Steve Haskin's latest: 'Leave Crown Alone'

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

How relevant is a 12f dirt race for 3 year olds or for that matter any horse? There is no chance that they will ever run it again and a vast majority werent bred to do it anyway so what does it prove?

Er...that only the best can do it? Drat, I hate it when that happens! The Mt. Everest analogy is so appropriate. If you want to climb a shorter mountain to make it easier, fine, but don't expect the same accolades for doing it.

If people want to run their horses in shorter races, do it, and maybe, just maybe, we would stop having full fields in the TC races--save them for the horses that can actually get the job done and if nobody enters, you'll get your wish for change. People were climbing over each other to get in the Derby and Preakness with a large number going to the Belmont this year. You can't have your prestigious cake and eat it too. The point is they should be one of the hardest if not the hardest things to do in this sport. We haven't had a TC winner in decades and I say good--if mediocrity is what they want to celebrate, then count me out. You want to be a champion? Run like one.

[letswastemoney]

You wouldn't be able to compare the races to past Triple Crown races.

A lot of the fun would be lost if you changed the distance

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

You wouldn't be able to compare the races to past Triple Crown races.

A lot of the fun would be lost if you changed the distance

You are aware that of the 11 TC winners, only the last three have won it under it's current format aren't you? Some winners won it when they had to run the Preakness a week after the Derby. I think one won the Preakness four days after the Derby. Some won it when the Belmont was only two weeks after the Preakness. Some won it when it was four weeks after the Belmont. Perhaps if you had given Smarty Jones or Real Quiet an additional week of rest before the Belmont, they too could have won it. Perhaps if you had made some of those that won the Belmont four weeks after the Preakness instead run it two weeks later, they wouldn't have won. It's sort of misleading to talk about all the tradition when it's already been changed several times and only the last three have won it the way it's currently set up.

It's still my contention that a shorter race is going to be harder to win. I believe that if the Derby were 9f, we'd have more horses that fit the conditions of the race and were logical contenders. This would be even more true for a 10f Belmont. In any race where you have more logical contenders, more legitimate threats, that race is going to be harder to win, not easier. It may be a little easier to run but harder to win because more horses are capable of winning and therefore you margin for error is much smaller. Personally, I'd much rather see the races become more of a combination of speed and stamina than what they have started to become lately and that's the best 9f outlasting the other 9f in a crawlfest to the finish. At the end of every Derby, you usually only have 1-2 horses that are still running at the end. In the Belmont, we are lucky to get one.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

You are aware that of the 11 TC winners, only the last three have won it under it's current format aren't you? Some winners won it when they had to run the Preakness a week after the Derby. I think one won the Preakness four days after the Derby. Some won it when the Belmont was only two weeks after the Preakness. Some won it when it was four weeks after the Belmont. Perhaps if you had given Smarty Jones or Real Quiet an additional week of rest before the Belmont, they too could have won it. Perhaps if you had made some of those that won the Belmont four weeks after the Preakness instead run it two weeks later, they wouldn't have won. It's sort of misleading to talk about all the tradition when it's already been changed several times and only the last three have won it the way it's currently set up.

It's still my contention that a shorter race is going to be harder to win. I believe that if the Derby were 9f, we'd have more horses that fit the conditions of the race and were logical contenders. This would be even more true for a 10f Belmont. In any race where you have more logical contenders, more legitimate threats, that race is going to be harder to win, not easier. It may be a little easier to run but harder to win because more horses are capable of winning and therefore you margin for error is much smaller. Personally, I'd much rather see the races become more of a combination of speed and stamina than what they have started to become lately and that's the best 9f outlasting the other 9f in a crawlfest to the finish. At the end of every Derby, you usually only have 1-2 horses that are still running at the end. In the Belmont, we are lucky to get one.

yes, it's true that there have been changes over the years...the preakness used to be before the derby-the derby used to be in mid-week. but the belmont has been run at 12f since 1926, so it's the other races that have changed more recently.
the argument isn't that it's been changed before-the argument for changing it from most seems to be to make it easier to win. everyone knows that most horses kept from winning the tc have been hamstrung by the belmont. thusly, if you change the belmont, you have more t.c. winners. yippee. making it easier, imo, is not a valid argument for change. after all, if it was easy, anyone could do it-it would no longer take a special horse. so what's the point in having it at all?

i agree with haskin. better to do without a tc winner than to dumb it down.

