Current TC Spacing Dates Back to 1969

[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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by 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.

You said before you didn't want it to be easier, that you were worried about horses careers.
But all your postings indicate your main concern, more tc winners.


And yes, smarty raced nine times in eight months. Still not an indication that tc spacing was the issue.
You want more tc winners, which you is fine. We all want to see tc winners. So own it, instead of trying to make arguments that have nothing to do with it.

As for it not being hard to win three in a row...

Wow, just wow. So many things are involved in a race. The hell it isn't hard.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

You said before you didn't want it to be easier, that you were worried about horses careers.
But all your postings indicate your main concern, more tc winners.


And yes, smarty raced nine times in eight months. Still not an indication that tc spacing was the issue.
You want more tc winners, which you is fine. We all want to see tc winners. So own it, instead of trying to make arguments that have nothing to do with it.

As for it not being hard to win three in a row...

Wow, just wow. So many things are involved in a race. The hell it isn't hard.

The two things go hand in hand. The reason the TC is so hard to win is because it is so grueling. The more grueling and demanding, the higher chance of horses being knocked out and/or injured.

With regard to stakes horses winning three races in a row, there have probably been over 100 of them over the last 35 years. It happens all the time. Sure it's hard, but it's all relative. It happens all the time.

Anyway, I have given you my hypothesis as to why it's so hard to win the TC. What is your hypothesis? We see the top horses in their division winning three in a row all the time. Why is winning three in a row in the TC so hard?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The two things go hand in hand. The reason the TC is so hard to win is because it is so grueling. The more grueling and demanding, the higher chance of horses being knocked out and/or injured.

With regard to stakes horses winning three races in a row, there have probably been over 100 of them over the last 35 years. It happens all the time. Sure it's hard, but it's all relative. It happens all the time.

Anyway, I have given you my hypothesis as to why it's so hard to win the TC. What is your hypothesis? We see the top horses in their division winning three in a row all the time. Why is winning three in a row in the TC so hard?

I don't agree with the first paragraph.

I think one thing that makes it more difficult is the field size. You have to have more than talent to win the derby. Quite often the best horse in the field just can't get thru the crowd. You also need to take note of field size in subsequent races, genuine risk has referenced number of competitors more than once.
As for other top horses winning three straight. Put them in a 20 horse field, and then two races with ten or more horses. Let me know how that works for them.

Another thing...these horses are still maturing, spring is when you see horses blossom,and precocious horses get caught and passed by their peers.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I don't agree with the first paragraph.

I think one thing that makes it more difficult is the field size. You have to have more than talent to win the derby. Quite often the best horse in the field just can't get thru the crowd. You also need to take note of field size in subsequent races, genuine risk has referenced number of competitors more than once.
As for other top horses winning three straight. Put them in a 20 horse field, and then two races with ten or more horses. Let me know how that works for them.

Another thing...these horses are still maturing, spring is when you see horses blossom,and precocious horses get caught and passed by their peers.

Good point. I admit field size is one factor. But that can hardly be the main factor that explains the difficulty of winning the TC. It is only the Derby that has a 20 horse field. So just 1 out of 3 of the races has a 20 horse field.

If Wise Dan had to run in a 20 horse field once every 3 races, do you think he would have never won 3 in a row? If Zenyatta would have had to run in a 20 horse field once every 3 races, do you think she would have never won 3 in a row? I would ask the same thing about Curlin, Ghostzapper, Rachel Alexandra, and about 100 other horses over the past 35 years that have won 3 or more races in a row. Would these horses and all the other horses that have had multi-race winning streaks have had fewer winning streaks if they had to run against 20 horse fields in 1 out of every 3 races. The answer is positively "yes". They wouldn't have won quite as often but they certainly would have still had some streaks where they won 3 in a row.

