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

[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.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

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.

Look at kids today at the HS level, College, and Pro, they are bigger, faster and stronger than ever before, not to say the athletes of the past would not obtain this, but the times have changed, the training and nutrition are much better. I think the same applies to horses...

My belief is that horses are primed and peaked for the Major races, and this takes so much out of them, that they cannot stick around or race frequently. IF you want to win the big races, you have to train your horse like this or someone that is training this way will beat you. Does it make sense to wring your horse out all year or have them primed for the Major Races. I am not saying this is right, it's just my opinion...

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

Look at kids today at the HS level, College, and Pro, they are bigger, faster and stronger than ever before, not to say the athletes of the past would not obtain this, but the times have changed, the training and nutrition are much better. I think the same applies to horses...

My belief is that horses are primed and peaked for the Major races, and this takes so much out of them, that they cannot stick around or race frequently. IF you want to win the big races, you have to train your horse like this or someone that is training this way will beat you. Does it make sense to wring your horse out all year or have them primed for the Major Races. I am not saying this is right, it's just my opinion...

Also, I believe there will never another Triple Crown Winner. I believe the Barbaro types will be the norm, rather than the exception. They will all point to the Derby and have them fresh, but their horses will not have the foundation or ability to bounce back from a "freak" effort in only two weeks. The horses that have been battle hardened and ready for such a campaign, will not be able to beat the ones that are primed for "freak" efforts...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

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.

So are you saying that there are no good trainers today? That's like saying there are no good golfers today, no good doctors today, or no good baseball players today. It's absurd. As I said before, if a business is lucrative you will have a lot of talented people in that field.

If you guys are right and all these trainers are doing it wrong, you guys should go into the business. You'd make a fortune. Think how easy it would be. You'd be the only good trainers in the business.

[Assttodixie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

So are you saying that there are no good trainers today? That's like saying there are no good golfers today, no good doctors today, or no good baseball players today. It's absurd. As I said before, if a business is lucrative you will have a lot of talented people in that field.

If you guys are right and all these trainers are doing it wrong, you guys should go into the business. You'd make a fortune. Think how easy it would be. You'd be the only good trainers in the business.

Its not necessarily that the trainers of today are "wrong". Could it be perhaps that the money and the media of today are so extreme that they arent as willing to try different things? Ah, now theres a different thought.

Its safer to do what everyone else is doing lest you make a mistake and have everyone call you a donkey and say you ruined a potentially great horse. Beyond that, they really dont race to race anymore. They race to breed.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Assttodixie

Its not necessarily that the trainers of today are "wrong". Could it be perhaps that the money and the media of today are so extreme that they arent as willing to try different things? Ah, now theres a different thought.

Its safer to do what everyone else is doing lest you make a mistake and have everyone call you a donkey and say you ruined a potentially great horse. Beyond that, they really dont race to race anymore. They race to breed.

It's only horses that are valuable for breeding that race to breed. There are plenty of good horses out there that don't have much value for breeding.

[Cannon Shell]

You can not solve this issue with a golden bullet. There is no answer, there are a series of differences that cannot be weighed against each other. All modern day trainers are not bad. All breeders aren't breeding unsound horses. All current horses aren't weak, infirm dogs that would get dragged around the track by Swaps. Stats wont work because we are talking about different eras. Would Wilt average 50 pts per game now? Because Shaq never averaged 50 pts per game is he inferior to Wilt?

One thing that never gets taken into consideration by anyone in this fight is the actual number of horses that were in existence in the good old days versus modern times. There are many more horses produced now than say in the 50's. With the increase in quantity you will naturally have a decrease in quality.

I think that any reference to any of the top trainers horses is a moot point. First of all they control a great majority of the top horses, however they consist of less than 1% of the total number of horses that are racing. The other 99%, the majority of which are crows, who are also declining in starts per year. But the tricky question that never gets brought up is the fact that field size has remained relatively constant over a 40 year period. So essentially if the number of starts per year were to remain at 1960 levels we would be averaging 13 per race! Sounds crazy but do the math.

One point I dont understand is how people can state 27 2 year old champions in a row have failed to become 3 year old champions, but on the other hand say that racing horses often at 2 can make them sounder. Seems that you are on both sides of the fence on this. I mean what happened to them at three? Can they all be bad trainers?

The modern trainer is under much more stress than the trainer of old days. Expenses are extreme, bloodstock is much more valuble, statistics tell you each and every day if you are a star or a bum, there is virtually zero owner loyalty, the tracks are constantly on you to run, often in spots where you dont belong. Everybody trains using vitamins, ulcer medications, clembuterol, etc. Some use even more if you know what I mean. Owners used to dream of winning big races. Now they all dream of selling Sheikh Mo a $5 million dollar yearling. They dont want to hear that the pony that they paid big bucks for(and there are varying degrees of big bucks) cant run. And this has always been a follow the leader type of business. So when Pletcher and Frankel start talking about spacing and such, and they seemingly win every big race everybody follows along, right or wrong.