[Cannon Shell]

The only thing about the Triple Crown that should be changed is having the last race on a different network. The Triple Crown is the one enduring tradition of the sport that actually works and has gained in popularity.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The only thing about the Triple Crown that should be changed is having the last race on a different network. The Triple Crown is the one enduring tradition of the sport that actually works and has gained in popularity.

I don't think that's true. Gained in popularity among whom? Certainly not the general public. I'd bet that more than 75% of those that say they watch the TC don't know what the three distances are, don't know what the three tracks are, don't know how much time is between the three races, and couldn't name more than three of the previous TC winners. I'd bet that if you went to a racetrack or OTB, more would know those answers but still less than 50% of them would. I bet that if you asked the next 100 people you saw to name one TC winner, after Secretariat, you'd get as many Seabiscuit answers as any other horse. Today, you might get as many Rachel Alexandra answers as any other horse.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I don't think that's true. Gained in popularity among whom? Certainly not the general public. I'd bet that more than 75% of those that say they watch the TC don't know what the three distances are, don't know what the three tracks are, don't know how much time is between the three races, and couldn't name more than three of the previous TC winners. I'd bet that if you went to a racetrack or OTB, more would know those answers but still less than 50% of them would. I bet that if you asked the next 100 people you saw to name one TC winner, after Secretariat, you'd get as many Seabiscuit answers as any other horse. Today, you might get as many Rachel Alexandra answers as any other horse.

The Triple Crown has gained in popularity especially among the general public. Record attendance, record handle, increased media attention...

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The only thing about the Triple Crown that should be changed is having the last race on a different network. The Triple Crown is the one enduring tradition of the sport that actually works and has gained in popularity.

Endured since the last time they tweaked it. As KG has shown, the triple crown has been tweaked more than once. Why is it such a crime to tweak it now to go with the realities of horse racing today?

As far as popularity, handle and attendence why are you convinced that tweaking the triple crown would adversely affect it in those areas?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Endured since the last time they tweaked it. As KG has shown, the triple crown has been tweaked more than once. Why is it such a crime to tweak it now to go with the realities of horse racing today?

As far as popularity, handle and attendence why are you convinced that tweaking the triple crown would adversely affect it in those areas?

Dont break what dont need fixin'.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The only thing about the Triple Crown that should be changed is having the last race on a different network. The Triple Crown is the one enduring tradition of the sport that actually works and has gained in popularity.

Do you think that changing the Derby to 9f would make many of the new people that watch racing for the first time on Derby Day say "Well, I'm not watching that now?" How about the Preakness dropping over 30k in attendance because they don't allow the infield partying and drinking this year? The party is what brought many of the people, not the fact that the race was 9.5f. Do you think that if the Preakness was one week later, people wouldn't watch it anymore? The Belmont draws over 100k when a TC is on the line. It draws barely 70k when there's not. People are coming for the event, not because of the distance and conditions of the race. I guarantee you that the vast majority of people do not know the conditions of the races and wouldn't even notice if they were changed.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by cakes44

If I was in the cold streak he's in, I'd want some changes too.

I thought it, didn't say it. I do think there's some distress of having not won it speaking a bit here. I also think he should know better than to say what he did just given his own experiences. I enjoy him, but sometimes I get frustrated.

KG, when I almost divided a couple rather large posts into parts to better organize my thoughts and explain where you were wrong, I stopped, realizing I needed to talk myself down from the ledge of verbosity. Clearly nobody else was gonna do it, after many years of waiting for them to succeed. Believe me, I've spared the both of us and countless others. I agree with the Steves-- "that is all Ye know on earth and all ye need to know."

