, why not at least consider why what they were doing may have been working better? If only a moron would run a 2YO more than three or four times, if it were invariably destructive, then why did so many legendary trainers do so, and get so many of those horses through the campaigns that BB has reminded us of? Why can't the Zitos, Mandellas and Pletchers present us an unending parade of high-class 2YOs that are major stakes winners at 3 and 4 with their infinitely superior strategy of barely racing them?

And yes, in response to a later post, I am aware of the popular idea that since horses are so much faster today than they used to be that they require more time between starts. I am not sure where this idea is coming from, in that I see little evidence of fast-track major stakes events producing faster times, except possibly at sprint distances. Maybe there's more cushion on those tracks, resulting in slower times - but if that's the case, I'd better not be hearing a single peep from anyone who believes this that the harder, faster tracks are responsible for horses getting hurt. It just doesn't go both ways.

You tell 'em, sister.

It's not a crime to be young ... but it is foolish to spout off on the subject of racing frequency without having a significant understanding of racing's past.

I love it when people talk about the "great" trainers of today ... not a single one of whom has ever trained a horse to a 2YO championship and a 3YO championship. (Do I dare add ... and a 4YO championship?)

The greats of the past did it routinely.

Study history, folks ... it's a great teacher.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Ten years ago, I wrote a column that in part discussed the fate of the previous season's Derby starters. There was a very neat division: all of the horses with only four starts or less at 2 had sustained premature injury. All but one of the rest were still in training.

In 15 years, I have never seen compelling evidence that current trends of racing and training horses produce better horses; "better" defined as horses capable of proving their worth by winning more races, for more seasons, against the best divisional rivals. Transcendant greats of the sport are great because their greatness was a pattern, not an instance.

I realize that today's trainers have gotten the idea that asking horses to run as infrequently as possible is the only reasonable idea and I'm sure that they'll tell you so. Perhaps they've had to learn to deal with cripples who can't walk down the shedrow without chipping and that's the only way to get even a few starts out of them. (There was a time when horses whose conformation predisposed to chips were called "culls." Now people pay millions for them, so that they can produce more of their kind. So I suppose it behooves trainers to get a requisite win or two out of them to ensure their chance at triple-digit books.) Perhaps they're just sure this must be right, just like people were once sure that low heel/long toe increased stride length. I admit that I know more first-hand about training horses for other disciplines than racing, but you don't have to take my word for it that there may be other viable or even better ways of keeping racehorses on four feet. You could, for example, look to what Hall of Fame horsemen from other times did, and pretty much without exception, they accomplished more, with products of training and racing strategies that demanded more.

What trainers today are doing is not working, unless you live for two- or three-race wonders who get hurt early, or horses who don't run more than once every several months. The current situation with 2YOs - who once, with regularity, became major players at 3 and often beyond - is particularly dismal. One would be hard-pressed to find a time since they started racing 2YOs in the 1800s when you saw more loss to injury and more discontinuity of form from 2 to 3 and beyond. Sure, maybe it has nothing to do with the fact that 2YOs used to start earlier, race more often and at shorter distances. It could be global warming. It could be anything.

But rather than - as a blind, knee-jerk response - call someone an idiot for pointing out that professional, highly reputed horsemen used to use a strategy that yielded better results, why not at least consider why what they were doing may have been working better? If only a moron would run a 2YO more than three or four times, if it were invariably destructive, then why did so many legendary trainers do so, and get so many of those horses through the campaigns that BB has reminded us of? Why can't the Zitos, Mandellas and Pletchers present us an unending parade of high-class 2YOs that are major stakes winners at 3 and 4 with their infinitely superior strategy of barely racing them?

And yes, in response to a later post, I am aware of the popular idea that since horses are so much faster today than they used to be that they require more time between starts. I am not sure where this idea is coming from, in that I see little evidence of fast-track major stakes events producing faster times, except possibly at sprint distances. Maybe there's more cushion on those tracks, resulting in slower times - but if that's the case, I'd better not be hearing a single peep from anyone who believes this that the harder, faster tracks are responsible for horses getting hurt. It just doesn't go both ways.

The good trainers of today don't just have this theory about what works. It's not like a theory about the Earth being flat. These guys have been training for 20 years or more. Everything they do today is based on their 25 years of experience. They see what works and what doesn't work. All the good trainers will tell you the same thing and their opinion is based on experience. You would have to be out of your mind to think that all of these trainers have totally misunderstood their experiences. Do you honestly think that the more often these guys run their horses, the better they run, but somehow all of these guys could not see this and actually though that the opposite was happening? You may think that I'm being condescending to you, but look how arrogant and condescending your position is. You bacially think that all of these great trainers don't know what they're doing and that you know more about training than they do.

