Quote:
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.
06-01-2014, 02:21 PM
Threaded Mode