ETA: If I found something wise to say, I will, I just think what I was about to write/post would've really taken on way too much. It needs to simmer and if others answer you before I can process it, more power to'em. When in doubt, wait to post.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Do you think that changing the Derby to 9f would make many of the new people that watch racing for the first time on Derby Day say "Well, I'm not watching that now?" How about the Preakness dropping over 30k in attendance because they don't allow the infield partying and drinking this year? The party is what brought many of the people, not the fact that the race was 9.5f. Do you think that if the Preakness was one week later, people wouldn't watch it anymore? The Belmont draws over 100k when a TC is on the line. It draws barely 70k when there's not. People are coming for the event, not because of the distance and conditions of the race. I guarantee you that the vast majority of people do not know the conditions of the races and wouldn't even notice if they were changed.

Dont break what dont need fixin'. The TC has allure because it is hard to win.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, it's true that there have been changes over the years...the preakness used to be before the derby-the derby used to be in mid-week. but the belmont has been run at 12f since 1926, so it's the other races that have changed more recently.
the argument isn't that it's been changed before-the argument for changing it from most seems to be to make it easier to win. everyone knows that most horses kept from winning the tc have been hamstrung by the belmont. thusly, if you change the belmont, you have more t.c. winners. yippee. making it easier, imo, is not a valid argument for change. after all, if it was easy, anyone could do it-it would no longer take a special horse. so what's the point in having it at all?

i agree with haskin. better to do without a tc winner than to dumb it down.

Depends on whether you think it's easier to win. I think the 100m is a harder race to win than the 1500m when I'm watching track and field. Do you agree that more horses can handle 9f than 10f? Nowdays, you might only get a horse or two that can effectively handle the 10f. Don't you think that a race that has 6-7 horses that are capable of handling the distance effectively would make that race tougher to win than one where you only have 1-2? I really think it would make it even harder. Plus, adding a couple more weeks between each race and bringing back the TC bonus would encourage more trainers to run back their good horses in all three races. Perhaps if there were two more weeks between the Derby and Preakness, a bigger purse and the bonus system in place, Birdstone runs in the Preakness and then doesn't have the freshness advantage over a worn-down Smarty Jones.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Depends on whether you think it's easier to win. I think the 100m is a harder race to win than the 1500m when I'm watching track and field. Do you agree that more horses can handle 9f than 10f? Nowdays, you might only get a horse or two that can effectively handle the 10f. Don't you think that a race that has 6-7 horses that are capable of handling the distance effectively would make that race tougher to win than one where you only have 1-2? I really think it would make it even harder. Plus, adding a couple more weeks between each race and bringing back the TC bonus would encourage more trainers to run back their good horses in all three races. Perhaps if there were two more weeks between the Derby and Preakness, a bigger purse and the bonus system in place, Birdstone runs in the Preakness and then doesn't have the freshness advantage over a worn-down Smarty Jones.

the thing that stands out to me is that the argument, in general, is that horses can't finish the race. you said one or two are there at the end, dala said they 'stagger' home. so it seems that the main bone of contention is that the race is too long.
i personally see no compelling reason to change it. spread them out, change the distance-and quit calling themm the classics while you're at it. they would mean no more than any other race at that point.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

Er...that only the best can do it? Drat, I hate it when that happens! The Mt. Everest analogy is so appropriate. If you want to climb a shorter mountain to make it easier, fine, but don't expect the same accolades for doing it.
If people want to run their horses in shorter races, do it, and maybe, just maybe, we would stop having full fields in the TC races--save them for the horses that can actually get the job done and if nobody enters, you'll get your wish for change. People were climbing over each other to get in the Derby and Preakness with a large number going to the Belmont this year. You can't have your prestigious cake and eat it too. The point is they should be one of the hardest if not the hardest things to do in this sport. We haven't had a TC winner in decades and I say good--if mediocrity is what they want to celebrate, then count me out. You want to be a champion? Run like one.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

Er...that only the best can do it? Drat, I hate it when that happens! The Mt. Everest analogy is so appropriate. If you want to climb a shorter mountain to make it easier, fine, but don't expect the same accolades for doing it.

