The Triple Crown: A Modest Proposal

[bill1951]

If forty years pass without any horse winning the Triple Crown, then does the Triple Crown still exist? If we set criteria for a horse to prove that he is one of the best in history, and no horse is good enough to meet the criteria, then arguably the criteria has become outdated and irrelevant.

This leads into the inevitable calls for change that will soon be aimed at the Triple Crown if no horse can win it anymore as it exists. It is much too valuable for racing to just dispose of it. The racing establishment will seek ways to make the Crown attainable again. The first suggestion that will arise from almost everyone is that the mile and a half race be eliminated in favor of a shorter distance.

There is a lot of merit to this idea. Since thoroughbreds are never called on during their racing careers to run a mile and half on dirt anymore, why should it be the measure of a great horse that he can win a race of that distance.

There would be a lot of opposition to this break with tradition and I would be in full sympathy with it. If a horse can win at distances of a mile and three sixteenths and a mile and a half then he is a very special horse. But this would not provide any more winners of the Triple Crown.

This would be a big difficulty for Belmont too. I don't think that a mile and three eights would be an acceptable alternative and Belmont never runs dirt races at this distance. I believe that most would want the three races to be at different distances, but even if a second mile and a quarter race were acceptable, Belmont has a very queer start to the few mile and a quarter dirt races that are run there in a year.

A possible answer came to me when I was reading about the opposition to moving the Metropolitan Mile from its traditional Memorial Day running to Belmont Stakes day. The "Met" mile is considered to be one of the most prestigious races for a horse to win if he wants to go into retirement with a very healthy stud fee. I presume that this is largely because its distance of a one turn flat mile makes into something like a test in a horse for near-sprinter speed in a racing era where speed has become a much valued asset. At the same time the one mile distance protects a horse with "cheap" speed from jumping out and speed-popping a field of horses when they weren't expecting it. Stamina is needed.

So, there it is, a simple proposal that keeps the three races on the same schedule at the same tracks, with the last distance of the Belmont still as unique as it has always been. And, who knows, every ten or fifteen years a horse might sweep all the races and earn the Triple Crown.

[tucker6]

what are you proposing??

[rastajenk]

I think he's saying make the Belmont an 8f affair.

[BettinBilly]

Devil's Advocate;

If you make the Belmont shorter so that it is more "Achievable" for a horse to win the Triple Crown, then you are modifying the series and changing the race entirely. The old winners will be on a different platform than the new winners. Some would say the new distances are too easy and the Crown no longer has the status that it used to have, and that the legacy that was the Triple Crown has then been discontinued. The new series is something entirely different.

I think a more reasonable argument could be made that to win the Triple Crown, contending horses must run all three races. You may not skip the Preakness and then enter the Belmont.

[bill1951]

Sorry if unclear. Proposal to make the third race of the Crown the flat one-turn mile at Belmont. The same as the Metropolitan Mile, a Grade 1 race that is greatly respected and is now more relevant to today's racehorses.

I'm not wedded to the idea and don't expect many people to agree. It seems clear that if no horse can meet the Triple Crown criteria in forty years then people are going to start proposing changes. This change just occurred to me. Happy to listen to other proposals or criticisms. But don't you agree that if no horse can win it in forty years (yes, we have a few years to go), then it is no longer a good measurement of the talent of today's racehorse?

Although I was an Easy Goer fan, clearly the better horse at any distance except one and a half miles was Sunday Silence. He should have been a Triple Crown winner. Neither horse ever raced a mile and a half again, mainly because there are no other Grade 1 dirt stakes in the country at that distance.

[Redboard]

I would like to see something done and I believe that your idea would be worth trying, but I’m not sure shortening the race would help much. I would rather see the Belmont pushed back two weeks. This would prevent the Birdstones and Empire Makers of the world from skipping the Preakness and being “fresh” for the Belmont. If there were five weeks between the Preakness and Belmont, the connections wouldn’t rest their derby runner seven weeks.
Historically it would not be inconsistent because the dates of the Preakness and Belmont have been moved.

[clocker7]

In the BloodHorse article linked to in another thread, it mentioned that track officials have been in contact to discuss spacing the races a little wider.

I'd be in favor of it. For most of the winners of the TC, it was never a set deal like it is now. And it wouldn't cheapen the endurance standard that is now required. Granted, it would lessen the need for wheel-back ability, but that quality is pretty far down the list for traits that I demand for such an elite champion.