There is so much more but I'm tired of typing.

[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.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

Do you think Sunny Jim Fitzsimmons didn't know these things? Or Ben Jones?

You're stating the obvious ... and treating it as though it were some kind of a revelation.

Trainers today simply aren't as good as trainers from decades ago ... because they don't have the same objectives. Essentially ... they aren't even in the same business.

Trainers of G1-potential horses once were in the business of taking young horses and developing them into professional athletes. Today they're in the business of protecting investments ... and attempting to hit the huge jackpot with their shares of one or two multi-million dollar syndications ... which will make them financially secure for the rest of their lives.

All of these responses keep dancing around ... and avoiding ... the very simple question that I asked ... so let me try again ...

If trainers today are so great ... have such deep understandings of their horses ... and how best to handle them ... AND ... if spacing races and having fresh horses is such a great strategy ...

... how come none of them or their methods have been able to develop a horse ... not a single one ... into a 2YO champion and a 3YO champion (and a 4YO champion)?

[Pointg5]

Bold,

Take a look:

http://www.thorograph.com/archive.php

Originally Posted by Pointg5

Bold,

Take a look:

http://www.thorograph.com/archive.php

Interesting reading ... but the number of variables affecting race times ... and the lack of consistent data over extensive time periods ... more or less caused them to toss up their hands and say, "We just don't know."

The fact that they had to turn to trotters for more consistent data ... just shows how bogged down they were getting.

Human track times have improved mostly because of improvements in equipment, track manufacture, greater worldwide participation of all ethnic groups, and the increased prosperity which has allowed more time and resources to be put into improvements.

If Jim Thorpe, Charlie Paddock, and Jesse Owens were around today ... they'd probably still be world-class sprinters.

And Sysonby, Roseben, and Man O' War would still be G1 winners.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Do you think Sunny Jim Fitzsimmons didn't know these things? Or Ben Jones?

You're stating the obvious ... and treating it as though it were some kind of a revelation.

Trainers today simply aren't as good as trainers from decades ago ... because they don't have the same objectives. Essentially ... they aren't even in the same business.

Trainers of G1-potential horses once were in the business of taking young horses and developing them into professional athletes. Today they're in the business of protecting investments ... and attempting to hit the huge jackpot with their shares of one or two multi-million dollar syndications ... which will make them financially secure for the rest of their lives.

All of these responses keep dancing around ... and avoiding ... the very simple question that I asked ... so let me try again ...

If trainers today are so great ... have such deep understandings of their horses ... and how best to handle them ... AND ... if spacing races and having fresh horses is such a great strategy ...

... how come none of them or their methods have been able to develop a horse ... not a single one ... into a 2YO champion and a 3YO champion (and a 4YO champion)?

The reason I mentioned that the great trainers train every horse differently is because I was making the point that these good trainers can see how their horses respond to different things. If you were to believe Phalaris' theory, you would have to believe that these good trainers can't tell what works and what doesn't. If these trainers couldn't see the effects of their methods on each horse and be able to adjust their method based on how the horse is responding, then there would be no skill in training. Everyone could do it and everyone could do it equally well. You would just train every horse the same. You would gallop every horse 1 1/2 miles every day and work them every 6 days. Anyone could do that. If you did that, you wouldn't be successful. You need to adjust based on how your training is effecting the horse. But according to Phalaris, these trainers can't even tell what is effective and what isn't.

Your theory that trainers aren't as good as they used to be as based on the fact that no 2 year old champion wins the 3 year old championship is ridiculous. That would be like saying that basketball players are not as good these days because nobody ever scores 100 points any more like Wilt. The competition is tougher these days. The fact that nobody scores 100 points does not prove that the players aren't as good today.

Anyway, there are numerous possible other reasons as to why no BC Juvenille has won the Derby. One reason is that the horses today are not as sound as they used to be and if you run too many times as a 2 year old you may not be as effective as a 3 year old. Another reason is that some trainers don't want to even try it because they see that horses that win the BC Juvenille have never won a Derby. To win the BC Juvenille, a horse needs to have at least 2-3 races under his belt. Most trainers know this and they don't want to push their horse. They'd rather take their time and point for the Derby and skip the BC Juvenille. I think it is tough to win the BC Juvenille and the KY Derby but I think it can be done and I think it will be done in the near future. I think that many of the good trainers are figuring out the best way to win both races. In my opinion, the best way is to plan for the BC Juvenille to be your horse's 3rd or at the most 4th career race. Then the horse should get a rest after the BC Juvenille and should have 3 preps in their 3 year old year. That way the Derby would be the horse's 7th or 8th career start. In general, that seems to be a good number of races. It's not too few and it's not too many. As everyone knows, no horse has ever won the Derby that didn't run as a 2 year old, so we know that a horse needs to at least have a decent amount of conditioning under their belt to win the Derby. A horse with only 2-3 career races is not going to win the Derby. How do I know? I know because it never happens. Just like I know that a horse that runs 15 times a year is not going to win many big races. I know beacuse it practically never happens these days. Both of those things are very obvious. A horse that only has 2-3 lifetime races is not going to win the Derby. And a horse that runs too often is rarely going to be able to win big races. This is common sense amongst the good trainers and common sense to any observer who isn't blind.