Trainers are far from perfect. I'm not saying that they don't make mistakes. Trainers make mistakes all the time. But you would have to be crazy to think that all the great trainers of today are stupid and cannot see something as simple as seeing that their horses run better and last longer the more they run. It it was tue that horses last longer and perform better if they run 15 times a year, then guys like Frankel and Pletcher are completely incompetent morons. Obviously this is not the case. They are far from morons. The reason theya re excellent trainers is because they can see the effects of their training on their horses. That is what makes a great trainer. A great trainer trains each horse slightly differently. It just depends on the horse. A great trainer is not going to train a skinny filly as hard as a big, strong colt. You are crazy if you don't think these good trainers have a great talent at noticing what effects their training is having on their horses. That is one of the main reasons that these guys are so good. They know which horses need to be trained a little harder. They know which horses need a little more time between races.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Not sure where that came from? The post qualified the theory as pertaining to top horses which you seem to agree with. Certainly trainers want their horses to race...my point, and I'll stick to mine and let others address theirs, is that because of insane breeding practices, the thoroughbred of today is too fragile to withstand long campaigns and frequent work!

Amen to that!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Not sure where that came from? The post qualified the theory as pertaining to top horses which you seem to agree with. Certainly trainers want their horses to race...my point, and I'll stick to mine and let others address theirs, is that because of insane breeding practices, the thoroughbred of today is too fragile to withstand long campaigns and frequent work!

By the way, I think that trainers are smart to run their top horses sparingly. It's really hard to keep horses sound and the top trainers know this. If you have a really good horse that looks like he has a good chance to win the Breeder's Cup and that race is your main goal, you would not plan the race to be your horse's 10th start of the year. You would want your horse to be at or near his peak on BC day. Therefore, you would not want the BC to be the horse's 10th race of a long, hard campaign. You would obviously want your horse to come into the race relatively fresh.

For all of you geniuses who think that horses can run 15 times a year, you should go and buy some horses and try it.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

By the way, I think that trainers are smart to run their top horses sparingly. It's really hard to keep horses sound and the top trainers know this. If you have a really good horse that looks like he has a good chance to win the Breeder's Cup and that race is your main goal, you would not plan the race to be your horse's 10th start of the year. You would want your horse to be at or near his peak on BC day. Therefore, you would not want the BC to be the horse's 10th race of a long, hard campaign. You would obviously want your horse to come into the race relatively fresh.

For all of you geniuses who think that horses can run 15 times a year, you should go and buy some horses and try it.

And the geniuses who think they can't ... should learn a lot more about thoroughbred racing history.

You've bought into the "fresh horse" theory ... and I completely disagree with it. Nothing will definitively resolve the difference .. but ...

... I do know that thirty years and more ago ... I watched all the best horses in every division race 12 or 15 or more times every year ... top horses facing each other five, six or more times within the campaign ... and today ... fans only get to see their favorites a handful of times at best.

Regardless of which training method works better ... the old way at least made the sport a lot more interesting.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

And the geniuses who think they can't ... should learn a lot more about thoroughbred racing history.

You've bought into the "fresh horse" theory ... and I completely disagree with it. Nothing will definitively resolve the difference .. but ...

... I do know that thirty years and more ago ... I watched all the best horses in every division race 12 or 15 or more times every year ... top horses facing each other five, six or more times within the campaign ... and today ... fans only get to see their favorites a handful of times at best.

Regardless of which training method works better ... the old way at least made the sport a lot more interesting.

Horses are also faster today, whether it be from better training methods, nutritional advancements, or "move up" factors, they are faster and the stress from racing is much greater, they need to have their races spaced, so they can properly recover and be at peak.

Originally Posted by Pointg5

Horses are also faster today.

They absolutely, positively are not. Not for the last sixty years or so.

There's not a shred of evidence to back that up.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

They absolutely, positively are not. Not for the last sixty years or so.

There's not a shred of evidence to back that up.

I point you to the Thorograph Website, there's as article by the name of "Are races horses getting faster", they present some good arguements, take a look, I am not saying you have to believe, just take a look...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

And the geniuses who think they can't ... should learn a lot more about thoroughbred racing history.

You've bought into the "fresh horse" theory ... and I completely disagree with it. Nothing will definitively resolve the difference .. but ...

... I do know that thirty years and more ago ... I watched all the best horses in every division race 12 or 15 or more times every year ... top horses facing each other five, six or more times within the campaign ... and today ... fans only get to see their favorites a handful of times at best.

Regardless of which training method works better ... the old way at least made the sport a lot more interesting.

Something has obviously changed over the last 40 years. I've been really into racing for about 25 years. One of the first things I learned as a handicapper was not to bet horses that were overraced and/or coming back too quickly. It took me a couple of years to figure that out. I would see a really good horse break their maiden first-time out and then they'd come back around 15 days later in an allowance race that they should win easily. I would see these horses get beat time and time again. It didn't take me long to figure out that these horses needed more time to recover. I noticed that if a horse was given 26 days or more after breaking their maiden first-time out, they would have a good chance to win that first-level allowance race.

When I started buying horses, I would see the same thing. I would see that it takes them time to recover from races. Only in rare situations would I ever run a horse on only three weeks rest. Through my experience I have found that by only running horses every 4 weeks or so, not only do they stay sounder but they will stay in form for a much longer period of time.