Will we ever see another Triple Crown Winner?

[Cajungator26]

I don't think that horses like Alex should count...

IMO, only the horses that won the Derby and the Preakness should be listed. In reality, those were the only ones that had a shot at the Triple Crown to begin with.

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I don't think that horses like Alex should count...

IMO, only the horses that won the Derby and the Preakness should be listed. In reality, those were the only ones that had a shot at the Triple Crown to begin with.

I think that's a good pt. so at that pt. we would be down to simply comparing the Belmont fields of those who won TC vs Belmont fields of those who had 2 but failed at Bel. I guess.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by easy goer

I think that's a good pt. so at that pt. we would be down to simply comparing the Belmont fields of those who won TC vs Belmont fields of those who had 2 but failed at Bel. I guess.

That doesn't seem like a good point to me at all.
A full field of 20 in the Derby COULD certainly prevent a horse from winning the Derby compared to say the average field size for the Derby in the 1940s. It doesn't really matter which leg they lose, because a large field COULD be responsible for them losing any of the three races. Horses that win the Derby and Preakness were not actually any closer to the TC than horses that win two of the other races. It may seem that way because they were live going into the final leg, but that doesn't mean they were actually closer.

[randallscott35]

You'll see one in the next 3 years.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by miraja2

That doesn't seem like a good point to me at all.
A full field of 20 in the Derby COULD certainly prevent a horse from winning the Derby compared to say the average field size for the Derby in the 1940s. It doesn't really matter which leg they lose, because a large field COULD be responsible for them losing any of the three races. Horses that win the Derby and Preakness were not actually any closer to the TC than horses that win two of the other races. It may seem that way because they were live going into the final leg, but that doesn't mean they were actually closer.

How does this make any sense? If a horse wins the Kentucky Derby, then he automatically has a chance to go on for the chance to win the Triple Crown. If he loses the Derby (like Alex did), then he has no chance to win the Triple Crown.

I see what you're saying about 2 legs being 2 legs, but a horse has to be live out of the Derby for them to even have a chance at winning the whole thing. That's not the case if they only win the Preakness and Belmont.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

but a horse has to be live out of the Derby for them to even have a chance at winning the whole thing.

Oh but if they lose the Preakness, that is okay?
Thay have to win all 3 races. The original poster's question is about how the number of horses competing in ALL 3 races affects any individual horse's chances of winning the TC. It doesn't matter which race it is. Just because the Derby is first does not make it ANY more important in the TC series. Each race is 33.3333333333% of the whole thing.
Facing a large field in the Derby could prevent a horse from winning the TC for exactly the same reasons that it could in either of the other races.
Afleet Alex was just as close to winning the TC as Funny Cide was. The race he lost came first.....but that is completely meaningless.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Oh but if they lose the Preakness, that is okay?
Thay have to win all 3 races. The original poster's question is about how the number of horses competing in ALL 3 races affects any individual horse's chances of winning the TC. It doesn't matter which race it is. Just because the Derby is first does not make it ANY more important in the TC series. Each race is 33.3333333333% of the whole thing.
Facing a large field in the Derby could prevent a horse from winning the TC for exactly the same reasons that it could in either of the other races.
Afleet Alex was just as close to winning the TC as Funny Cide was. The race he lost came first.....but that is completely meaningless.

I'm not arguing about which 2 of the 3 were most important or that the percentages are distributed any differently than what you are saying. Funny Cide was in contention for it BECAUSE he won the first leg (as well as the 2nd.) Afleet Alex was not. If the Preakness or Belmont was 1st, I'd say the same thing.

As for facing a large field, I agree completely with you. I think it's much more difficult nowadays to win the Derby with a 20 horse field than it was when they were facing smaller fields.

[miraja2]

Yes but since the question was about winning the entire TC it only makes sense mathematically to treat all 3 races equally. Your suggestion that ONLY horses that won the Derby and Preakness should be considered makes no sense mathematically since the large fields in THOSE races are just as likely to prevent a horse from winning the TC as a large field in the Belmont.