Current TC Spacing Dates Back to 1969

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Its three in a nine year span since they made the change, and a lot of close calls. A lot. Not just derby/Preakness combos either. Others took two of thee pretty often. Swale, riva ridge, risen star, afleet Alex, point given off the top of my head. Spacing is not an issue.

Exactly.

It's ludicrous, some of the arguments on here, about how it's the time between racing causing the lack of TC winners.

So many times, racing circumstances were what prevented the sweep. Sometimes a better horse came along to deny the Triple Crown (Touch Gold for instance), or really bad race circumstances (Afleet Alex).

Heck, just look at Touch Gold again. I could make a case that with a little luck, he might have won the Triple Crown. He was best in both the Belmont and Preakness, and if my old memory serves me correctly, he didn't run in the Derby because he lacked earnings. I could be mistaken there, but still, he was the best horse in both the Preakness and Belmont.

I recently posted a list of the last twelve or so horses going for the sweep in the Belmont, and things that happened to them that contributed to their losses. All Rupert did was summarily dismiss these things and then spend the next month reiterating that the 2-3 week format was to blame.

For certain, Point Given, Smarty Jones, Afleet Alex and Real Quiet would have won the TC if it were not for jockey shenanigans. I don't even know how that can be countered.

War Emblem and Alysheba I think had legitimate excuses, but I can't say for certain they would have won or not.

Hell, I even think that had Barbaro not broken down out of the gate (nothing to do with race spacing), he'd have completed the sweep, overrated and overhyped Bernardini notwithstanding.

The arguments in favor of spacing are empty and easily beaten with simple logic and reasoning!

How on Earth did Point Given and Afleet Alex manage to win the Preakness and Belmont after running such monster losing races (due to jockey ineptness) in the Derby??????

The best race Smarty Jones ever ran was his lone loss in the Belmont!

All this leads me to the conclusion that some people are hopeless contrarians. I just never thought I'd be seeing Rupert in the starring role of King Glorious in this particular movie.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Exactly.

It's ludicrous, some of the arguments on here, about how it's the time between racing causing the lack of TC winners.

So many times, racing circumstances were what prevented the sweep. Sometimes a better horse came along to deny the Triple Crown (Touch Gold for instance), or really bad race circumstances (Afleet Alex).

Heck, just look at Touch Gold again. I could make a case that with a little luck, he might have won the Triple Crown. He was best in both the Belmont and Preakness, and if my old memory serves me correctly, he didn't run in the Derby because he lacked earnings. I could be mistaken there, but still, he was the best horse in both the Preakness and Belmont.

I recently posted a list of the last twelve or so horses going for the sweep in the Belmont, and things that happened to them that contributed to their losses. All Rupert did was summarily dismiss these things and then spend the next month reiterating that the 2-3 week format was to blame.

For certain, Point Given, Smarty Jones, Afleet Alex and Real Quiet would have won the TC if it were not for jockey shenanigans. I don't even know how that can be countered.

War Emblem and Alysheba I think had legitimate excuses, but I can't say for certain they would have won or not.

Hell, I even think that had Barbaro not broken down out of the gate (nothing to do with race spacing), he'd have completed the sweep, overrated and overhyped Bernardini notwithstanding.

The arguments in favor of spacing are empty and easily beaten with simple logic and reasoning!

How on Earth did Point Given and Afleet Alex manage to win the Preakness and Belmont after running such monster losing races (due to jockey ineptness) in the Derby??????

The best race Smarty Jones ever ran was his lone loss in the Belmont!

All this leads me to the conclusion that some people are hopeless contrarians. I just never thought I'd be seeing Rupert in the starring role of King Glorious in this particular movie.

I'm hardly a contrarian on this issue. It may a be a contrarian point of view on this board, but if you asked practically any trainer, they would agree with me. Why do you think so many horses skip the Preakness? They skip the Preakness because it is a big advantage to have a fresh horse for the Belmont. That has proven to be a very successful strategy. In recent years there have been 6 horses that ran in the Derby who skipped the Preakness and came back and won the Belmont.