[RacingFan1992]

If anything they should move the Preakness so it is a week after the Kentucky Derby so you have a months rest for the Belmont. People on here might think it is ludicrous but from 1930-1946 the Preakness was run a week after the Derby and we had 6 TC winners. In 1948, the Preakness was moved back a week and a 25 year long drought occurred. Only 4 horses have done the Derby 2 weeks Preakness 3 weeks Belmont. To alter the series says "We are tired of this and let's get something new." DO NOT CHANGE THE TRIPLE CROWN!!!!!

[SecretAgentMan]

I think that in order to run in Belnont, last of the TC races, you need to run in the derby & Preakness........none of that skipping the Preakness to be fresh for Belmont.

Does anyone have information in all 11 triple crown winner whether they raced against fresh horses skipping the Preakness like we have seen past 20 years or have the horses run in all 3 races back in those years where we had a triple crown winner?

[BlueChip@DRF]

Better yet, instead of distance change, just finish in the top three in all three races and you can claim the triple crown. Close enough, right?

[RacingFan1992]

I think that in order to run in Belnont, last of the TC races, you need to run in the derby & Preakness........none of that skipping the Preakness to be fresh for Belmont.

Does anyone have information in all 11 triple crown winner whether they raced against fresh horses skipping the Preakness like we have seen past 20 years or have the horses run in all 3 races back in those years where we had a triple crown winner?

One of the biggest examples of a horse running against fresh horses and a rivalry was Affirmed. He had Alydar nipping at his heals plus he had a half dozen horses that were different int the Preakness and Belmont.

[BlueChip@DRF]

One of the biggest examples of a horse running against fresh horses and a rivalry was Affirmed. He had Alydar nipping at his heals plus he had a half dozen horses that were different int the Preakness and Belmont.

Only 5 entries in that Belmont. Those other three were vastly inferior to the top two.

[SecretAgentMan]

One of the biggest examples of a horse running against fresh horses and a rivalry was Affirmed. He had Alydar nipping at his heals plus he had a half dozen horses that were different int the Preakness and Belmont.


Ah.....good to know! Then there's no reason to change anything.

[dilanesp]

I don't think the Triple Crown matters.

If no horse ever wins it, no horse ever wins it. The reasons why it might be more difficult to win are pretty well documented, and obviously any incentive to win the TC hasn't reversed any of those trends. (It could also just be bad luck. Real Quiet, after all, almost won it, and a number of the horses who didn't win it finished 2nd in the Belmont and would have won it had one other horse not been entered.)

If a horse does win it, most likely the horse gets swallowed up by the parasites in the breeding industry and never runs again. (I so wanted Funny Cide to win it....) But if the horse does run a few more times, it will give the same boost to racing that Cigar or Zenyatta gave it-- we get some press and headlines, a few nice crowds at racetracks, and then it's back to normal.

So there's no reason to tinker with it, or even worry about it. It just has nothing to do with the economic future of the sport. (The only changes I could see making would involve safety, such as limiting the Derby field further so we never get a 9 horse pileup on the clubhouse turn.)

[Rex Phinney]

No way put a mile race into the triple crown series.

It's fine how it is, I think people discount the chase of the triple crown, the fact that it has been 36 years since someone won is what makes it such a big deal. To the most casual of fans, if California Chrome wins this year, alot of them will not care so much about these races next year.

[Smarty Cide]

I wanna see a quintuple crown derby, preakness, belmont, haskell, travers


chromeo can do it

[wiffleball whizz]

Is it me or has the Belmont Made a huge reassurance in the last few years....

Seems like it's getting more and more popular...

[mostpost]

There are two topics here. One is the distance of the races. Two is the intervals between the races. Both of those have changed many times over the years.

The Kentucky Derby was run at a mile and a half for twenty years before it was changed to a mile and a quarter. The Preakness has been run at a mile, a mile and a sixteenth, a mile and an eighth. a mile and three sixteenths. a mile and a quarter and a mile and a half. The Belmont has been contested at a mile and an eighth, a mile and a quarter, a mile and three eighths a mile and a half and a mile and five eighths.

While there were many changes to the distances of the three races, none has occurred in the last eighty-eight years so I think we should leave that alone.

There have been a lot of changes to the interval between the races. The current interval-best I can determine-has been in effect since 1969. Before that it was all over the place. Sir Barton, the first Triple Crown winner, won the Preakness four days after winning the Kentucky Derby; then won the Belmont four weeks later. Gallant Fox won the Preakness before winning the Derby.

Omaha, War Admiral and Assault had one week and three week intervals between Triple Crown races. Citation had a rest of two weeks between the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness. He then had a four week respite until the Belmont Stakes.