I would agree with BB that there has been some human error that is probably repsonsible for horses never winning the BC Juvenille and the Derby. I can think of at least one horse right off the top of my head that was mishandled and should have won both races.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Your theory that trainers aren't as good as they used to be as based on the fact that no 2 year old champion wins the 3 year old championship is ridiculous. That would be like saying that basketball players are not as good these days because nobody ever scores 100 points any more like Wilt. The competition is tougher these days. The fact that nobody scores 100 points does not prove that the players aren't as good today.

Just the opposite ...

... it's the trainers today who are looking for the 100 point game ... the one big G1 score that will gin up the syndication negotiations.

And did it ever occur to you that everything Phalaris and I have been saying may be correct ... that American trainers have lost their way ... that the old skills have been lost ... that fear and greed have brought about a decline ... that we're now in the equivalent of a Dark Ages ... and we will some day experience a Renaissance ... which will see a return of the professional race horse?

That is a possibility ... isn't it?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Just the opposite ...

... it's the trainers today who are looking for the 100 point game ... the one big G1 score that will gin up the syndication negotiations.

And did it ever occur to you that everything Phalaris and I have been saying may be correct ... that American trainers have lost their way ... that the old skills have been lost ... that fear and greed have brought about a decline ... that we're now in the equivalent of a Dark Ages ... and we will some day experience a Renaissance ... which will see a return of the professional race horse?

That is a possibility ... isn't it?

Unfortunately, no.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Just the opposite ...

... it's the trainers today who are looking for the 100 point game ... the one big G1 score that will gin up the syndication negotiations.

And did it ever occur to you that everything Phalaris and I have been saying may be correct ... that American trainers have lost their way ... that the old skills have been lost ... that fear and greed have brought about a decline ... that we're now in the equivalent of a Dark Ages ... and we will some day experience a Renaissance ... which will see a return of the professional race horse?

That is a possibility ... isn't it?

No, it's not a possibility. For the thrid time, I will say that it is absurd to think that there are no good trainers out there just like it would be absurd to theorize that there are no good basketball players or doctors out there. There is no such thing as a lucrative industry with no talented people. That is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard.

Not only that, I have first-hand knowledge about how hard it is to keep horses sound. I talk to my trainers almost every day. Even when you work horses realtively easy such as a 5 furlong work in 1:01 3/5, some of the good horses will sometimes come out of the work with a puffy ankle or that type of thing. If your horse is coming out of an easy workout with puffy ankles, how do you think he's going to come out of a race? And you guys think a horse like this can run 15 times a year? You'd be lucky to get 3 races out of a horse like this.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Anyway, there are numerous possible other reasons as to why no BC Juvenille has won the Derby. One reason is that the horses today are not as sound as they used to be and if you run too many times as a 2 year old you may not be as effective as a 3 year old. Another reason is that some trainers don't want to even try it because they see that horses that win the BC Juvenille have never won a Derby. To win the BC Juvenille, a horse needs to have at least 2-3 races under his belt. Most trainers know this and they don't want to push their horse. They'd rather take their time and point for the Derby and skip the BC Juvenille. I think it is tough to win the BC Juvenille and the KY Derby but I think it can be done and I think it will be done in the near future. I think that many of the good trainers are figuring out the best way to win both races. In my opinion, the best way is to plan for the BC Juvenille to be your horse's 3rd or at the most 4th career race. Then the horse should get a rest after the BC Juvenille and should have 3 preps in their 3 year old year. That way the Derby would be the horse's 7th or 8th career start. In general, that seems to be a good number of races. It's not too few and it's not too many. As everyone knows, no horse has ever won the Derby that didn't run as a 2 year old, so we know that a horse needs to at least have a decent amount of conditioning under their belt to win the Derby. A horse with only 2-3 career races is not going to win the Derby. How do I know? I know because it never happens. Just like I know that a horse that runs 15 times a year is not going to win many big races. I know beacuse it practically never happens these days. Both of those things are very obvious. A horse that only has 2-3 lifetime races is not going to win the Derby. And a horse that runs too often is rarely going to be able to win big races. This is common sense amongst the good trainers and common sense to any observer who isn't blind.