With regard to Touch Gold, I agree with you that he was much the best in the Preakness. That hardly means he would have won the TC if he would have run in the Derby. He would have had to win the Derby and then you have to assume that the Derby would not have taken much out of him and that he would have run the same in the Preakness and Belmont as he would have run without running in the Derby.

Point Given was certainly the best horse that year, but I don't think he had a legitimate excuse in the Derby. He ran poorly. I don't know why he didn't fire that day but he didn't. What was his excuse? Sure he was closer to a fast pace than he should have been, but Congaree was even closer to the pace than Point Given and Congaree ended up beating Point Given by 7 lengths. I don't know how a person could watch the Kentucky Derby that year and say that Point Given was the best horse that day. He had no legitimate excuse. If he would have ended up getting beat by a small margin and if he would have outfinished other horses that were close to the pace, then you could make that argument. But that wasn't the case.

I totally disagree with you about Smarty Jones. I don't think the Belmont was anything close to his best race. In fact, I think he regressed by at least 4-5 lengths from the Preakness. What was the problem with the ride? Watch the replay and tell me what he should have done differently at what point. They went the half in :48 3/5, which is reasonable but not lightening fast. Eddington came up outside of Smarty Jones and forced him to move a little sooner than he would have liked to but that is racing. Overall, SJ's trip was reasonable. It wasn't great but it certainly wasn't horrible. He ran his last quarter in :27. If you think that was his best race, I strongly disagree.

What was wrong with Afleet Alex's trip in the Kentucky Derby? It's a 20 horse field. You're practically never going to get a perfect trip. If you get a relatively clean trip, you have to be thrilled. AA had a relatively good trip. He saved ground and waited for room and he got through. After he got through, he got outrun. I don't think he had any real excuse in the Derby.

To say Alysheba had a legitimate excuse in the Belmont is preposterous. He lost by 14 lengths. If he was 2-3 lengths closer to the pace, do you think that would have made up 14 lengths? Granted he did check at the quarter pole after he was hopelessly beaten. If he didn't check, he would have only lost by 10 or 11 lengths.

I don't deny that we will continue to have plenty of horses that will win 2 out of the 3 legs. I'm sure there will continue to be plenty of horses that come close to winning all 3 races. My theory is pretty simple. My theory is that 99% of horses who win those first two legs are going to regress in the Belmont. How much they will regress is the question. All horses are different. Some horses may only regress by a couple of lengths. Others may regress by 5-10 lengths. If a horse is much the best and he only regresses by 2 lengths, he will probably be very competitive in the Belmont.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Point Given was certainly the best horse that year, but I don't think he had a legitimate excuse in the Derby. He ran poorly. I don't know why he didn't fire that day but he didn't. What was his excuse? Sure he was closer to a fast pace than he should have been, but Congaree was even closer to the pace than Point Given and Congaree ended up beating Point Given by 7 lengths. I don't know how a person could watch the Kentucky Derby that year and say that Point Given was the best horse that day. He had no legitimate excuse. If he would have ended up getting beat by a small margin and if he would have outfinished other horses that were close to the pace, then you could make that argument. But that wasn't the case.

Point Given was not a horse suited to running on the lead, while Congaree certainly was. Taking a horse out of his preferred running style can lead to worse than normal performances.

You know all of that already though, doncha?

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I totally disagree with you about Smarty Jones. I don't think the Belmont was anything close to his best race. In fact, I think he regressed by at least 4-5 lengths from the Preakness. What was the problem with the ride? Watch the replay and tell me what he should have done differently at what point. They went the half in :48 3/5, which is reasonable but not lightening fast. Eddington came up outside of Smarty Jones and forced him to move a little sooner than he would have liked to but that is racing. Overall, SJ's trip was reasonable. It wasn't great but it certainly wasn't horrible. He ran his last quarter in :27. If you think that was his best race, I strongly disagree.

