Current TC Spacing Dates Back to 1969

[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 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.

[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 Sightseek

The analysis of both trips.

I discussed the specifics of both trips. Tell me what I said that was wrong. Where was Afleet Alex's big trouble in the Derby? Was he too far back? Was he too close? Did he ever take up? How did he have a bad trip?

For Smarty, how is having a clear lead in :48 3/5 in a grade I a terrible trip? Sure the race sped up the next half mile and he was getting some pressure, but what would you expect? Would you expect the horse to have an uncontested lead in really slow fractions in that race?

That second half-mile hurt Smarty Jones. There is no question about it. If he got no pressure that second half-mile, I'm sure he would have won the race. But that doesn't contradict what I've been saying. I've been saying that the horse who wins the first two legs will almost always regress substantially in the Belmont. How much they will regress is the question. Smarty Jones won the Preakness by 10 lengths. He could regress by 5 lengths and probably still win the Belmont. I think he ended up regressing by close to 10 lengths. Part of it was because of that second half-mile. If they totally left him alone and he runs the mile in 1:36 and change, he probably wins the race by a length or two. But even if that would have happened, I would still argue that the horse regressed substantially. It would have been one of those cases where he didn't bring his "A" game but still won because he was so much better than the rest of those horses. I'm not big on speed figures but I bet the figures show that he regressed substantially, even if you assume that he won the race by a length.

[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.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

I'm having a hard time thinking of a scenario, at least a plausible one, in which chrome loses. This is barring injury, of course.

Maybe Social Inclusion loves the track and runs off, but that's about it. The field is uninspiring, and Tonalist is not much.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I'm having a hard time thinking of a scenario, at least a plausible one, in which chrome loses. This is barring injury, of course.

Maybe Social Inclusion loves the track and runs off, but that's about it. The field is uninspiring, and Tonalist is not much.

We've seen horses that were much more dominant in the first two legs get beat in the Belmont. For the most part I would say that practically every horse that wins the first two legs has looked on paper like they would probably win the Belmont.

I don't see Social Inclusion winning. He may not even run. If you like Social Inclusion and CC, you should probably bet them both right now. You can get +110 on CC right now and if he scratches you get a refund. If you think he is practically a cinch, then getting almost 6-5 is a great bet. You can get 25-1 on Social Inclusion right now and both CC and SC have to run or you get a refund.

I thought Tonalist's last race was very impressive. Granted it was in the slop and there is always the chance that the slop made him look better than he is. I loved the way the horse finished. He looks like he may be able to handle the distance.

And I think Wicked Strong, Commanding Curve, and Ride on Curlin are all legitimate contenders. Even a few of the others have an outside shot. There have actually been plenty of times where I was confident that a horse going for the TC would lose but I still lost because I failed to come up with the winner. I think this time my main bet will just be the "No" bet that Dunbar had posted and try to see if I can find it at around even money or -110. I'd probably even lay -120. There is another bet offered where you can bet against CC and get +180 if he gets beat by over 1 1/2 lengths. I will probably make that bet too.

I didn't see any chinks in CC's armor after the SA Derby. He didn't get tired in the least bit and I thought he would be able to handle the 1 1/4 miles in the Ky Derby. But in the Ky Derby I thought he got a little tired at the end. I don't think he looks like he wants to run much past 1 1/4 miles. On the other hand, we don't know if anyone else wants to either.

Anyway, the combination of me thinking that CC will have some trouble with the distance coupled with my belief he will regress because he ran so hard in the first two legs, makes me think he is extremely vulnerable.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

We've seen horses that were much more dominant in the first two legs get beat in the Belmont. For the most part I would say that practically every horse that wins the first two legs has looked on paper like they would probably win the Belmont.

I don't see Social Inclusion winning. He may not even run. If you like Social Inclusion and CC, you should probably bet them both right now. You can get +110 on CC right now and if he scratches you get a refund. If you think he is practically a cinch, then getting almost 6-5 is a great bet. You can get 25-1 on Social Inclusion right now and both CC and SC have to run or you get a refund.

I thought Tonalist's last race was very impressive. Granted it was in the slop and there is always the chance that the slop made him look better than he is. I loved the way the horse finished. He looks like he may be able to handle the distance.

And I think Wicked Strong, Commanding Curve, and Ride on Curlin are all legitimate contenders. Even a few of the others have an outside shot. There have actually been plenty of times where I was confident that a horse going for the TC would lose but I still lost because I failed to come up with the winner. I think this time my main bet will just be the "No" bet that Dunbar had posted and try to see if I can find it at around even money or -110. I'd probably even lay -120. There is another bet offered where you can bet against CC and get +180 if he gets beat by over 1 1/2 lengths. I will probably make that bet too.

I didn't see any chinks in CC's armor after the SA Derby. He didn't get tired in the least bit and I thought he would be able to handle the 1 1/4 miles in the Ky Derby. But in the Ky Derby I thought he got a little tired at the end. I don't think he looks like he wants to run much past 1 1/4 miles. On the other hand, we don't know if anyone else wants to either.

Anyway, the combination of me thinking that CC will have some trouble with the distance coupled with my belief he will regress because he ran so hard in the first two legs, makes me think he is extremely vulnerable.

I disagree. Most of the horses trying for the crown were very suspect. Easy goer was a Belmont freak. Silver charm we've already agreed on. Charismatic was very shaky. Same with War Emblem. Big Brown looked like a horse ready to break down, at least to me. SJ and IHA both looked like cinches.

This field looks really suspect, I don't see Tonalist getting the distance and chrome has shown nothing to indicate he has stamina issues against these types.

I think this race is a tailor made setup for him.

[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/

[Rudeboyelvis]

Not to rip the scab off of a never-healing wound, but Kenny McPeek opined on twitter yesterday that perhaps the severe dehydration that these horses go through 3 times in 5 weeks is affecting their ability to run well in the Belmont.


Kenny McPeek ‏@KennyMcPeek

3 shots of Lasix over 5 weeks, add travel. Coincidence TC hasn't been won since Lasix? Dehydration? Slew, Secretariat didn't use #Myopinion

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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/

of course it's hard to win. everyone knows that.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

of course it's hard to win. everyone knows that.

We know it's hard to win. The debate was over what makes it so hard to win. In the article, Baffert and Gary Young talk about what makes it so hard to win.