In the fifties in was generally six weeks from the Derby to the Belmont with the intervals sometimes being three and three and sometimes two and four.
But in the sixties there at least a couple of years when the Preakness followed two weeks after the Derby and the Belmont was a mere two weeks further down the road.

I typed all of that just so I could say we should not change either the distance of any of the races nor the intervals between them. I especially think changing the Belmont to a one mile race is a terrible idea.

Another bad idea is to allow a horse to enter the Belmont only if he has raced in the Derby and the Preakness. The idea of winning the Triple Crown is that it is supposed to be hard.

[mostpost]

I wanna see a quintuple crown derby, preakness, belmont, haskell, travers


chromeo can do it
No horse has ever won the Triple Crown and the Travers, although Affirmed did finish first in his Travers, but was disqualified for interfering with Alydar on the turn.

[tucker6]

There are two topics here. One is the distance of the races. Two is the intervals between the races. Both of those have changed many times over the years.

The Kentucky Derby was run at a mile and a half for twenty years before it was changed to a mile and a quarter. The Preakness has been run at a mile, a mile and a sixteenth, a mile and an eighth. a mile and three sixteenths. a mile and a quarter and a mile and a half. The Belmont has been contested at a mile and an eighth, a mile and a quarter, a mile and three eighths a mile and a half and a mile and five eighths.

While there were many changes to the distances of the three races, none has occurred in the last eighty-eight years so I think we should leave that alone.

There have been a lot of changes to the interval between the races. The current interval-best I can determine-has been in effect since 1969. Before that it was all over the place. Sir Barton, the first Triple Crown winner, won the Preakness four days after winning the Kentucky Derby; then won the Belmont four weeks later. Gallant Fox won the Preakness before winning the Derby.

Omaha, War Admiral and Assault had one week and three week intervals between Triple Crown races. Citation had a rest of two weeks between the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness. He then had a four week respite until the Belmont Stakes.

In the fifties in was generally six weeks from the Derby to the Belmont with the intervals sometimes being three and three and sometimes two and four.
But in the sixties there at least a couple of years when the Preakness followed two weeks after the Derby and the Belmont was a mere two weeks further down the road.

I typed all of that just so I could say we should not change either the distance of any of the races nor the intervals between them. I especially think changing the Belmont to a one mile race is a terrible idea.

Another bad idea is to allow a horse to enter the Belmont only if he has raced in the Derby and the Preakness. The idea of winning the Triple Crown is that it is supposed to be hard.
I concur, although if I had to choose, it would be to change intervals and not distances.

[BettinBilly]

No horse has ever won the Triple Crown and the Travers, although Affirmed did finish first in his Travers, but was disqualified for interfering with Alydar on the turn.

I remember that well. I'm currently reading "Dual for the Crown" re: Alydar and Affirmed by Carrol and Rossner. Great rivalry as you know. Good read.

[NY BRED]

As Marvin and Tammi sang in 1968:

"Ain't nothing like the real thing"

4getaboutit

:cool:

[RacingFan1992]

No horse has ever won the Triple Crown and the Travers, although Affirmed did finish first in his Travers, but was disqualified for interfering with Alydar on the turn.

That is not true. Whirlaway won the Triple Crown and the Traverse in 1941.

[taxicab]

I wanna see a quintuple crown derby, preakness, belmont, haskell, travers


chromeo can do it

No Haskell or Travers for Chrome.
Win or lose he gets a break after the Belmont.

[mostpost]

That is not true. Whirlaway won the Triple Crown and the Traverse in 1941.
You are correct. I was looking at Whirlaway's PPs in the DRF book "Champions" and I misread them. And unlike nowadays, Whirlaway raced four times between the Belmont and the Travers,

[Quesmark]

No Triple Crown winner since 1978?
So what,when's the last time the Chicago Cubs won a World Series...

[Skanoochies]

Horses must run in the Derby (by Yum Brands LMAO) and the Preakness to be able to run in the Belmont? I call B.S.
What about late bloomers? An owner has a horse that got a late start
missed the Derby and Preakness then runs a smasher in the Peter Pan or later race should have every right to enter his horse in the Belmont. He may be a budding super star. :jump:

[OntheRail]

Only thing I'd consider... would be to limit the Derby to a field of 16 starters.
No other changes to the Crown races.

[pupatariat]

Or perhaps 14 would be even a better limit than 16 and get rid of the auxiliary gate. At least half the Derby field has zero chance of winning anyway.

[BlueChip@DRF]

No way put a mile race into the triple crown series.