You are right that horses are maturing in spring. But come on, how much maturing is going to take place in 3 weeks (between the Preakness and Belmont)? If a horse wins the first two legs, he is probably the best horse. There are probably only 3 things that can get him beat in the Belmont. The first thing would be if the horse is tired from winning the first two legs and he doesn't fire in the Belmont. The second would be the distance. Maybe the horse just can't go 1 1/2 miles. The third would be a bad ride/trip.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Good point. I admit field size is one factor. But that can hardly be the main factor that explains the difficulty of winning the TC. It is only the Derby that has a 20 horse field. So just 1 out of 3 of the races has a 20 horse field.

If Wise Dan had to run in a 20 horse field once every 3 races, do you think he would have never won 3 in a row? If Zenyatta would have had to run in a 20 horse field once every 3 races, do you think she would have never won 3 in a row? I would ask the same thing about Curlin, Ghostzapper, Rachel Alexandra, and about 100 other horses over the past 35 years that have won 3 or more races in a row. Would these horses and all the other horses that have had multi-race winning streaks have had fewer winning streaks if they had to run against 20 horse fields in 1 out of every 3 races. The answer is positively "yes". They wouldn't have won quite as often but they certainly would have still had some streaks where they won 3 in a row.

You are right that horses are maturing in spring. But come on, how much maturing is going to take place in 3 weeks (between the Preakness and Belmont)? If a horse wins the first two legs, he is probably the best horse. There are probably only 3 things that can get him beat in the Belmont. The first thing would be if the horse is tired from winning the first two legs and he doesn't fire in the Belmont. The second would be the distance. Maybe the horse just can't go 1 1/2 miles. The third would be a bad ride/trip.

Field size isn't just an issue in the derby, more horses run in all three.


Lol

Oh, wow. Have tvg on, and Bob baffert just now on camera saying he wouldn't change anything about the races. He said if anything should be tweaked, its cutting the derby to 14 starters.
'Changing the dates would be bad'. ' I like the two weeks'.
Thanks, Bob for your timely comments.


Also, as the narrator said, 33% of horses who went to NY with a shot at it won the tc. Glad I caught this bit.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Field size isn't just an issue in the derby, more horses run in all three.


Lol

Oh, wow. Have tvg on, and Bob baffert just now on camera saying he wouldn't change anything about the races. He said if anything should be tweaked, its cutting the derby to 14 starters.
'Changing the dates would be bad'. ' I like the two weeks'.
Thanks, Bob for your timely comments.


Also, as the narrator said, 33% of horses who went to NY with a shot at it won the tc. Glad I caught this bit.

Practically all trainers think the TC is hard on horses. The thing they don't agree on is whether or not the TC should be changed. The opinions on that are mixed. Some trainers think it is too hard on the horses and it should be changed. Others trainers (such as Asmussen) think that changing it would make it easier and that would lessen the accomplishment of winning the TC.

I agree that changing it would lessen the accomplishment because it would make it easier. Despite that I still think they should probably add an extra week between races because I think the breed is more fragile than it used to be and I think the current schedule is simply too hard on the horses.

From a selfish point of view, I hope they don't change it. In terms of handicapping, I love it the way it is right now. The reason I like it so much is because it it so much different than any other races and you have to handicap it totally differently. Most people have no clue how to handicap these races and it gives a person who understands what it takes to win these races a huge advantage over the general public.

The simplest TC angle of them all is to bet against the winner of the first two legs in the Belmont. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure it won't work every time. I'll get burned eventually. I could even get burned this year. Maybe CC will win the Belmont. I don't think he will, but anything is possible. Like any other bet, I don't expect to win every time. However I think that betting against horses in the Belmont that are trying to win the TC is one of the best bets that there is. I'm not just saying that in hindsight since it's worked 12 times in a row. I was saying it over 20 years ago.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Field size isn't just an issue in the derby, more horses run in all three.


Lol

Oh, wow. Have tvg on, and Bob baffert just now on camera saying he wouldn't change anything about the races. He said if anything should be tweaked, its cutting the derby to 14 starters.
'Changing the dates would be bad'. ' I like the two weeks'.
Thanks, Bob for your timely comments.


Also, as the narrator said, 33% of horses who went to NY with a shot at it won the tc. Glad I caught this bit.

In this interview done yesterday, Baffert talks about why it's so hard to win the TC.

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/tr...romes-belmont/