If people want to run their horses in shorter races, do it, and maybe, just maybe, we would stop having full fields in the TC races--save them for the horses that can actually get the job done and if nobody enters, you'll get your wish for change. People were climbing over each other to get in the Derby and Preakness with a large number going to the Belmont this year. You can't have your prestigious cake and eat it too. The point is they should be one of the hardest if not the hardest things to do in this sport. We haven't had a TC winner in decades and I say good--if mediocrity is what they want to celebrate, then count me out. You want to be a champion? Run like one.

Which brings us to the point...how do we define "best"? How does a horse run like a champion? By staggering an extra couple of furlongs less slow than the other staggering horses? If Rachel Alexandra runs in the belmont in two weeks and can't get the final 2 furlongs, does that suddenly mean that she isnt the best three year old in the country?

In the days when you had multiple races beyond 10f on dirt being run, the idea of a 12f belmont made sense. Now, how many dirt races are there beyond 10f on dirt? How many are run even at 10f these days? Regardless of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, as steve said the business of horse racing has changed.

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

In the days when you had multiple races beyond 10f on dirt being run, the idea of a 12f belmont made sense. Now, how many dirt races are there beyond 10f on dirt? How many are run even at 10f these days? Regardless of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, as steve said the business of horse racing has changed.

Very true. So when do you say the hell with tradition and change with the times?

The Brooklyn is a race that has gone from G1 at 1 1/2 to G 3 at 1 1/8 and back to a G3? at 1 1/2 since I have followed the sport. What is the purpose of the Brooklyn at that distance? I guess it is a prep for the idiotic new BC race, the Marathon. Some allowance horse will gain black type by winning it. It used to be part of the Handicap Triple Crown along with the Suburban and Met Mile, back in the day when horses carried weight.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Which brings us to the point...how do we define "best"? How does a horse run like a champion? By staggering an extra couple of furlongs less slow than the other staggering horses? If Rachel Alexandra runs in the belmont in two weeks and can't get the final 2 furlongs, does that suddenly mean that she isnt the best three year old in the country?

In the days when you had multiple races beyond 10f on dirt being run, the idea of a 12f belmont made sense. Now, how many dirt races are there beyond 10f on dirt? How many are run even at 10f these days? Regardless of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, as steve said the business of horse racing has changed.

so, since there aren't many, there shouldn't be any? sorry, i disagree. lukas' contention that all belmont winners are nowhere to be found, that they all end up in a foreign country and none are standing in lexington, couldn't be further from the truth. kind of hard to take anything he says about the belmont very seriously when he makes such ridiculous claims. as for staggering home-yes, some of the horses do, while others do not. the race is called a test-of course some will fail it.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Which brings us to the point...how do we define "best"? How does a horse run like a champion? By staggering an extra couple of furlongs less slow than the other staggering horses? If Rachel Alexandra runs in the belmont in two weeks and can't get the final 2 furlongs, does that suddenly mean that she isnt the best three year old in the country?

In the days when you had multiple races beyond 10f on dirt being run, the idea of a 12f belmont made sense. Now, how many dirt races are there beyond 10f on dirt? How many are run even at 10f these days? Regardless of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, as steve said the business of horse racing has changed.

I think that is why it makes sense to keep the Triple Crown the way it is. Some not so great horses have staggered home and won some very "big" races, but it will never happen in the Triple Crown because of the make-up of the series. I think this is a very good thing.

Why do you want to enable inferior horses to stand in the ranks of Affirmed?

Personally, if there is never another Triple Crown winner again, I'll be fine with it. I'm sure there will be more than enough thrilling races to make up for it.

As for your question regarding Rachel Alexandra - I don't think many felt less of Smarty Jones after the Belmont.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

I think that is why it makes sense to keep the Triple Crown the way it is. Some not so great horses have staggered home and won some very "big" races, but it will never happen in the Triple Crown because of the make-up of the series. I think this is a very good thing.

Why do you want to enable inferior horses to stand in the ranks of Affirmed?

Personally, if there is never another Triple Crown winner again, I'll be fine with it. I'm sure there will be more than enough thrilling races to make up for it.

As for your question regarding Rachel Alexandra - I don't think many felt less of Smarty Jones after the Belmont.

actually, i think he earned more respect from a lot of folks in that defeat than he had in any of his victories.