Meanwhile ... back in the real world ...

... no trainer today has come close to developing even a Riva Ridge or Foolish Pleasure ... much less a Native Dancer, Affirmed or Spectacular Bid ... all of whom had extensive campaigns as 2YOS ... and came roaring back at 3 and 4.

Hasn't any colt in the past 27 years been as talented as Riva Ridge or Foolish Pleasure ... and as developable into their equivalent?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Meanwhile ... back in the real world ...

... no trainer today has come close to developing even a Riva Ridge or What A Pleasure ... much less a Native Dancer, Affirmed or Spectacular Bid ... all of whom had extensive campaigns as 2YOS ... and came roaring back at 3 and 4.

Hasn't any colt in the past 27 years been as talented as Riva Ridge or What A Pleasure ... and as developable into their equivalent?

There have been plenty of good horses over the years that ran as 2 year olds and won the Ky Derby and then ran well in the BC Classic as 3 year olds and even 4 year olds. I can't remember exactly who ran as a 3 year old and who ran as a 4 year old but I remember horses like Ferdinand, Alysheba, and Gate Dancer runnning well in the Triple Crown races and then running well in the BC Classic. If you go back and look at the first 3 finishers in the BC Classic over the years, you will see plenty of horses that ran well at 2 and ran well in the Triple Crown races.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There have been plenty of good horses over the years that ran as 2 year olds and won the Ky Derby and then ran well in the BC Classic as 3 year olds and even 4 year olds. I can't remember exactly who ran as a 3 year old and who ran as a 4 year old but I remember horses like Ferdinand, Alysheba, and Gate Dancer runnning well in the Triple Crown races and then running well in the BC Classic. If you go back and look at the first 3 finishers in the BC Classic over the years, you will see plenty of horses that ran well at 2 and ran well in the Triple Crown races.

You're dodging and dancing ...

... where are the trainers today who developed a colt into a CHAMPION 2YO ... and brought him back to be a CHAMPION 3YO ... and/or a CHAMPION 4YO?

Those things happened with regularity under the old training methods ... colts having successful multi-year careers with 30, 40, 50 starts over several essentially-injury-free campaigns.

If the trainers are so good ... and spacing is such a good strategy ... reputedly to keep horses sounder for longer periods of time ... where are these multi-year champions ... or even near champions ... in the 21st Century?

"Spacing" and "fresh horses" ... as I said in the title of this thread ... are killing the sport.

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There have been plenty of good horses over the years that ran as 2 year olds and won the Ky Derby and then ran well in the BC Classic as 3 year olds and even 4 year olds. I can't remember exactly who ran as a 3 year old and who ran as a 4 year old but I remember horses like Ferdinand, Alysheba, and Gate Dancer runnning well in the Triple Crown races and then running well in the BC Classic. If you go back and look at the first 3 finishers in the BC Classic over the years, you will see plenty of horses that ran well at 2 and ran well in the Triple Crown races.

For the record, Alysheba, Gate Dancer and Ferdinand raced 20 years ago. Ferdinand is not really the greatest example of classic winners being important in the fall of their 3YO season, since he didn't run again after the Belmont until late December, but I'll talk about him anyway. They each had at least four starts at 2 and three pre-Derby starts at 3, and none ran nine furlongs before April. Alysheba's final Derby prep was nine days before the Derby and Gate Dancer's was 14 - both very common prior to the 1990s. (For the benefit of newcomers, most major Derby preps used to be run closer to the classics; the SA Derby, which has been run at about the end of March or beginning of April for decades, is a notable exception, but it used to be quite typical for horses to run in another race between it and the Derby.) Gate Dancer and Alysheba, both second across the line in the Classic as 3YOS, had 11 and 10 starts at 3, respectively. Both had their final preps in September but received their comeuppance at the hands of a horse who had had his final Classic prep within the last two weeks. Alysheba and Gate Dancer each had run back on 14 days or less three times before he stepped into the gate for the Kentucky Derby (not counting that the Derby start itself was on 14 days rest or less), Ferdinand twice.

Is trotting out 20-year-old examples of horses who were often run back on relatively short rest the best you can do to support the idea that the widely spaced campaigns currently in vogue is good for producing long-term careers?

While these horses did not have the testing 2YO campaigns that made champions of Affirmed and Spectacular Bid, they are not poster children for the great new way, and attempts to use them as such are disingenuous at best. It would be more pertinent to offer examples of classic winners who had one or two starts at 2, one race in the two months prior to the Derby and five or six starts as a 3YO, who were beating, or at least almost beating, open company in important races in the fall as 3YOs and remained high-class at 4. Let's hear about those.