It was the ride on Eddington that I was referring to, sorry for not being more precise there. That was very reminiscent of Forty Niner in the Preakness. Both were ridden to not win their respective races.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What was wrong with Afleet Alex's trip in the Kentucky Derby? It's a 20 horse field. You're practically never going to get a perfect trip. If you get a relatively clean trip, you have to be thrilled. AA had a relatively good trip. He saved ground and waited for room and he got through. After he got through, he got outrun. I don't think he had any real excuse in the Derby.

Really dude? Watch the race again.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

To say Alysheba had a legitimate excuse in the Belmont is preposterous. He lost by 14 lengths. If he was 2-3 lengths closer to the pace, do you think that would have made up 14 lengths? Granted he did check at the quarter pole after he was hopelessly beaten. If he didn't check, he would have only lost by 10 or 11 lengths.

Yeah, it might be a bit of a stretch about him, but he lost all hope with that ride. He should have gotten the jump on Bet Twice and even McCarron said later on that his ride cost Alysheba the race.

[Danzig]

Why is smarty still being brought up? I thought chuck explained his injury, that it wasn't that serious.
Smarty was retired for one reason, and it wasn't cartilage. He didn't run again for a reason, and its green.

Plenty of horses disprove what one horse is being used to prove.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Why is smarty still being brought up? I thought chuck explained his injury, that it wasn't that serious.
Smarty was retired for one reason, and it wasn't cartilage. He didn't run again for a reason, and its green.

Plenty of horses disprove what one horse is being used to prove.

Chuck never explained his injury. Dunbar posted an article where Dr. Bramlage said the horse had swelling in his ankles and he needed time off. He said the horse could have come back the next year. I don't necessarily believe it. The vet has no obligation to the public in a case like this. His obligation is to the owner and trainer of the horse. When a horse is going to stand at stud, the owners don't want the vet to announce that the horse is very unsound and can never come back.

How could you possibly claim that the horse had no cartilage damage in his ankles? You would have no way of knowing that. You can't believe everything that you read. The public comments that you read from owners and trainers is often times bs. I'm not just guessing that. I know that for a fact. I've seen it first hand. For example, they will often say publicly that a horse has a foot bruise when they have something much more serious.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Chuck never explained his injury. Dunbar posted an article where Dr. Bramlage said the horse had swelling in his ankles and he needed time off. He said the horse could have come back the next year. I don't necessarily believe it. The vet has no obligation to the public in a case like this. His obligation is to the owner and trainer of the horse. When a horse is going to stand at stud, the owners don't want the vet to announce that the horse is very unsound and can never come back.

How could you possibly claim that the horse had no cartilage damage in his ankles? You would have no way of knowing that. You can't believe everything that you read. The public comments that you read from owners and trainers is often times bs. I'm not just guessing that. I know that for a fact. I've seen it first hand. For example, they will often say publicly that a horse has a foot bruise when they have something much more serious.

Oh, well why listen to an esteemed vet when I have you to tell me?
Smarty retired due to money. They had already maximized his value for breeding.
What I fail to understand is how the tc spacing had anything whatsoever to do with smartys ankle issues.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Let me ask you guys a simple question. If the spacing is not the main thing that makes it so difficult to win the TC, then what is? It's not that hard for the best horse in a division to win the 3 races in a row. It happens all the time. It happens with 2 year olds, three year olds, 4 year olds, older horses, colts, fillies, grass horses, etc. It's not uncommon for the best horse in a division to win three races in a row. It happens all the time.

Yet no horse has won the TC in 36 years and everybody knows how difficult it is to win the TC. If it's not the spacing that makes it so difficult, then what is it? I'm not saying the spacing is the only thing but it is the main thing. The other thing that makes it so difficult is the distance of the Belmont. If the Belmont was shorter, it would certainly be easier to win the TC. Of the last 12 horses that won the first two legs, I think at least a couple of them may have won the TC if the Belmont was only 1 1/4 miles.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

What I fail to understand is how the tc spacing had anything whatsoever to do with smartys ankle issues.