It's fine how it is, I think people discount the chase of the triple crown, the fact that it has been 36 years since someone won is what makes it such a big deal. To the most casual of fans, if California Chrome wins this year, alot of them will not care so much about these races next year.

It could be a Sprint Crown - 6F@SA, 7F@FG(?), 8F@BEL(1-turn mile)

[RacingFan1992]

It could be a Sprint Crown - 6F@SA, 7F@FG(?), 8F@BEL(1-turn mile)

I would love to see the exact opposite happen. A Marathon Triple Crown would be amazing to see. 1 3/4, 1 1/2, and 2 miles. Do something like the 1 1/2 Brooklyn Handicap, 1 3/4 Breeders Cup Marathon and the 2 mile Jockey Club Gold Cup. Offer large prizes for these races.

Triple Crown
Kentucky Derby (1 1/4)
Preakness Stakes (1 3/16)
Belmont Stakes (1 1/2)

New York Filly Triple Tiara
Acorn Stakes (1 Mile)
Coaching Club American Oaks (1 1/8)
Alabama Stakes (1 1/4)

American Filly Triple Tiara
Kentucky Oaks (1 1/8)
Black-Eyed Susan Stakes (1 1/8)
Mother Goose Stakes (1 1/16)

New York Handicap Triple
Metropolitan Handicap (1 Mile)
Brooklyn Handicap (1 1/2)
Suburban Handicap (1 1/8)

Strub Series
Malibu Stakes (7/8 Mile)
San Fernando Stakes (1 1/16) Discontinued
Strub Stakes (1 1/8)

I think we need to keep our current triples in good standing before we put another Triple on the scene.

[BlueChip@DRF]

What about a Turf Championship? It might attract more foreign horses from overseas.

[RacingFan1992]

Arlington Millions Stakes (10f), Man O' War Stakes (11f), and Sword Dancer Invitational (12f) sound good for a Turf Triple Crown.

[SecretAgentMan]

Arlington Millions Stakes (10f), Man O' War Stakes (11f), and Sword Dancer Invitational (12f) sound good for a Turf Triple Crown.


I would love to see a triple crown for turf racing............

[Skanoochies]

I believe any triple turf crown should include Woodbine for sure. :ThmbUp:

[SecretAgentMan]

Woodbine is close by so the Woodbine track would be a good idea.

What months would the turf triple crown be raced in? Reason I'm asking is, Barbaro could have possibly won both if he could have stayed healthy, altho you are asking a whole lot from a horse winning 6 big races.

If it was possible, would they have the same 5 weeks in between races or would a 3 to 4 week break between each race be better for the turf triple crown.

[MadWorld]

Only thing I'd consider... would be to limit the Derby to a field of 16 starters.
No other changes to the Crown races.

This seems like the better answer. No way you would get Churchill to do it but I don't think it is a coincidence there has been a Triple Crown drought as the field sizes for all the Triple Crown races have risen dramatically.

The last 4 Triple Crown winners faced an average of 9 horses, now a horse has to face double that.

Even the Preakness and Belmont Fields are much deeper than they were before.

Look to limit field sizes before changing the structure of the Triple Crown. It is also probably not wise to redo the events that bring by far the most attention to the sport

[Tom]

Maybe we need to breed better horses instead of changing the races.
OR get better trainers.
An old time 16% trainer probably was a better bet than today's 40% trainers with shotgun stables - throw enough horses at the triple crown and you will win a few in spite of your training ability.

[RacingFan1992]

I believe any triple turf crown should include Woodbine for sure. :ThmbUp:
I never thought of Woodbine. I found there is a series for grass horses. It is called the "Grand Slam of Grass" which consists of the Colonial Turf Cup, Virginia Derby, Secretariat Stakes and the Breeders Cup Turf.

So we have the:
American Classic Triple Crown
New York Filly Triple Tiara
American Filly Triple Tiara
New York Handicap Triple
Strub Series (defunct)
Grand Slam of Grass
Now all we need is a sprint and marathon triple.

[RacingFan1992]

American Championship Racing Series

Donn-1 1/8-Dirt-Gulfstream-Grade 1-4 yr+

Santa Anita Handicap-1 1/4-Dirt-Santa Anita-Grade 1-4 yr+

Oaklawn Handicap-1 1/8-Dirt-Oaklawn-Grade 2-4 yr+

Pimlico Special-1 3/16-Dirt-Pimlico-Grade NA-3 yr+

Nassau County Handicap-1 1/8-Dirt-Belmont-Grade NA-3 yr+

Hollywood Gold Cup-1 1/4-Dirt-Hollywood Park-Grade 1-3 yr+

Pacific Classic-1 1/4-Poly Track-Del Mar-Grade 1-3 yr+

Philip H. Iselin-1 1/8-Dirt-Monmouth-Grade 3-3 yr+

Woodward-1 1/8-Dirt-Saratoga-Grade 1-3 yr+

To cap off the series is the Breeders Cup Classic.

