a trend toward 2:30 and slower?

[sbcaris]

The last 4 years of Belmont winners put up times of 2:30 or slower whereas in the decades before the above the average winning Belmont stakes time was around 2:28.

Is the breed getting slower at longer distances? The above may be part of a new trend. Anyway in the last 4 years none of the horses in the Belmont stakes could run faster than 2:30.

[classhandicapper]

It's also possible that the track is deeper now than it was years ago. I remember checking the track depth chart years ago looking for evidence the rail might be deeper than the outside paths before the races even started. I don't have any stats, but I think it's deeper now than it used to be - probably due to safety concerns.

[Augenj]

It's also possible that the track is deeper now than it was years ago. I remember checking the track depth chart years ago looking for evidence the rail might be deeper than the outside paths before the races even started. I don't have any stats, but I think it's deeper now than it used to be - probably due to safety concerns.
I think so too. Wish we had communications with the track superintendent or whatever he's called. Maybe he's on the board? :)

[clocker7]

Imo it's a combination of genetic changes, different track maintenance, and training modification.

Remember, Seattle Slew ran a 2:29 3/5 on a very muddy track. So it's not the track alone that determines things.

I believe in the power of selective breeding. As history shows, the ability for breeders to impact things in only a few generations--by using a handful of popular stallions--is a fact.

It took only about 20 years for American horses to lose the ability to run 4 mile heats credibly. That replicated what happened in Britain a few decades beforehand. And so it has gone since races kept getting shorter.

If I had a jillion dollars, I would spend millions on it running experiments at 2, 3, 4 miles and in heat races. Just to see what times could be achieved on par tracks. And to see what is left in the genetic residue.

[Some_One]

The last 4 years of Belmont winners put up times of 2:30 or slower whereas in the decades before the above the average winning Belmont stakes time was around 2:28.

Is the breed getting slower at longer distances? The above may be part of a new trend. Anyway in the last 4 years none of the horses in the Belmont stakes could run faster than 2:30.

Sample size

[burnsy]

Imo it's a combination of genetic changes, different track maintenance, and training modification.

Remember, Seattle Slew ran a 2:29 3/5 on a very muddy track. So it's not the track alone that determines things.

I believe in the power of selective breeding. As history shows, the ability for breeders to impact things in only a few generations--by using a handful of popular stallions--is a fact.

It took only about 20 years for American horses to lose the ability to run 4 mile heats credibly. That replicated what happened in Britain a few decades beforehand. And so it has gone since races kept getting shorter.

If I had a jillion dollars, I would spend millions on it running experiments at 2, 3, 4 miles and in heat races. Just to see what times could be achieved on par tracks. And to see what is left in the genetic residue.

I think this is a great point. This race has become the most unpredictable. There's been some strange results without the 20 horse field like the derby has. If Chrome does run sub par.......this will be the one....most times this is the killer of triple crown dreams. Often its bombs away too. I wonder if it could be proven that genetically only up to 3 of them or so (per field) can even make it. This makes it a crap shoot because the speed in the breed can handle up to 10 furlongs at best. Many can't even do that. There are probably only a few in each crop that can even run a decent 1 and 1/2. Breeding may be most important for this leg compared to any other. No one races on dirt at 12 furlongs. Just a theory (can't be proven) without that study of course but this distance has produced strange results for seemingly superior horses getting nipped or being total no shows. If he only has that one move, it has not been tested yet, a grinder could catch him late. Those are the ones where distance is constant velocity carried a long way. Breeding. The horse may look like a closer but at this distance they are actually running evenly while others eventually tire. That's one long ass lap around seeing that no one does it anymore.

[goatchaser]

I think this is a great point. This race has become the most unpredictable. There's been some strange results without the 20 horse field like the derby has. If Chrome does run sub par.......this will be the one....most times this is the killer of triple crown dreams. Often its bombs away too. I wonder if it could be proven that genetically only up to 3 of them or so (per field) can even make it. This makes it a crap shoot because the speed in the breed can handle up to 10 furlongs at best. Many can't even do that. There are probably only a few in each crop that can even run a decent 1 and 1/2. Breeding may be most important for this leg compared to any other. No one races on dirt at 12 furlongs. Just a theory (can't be proven) without that study of course but this distance has produced strange results for seemingly superior horses getting nipped or being total no shows. If he only has that one move, it has not been tested yet, a grinder could catch him late. Those are the ones where distance is constant velocity carried a long way. Breeding. The horse may look like a closer but at this distance they are actually running evenly while others eventually tire. That's one long ass lap around seeing that no one does it anymore.I think it has nothing to do with Genetics. It has to do with Money. Put a 2 Million Dollor Purse on 2 mile race or any long distance and you will see Trainers/ Owners training their horses differently.

[clocker7]

Present day horses do not have the stamina or recovery times that older horses had, period. Genetics are the be-all and end-all of this game, that is without dispute.

I know that it is boring for people to read history. But if fans should be forced to read anything--in order to grasp how much things were so much different--it should be this paragraph courtesy the tbheritage site:

"At age five he (Parole) won the Cups at Baltimore, Saratoga, and Monmouth. In the fall Lorillard shipped him to England with Duke of Magenta, intending to use him as a trial horse for the younger rising star, but Duke of Magenta fell ill on arrival, and Parole was brought out to campaign. At age six, in 1879, he won the Newmarket Handicap, defeating the great cup horse, Isonomy. He went on to win Epsom's 1-1/2 mile City and Suburban Handicap, and the following day, carrying 124 pounds, the Great Metropolitan Handicap over 2-1/4 miles. A few weeks later he ran fourth in the Chester Cup (won by Reefer), and the next day won the Great Cheshire Stakes, carrying 134 pounds. His last race of the season was the Epsom Gold Cup, which he won."

It gives you an idea of how American horses--even ones that had already abandoned the heat racing game, for the most part--were able to amaze English fans that had seen their own steeds lose their ability to perform such feats of endurance.

http://www.tbheritage.com/Portraits/Leamington.html#Parole

[goatchaser]

I really can't challenge what you say. But I still stand buy what I said.

[Mad Scientist]

Which to put it into perspective. 2:30 is 30 lengths slower than Secretariats track record.

[nijinski]

Which to put it into perspective. 2:30 is 30 lengths slower than Secretariats track record.

Which is close to what the remaining horses in his Belmont ran then . :)

[Mad Scientist]

Well yeah that's true.

[OTM Al]

The last 4 years of Belmont winners put up times of 2:30 or slower whereas in the decades before the above the average winning Belmont stakes time was around 2:28.

Is the breed getting slower at longer distances? The above may be part of a new trend. Anyway in the last 4 years none of the horses in the Belmont stakes could run faster than 2:30.

Gallant Fox 2:31 3/5
Omaha 2:30 2/5
Whirlaway 2:31
Assault 2:30 4/5

Those are 4 of the first 5 TC winners with Belmont Stakes at 12f

[clocker7]

Gallant Fox ran on a track listed as good, and Omaha as sloppy. Assault only had 4 weeks total between the KD and the Belmont, having only a week to get to Pimilco. Whirlaway ran an extra race (in a field that included Mioland) in between.