To quote Dr. Bramlage, "He had nine hard races in eight months, and this kind of accumulated inflammation is why athletes can't stay at a peak every time."

Do you notice that he mentioned the number of races and the time period that those races were run in? He mentioned that for a reason. It's not uncommon for horses to come out of races with inflammation. But if you give them time to recover, the inflammation usually goes down. If you have to keep running the horse back on short rest, that inflammation can become chronic.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Point Given was not a horse suited to running on the lead, while Congaree certainly was. Taking a horse out of his preferred running style can lead to worse than normal performances.

You know all of that already though, doncha?




It was the ride on Eddington that I was referring to, sorry for not being more precise there. That was very reminiscent of Forty Niner in the Preakness. Both were ridden to not win their respective races.




Really dude? Watch the race again.




Yeah, it might be a bit of a stretch about him, but he lost all hope with that ride. He should have gotten the jump on Bet Twice and even McCarron said later on that his ride cost Alysheba the race.

Point Given wasn't on the lead in the Derby. He was sitting about 5-6 lengths back. As fast as the pace was, he should have definitely been further back. But as badly as he ran, there is no way anyone can say he should have won. He got beat by 12 lengths. Horses who were closer to the lead beat him and horses who were further back beat him. He didn't even come close to running the best race of anyone in that race. There is no logical way to look at that race and say that he should have won. If a horse is supposed to be laying about 10 lengths back but the jock only has them 5 back and they end up losing by 2 lengths, you can make a good case that the horse might have won with a better ride. But when a horse is a little closer than they should be and the horse gets beat by 12 lengths, I don't know how you could say that horse could have won. I guarantee you Baffert does not think that ride cost him the race.

With regard to Smarty Jones, his trip wasn't that bad. It's not like Eddington was head and head with him. Smarty was pretty much clear and he wasn't going that fast. I admit that Smarty Jones probably could have won the race if he went much much slower and nobody put any pressure on him. But why would you expect that to happen? Considering that Smarty won the Preakness by 10 lengths, it's not shocking that he could have won the Belmont if he got a completely uncontested lead in slow fractions.

I watched Afleet Alex's Ky Derby this afternoon. If every horse I ever bet on in the Derby got that trip I would be thrilled. It was a relatively clean trip. If you have a relatively clean trip in a 20 horse field, it's a good day.

With regard to Alysheba, the guy who was screaming about the ride was Van Berg. Van Berg had supposedly told McCarron before the race that he didn't think there was much speed and that Alysheba could probably go to the lead. I don't know why Van Berg would have thought that Alysheba would be in front of Bet Twice. Bet Twice was ahead of Alysheba in the early going in both the Derby and the Preakness and Alysheba was still able to beat him. Anyway, Van Berg claims the ride in the Belmont cost Alysheba the race. I don't know what he is smoking. He was very critical of McCarron. McCarron was diplomatic about it. He said maybe it was a bad ride. He never said he thought it cost him the race.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

With regard to Smarty Jones, his trip wasn't that bad. It's not like Eddington was head and head with him. Smarty was pretty much clear and he wasn't going that fast. I admit that Smarty Jones probably could have won the race if he went much much slower and nobody put any pressure on him. But why would you expect that to happen? Considering that Smarty won the Preakness by 10 lengths, it's not shocking that he could have won the Belmont if he got a completely uncontested lead in slow fractions.

I watched Afleet Alex's Ky Derby this afternoon. If every horse I ever bet on in the Derby got that trip I would be thrilled. It was a relatively clean trip. If you have a relatively clean trip in a 20 horse field, it's a good day.

I.....





















THUD!!!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

I.....

THUD!!!

And what is it that I said that you disagree with?

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

And what is it that I said that you disagree with?

The analysis of both trips.