I would love to see this series come back into play.
I found an article if anyone is interested.
http://www.drf.com/news/championship-series-worthy-reviving

[nearco]

I never thought of Woodbine. I found there is a series for grass horses. It is called the "Grand Slam of Grass" which consists of the Colonial Turf Cup, Virginia Derby, Secretariat Stakes and the Breeders Cup Turf.



The new Belmont Derby over 10f on Jul 5th for a $1.25m purse is the new king daddy of 3yo turf races in the US.
With a purse that size there are expected to be some foreign runners coming over.

Belmont Derby, Secretariat Stakes and add third leg and you have a Turf Triple Crown.

[raybo]

Personally, I think they should leave the distances the same but add a week between the Derby and the Preakness and a week between the Preakness and the Belmont, so, Derby, 3 weeks then the Preakness, 4 weeks then the Belmont.

[HUSKER55]

so you are saying if you can't pass the test then lower the standards?

That has never worked and will never work.

the triple crown is the triple crown. anything else is not.

JMHO

[SecretAgentMan]

Don't change anything about the crown trail .......Real Quiet almost won it & should have losing by a nose. If he had extra time to prepare, would that nose loss been an easy win?

I like to think it wouldn't have made much of a difference & mind you Victory Gallop had run in the derby & Preakness as well. The problem was Kent the jockey moving too soon & it seems most jockeys have moved too soon in the Belmont.

I'm hoping Espinoza gets a good feel for the course before the race. If not for hands on training, study the course on video as much as possible.

[pele polo]

I never thought of Woodbine. I found there is a series for grass horses. It is called the "Grand Slam of Grass" which consists of the Colonial Turf Cup, Virginia Derby, Secretariat Stakes and the Breeders Cup Turf.

So we have the:
American Classic Triple Crown
New York Filly Triple Tiara
American Filly Triple Tiara
New York Handicap Triple
Strub Series (defunct)
Grand Slam of Grass
Now all we need is a sprint and marathon triple.

The Grand Slam, which also included the BC Turf has been discontinued. The Colonial Turf Cuo is now open to older horses.

[Bettowin]

Leave it alone. Are you people smoking crack?

[depalma113]

Leave it alone. Are you people smoking crack?

Best proposal so far.

[HUSKER55]

I am not smoking crack........well.....maybe.... :D

[bill1951]

Economically the Triple Crown matters big time for racing. The only time that significant numbers of viewers gather in front of the TV to watch horse races are the meaningful Triple Crown races and the Breeder's Cup.

The absence of a Triple Crown winner in so many years right now is a draw for a lot of people, but inevitably if no horse wins it the Crown will become a bore.

Even worse scenario: one or two horses manage to win the Triple Crown because they happen to have the breeding to win the long race but are just a little better than ordinary at other distances.

Anyway, like I said, I'm not seriously proposing this, but I'm disappointed that not one person can see the flat mile as a Triple Crown race for the 21st century. The great Dr. Fager held the world record for a mile winning a one turn mile at Arlington Park. He turned out to be a great sire and a sire of great sires.

[bill1951]

Andy Beyer in his column today at least made me a partial prophet by singling out the Belmont as the main cause of the lack of Crown winners.

Even he knew better than me not to propose a change in the Belmont or any other of the races, despite calling the Belmont "anachronistic."

The Belmont Stakes has historically been billed as “the Test of the Champion,” and it may live up to that description when California Chrome bids to sweep the Triple Crown. But in the last decade or so the 147-year-old event has been marked by freakish results and diminished prestige. Its 1 ½-mile distance has made it an anachronism in American racing.


http://www.drf.com/news/beyer-slowing-belmont

[Quesmark]

Has the NFL changed since the NY Jets won their Super Bowl in 1969?
Has the NBA changed since the NY Knicks won the NBA championship in 1973?
Has thoroughbred racing changed since Affirmed won all 3 Triple Crown races in 1978?
Yes,and no...
The essence remains the same,as the difference is in the details...

[Cratos]

Forget it! The Belmont Stakes distance should remain the same. Matter of fact keep the Triple Crown format as is.

If a horse cannot complete his connections should not enter it in the TC competition