Fresh Horses in the Triple Crown races

[RacingFan1992]

Should fresh horses be allowed to run in the Preakness to upset the Derby winner and also allowed in the Belmont to upset a Triple Crown contender?

[Bullet Plane]

Of course!


It's called "horseracing."

[Clocker]

Why should anyone other than Pimlico and Belmont decide how they should run their races? If you change the rules, it isn't the Triple Crown any more. It is something else.

Actually, it may already be something else than it was the last time it was won because they changed the rules. With the point system to get into the Ky Derby, instead of 3 hard races in a relatively short time, now it is often 4 hard races.

[elysiantraveller]

Why should anyone other than Pimlico and Belmont decide how they should run their races? If you change the rules, it isn't the Triple Crown any more. It is something else.

Actually, it may already be something else than it was the last time it was won because they changed the rules. With the point system to get into the Ky Derby, instead of 3 hard races in a relatively short time, now it is often 4 hard races.

Time to wallow in the ignorance that the general public, and apparently Coburn, has of the sport.

[parimutual]

As I see it: TheTriple Crown changed when a restriction of only 20 runners would be allowed to pass the entry box in the Ky Derby and a qualification system enacted. No longer the simple restriction of (open to all 3 year olds) was in place for all three races. I agree the triple crown and the Kentucky Derby are not in lockstep.

[Tom]

You want more than 20?

[parimutual]

Not the point here. The entry conditions for the Derby and other triple crown races are different.

[Some_One]

Should fresh horses be allowed to run in the Preakness to upset the Derby winner and also allowed in the Belmont to upset a Triple Crown contender?

If they did what the idiot wanted, you would have only had 3 horses in the Belmont today, pretty much means a Triple Crown would be won most years, which would extremely devalue the accomplishment. Why should a horse be shutout from the Belmont because they were not fit/mature/ready for the Derby or Derby preps?

[Clocker]

Not the point here. The entry conditions for the Derby and other triple crown races are different.

They have to be. When did 20 people want to run their horses in the Preakness or Belmont?

[tucker6]

If you're a racing immortal, beating fresh horses is a requirement to achieve that lofty claim. It's been a requirement since the TC began, and always will be, and always should be. Society is really becoming lame-ass with this whoa-is-me thing.

[parimutual]

Why not race 30 or 40 as long as they are all 3 years old?

[usedtolovetvg]

If you're a racing immortal, beating fresh horses is a requirement to achieve that lofty claim. It's been a requirement since the TC began, and always will be, and always should be. Society is really becoming lame-ass with this whoa-is-me thing.

You are so right. Next thing, they'll give every entry a trophy and won't acknowledge the winner. He obviously doesn't understand what horse racing and winning the TC is all about. His wife was right when she told him to keep quiet.He's just a sore loser who had a decent horse in a very mediocre year. Go cry on TVG they're bad losers too.

[PhantomOnTour]

Yep - if you miss the AFC Championship game because of injury don't plan on playing in the Super Bowl...no fresh players allowed !

Ridiculous

[parimutual]

Tonalist hypothetically could have been this years triple crown winner but he couldn't enter the derby (lack of qualifying points) but was certainly eligible for both other triple crown races just by being a 3 yo. All three races have an inequality of conditions.

[Some_One]

Tonalist hypothetically could have been this years triple crown winner but he couldn't enter the derby (lack of qualifying points) but was certainly eligible for both other triple crown races just by being a 3 yo. All three races have an inequality of conditions.

Being 3yr old is not enough to be TC nominated, there is separate nominations that need to be made.

[Fingal]

"Cowards" is a pretty strong word.

Besides- like in Baseball, there's no crying allowed.

[usedtolovetvg]

Just think how unfair he must feel the Stanley Cup Final is. The Kings had to play 21 games to get there, while the Rangers only had to play 20.

[tzipi]

Well other Triple Crown winners in history beat fresh horses, so I don't know why we have to change another rule for him. I thought that was part of the challenge.

[Clocker]

All three races have an inequality of conditions.

Yep. Including inequality of distances, track shapes, surface composition, track maintenance, weather, opponents, etc. That's life.

[098poi]

The Triple Crown exists as a result of these three races existing. The Triple Crown wasn't created to give birth to these three. If there is no potential Triple Crown winner after the Preakness they don't cancel the Belmont.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

It takes a "special" kind of owner to threaten NYRA not to run the winner of the first two legs of the Triple Crown unless they make a special exception for the nasal strip, and then turn around and complain the other connections are cowards not to run in all three events.

The rules are the same for everybody. Unless you want to run with a nasal strip where they previously weren't allowed. Whiner.

[ultracapper]

The Triple Crown exists as a result of these three races existing. The Triple Crown wasn't created to give birth to these three. If there is no potential Triple Crown winner after the Preakness they don't cancel the Belmont.


Thank you. That is the crux of the whole TC thing. It's a concept. Probably some NY newspaper 100+ years ago. How many KD winners, up until Sec, skipped the Preakness? I don't know for sure, but I'd guess dozens maybe. I had only been involved in horse racing about 3 or 4 years when Spend A Buck skipped the Preakness. I didn't realize you were even allowed to do that.

"What? He's not going for the Triple Crown? You can do that?" Seriously, that's the way I thought then. I couldn't believe they did that.

[Stillriledup]

The Triple Crown is an "on paper" accomplishment that is something the owners can bask in, the horse doesn't know he won any triple crown, all he knows is that for the "Reward" of winning the KYD he gets to race 2 weeks later in a race that he probably wouldn't be running in had he lost in the first place.

Also, triple crown or not, running in the Preakness 2 weeks after the Derby is not "doing right by the horse" so essentially, Coburn didnt do right by his horse in order to chase a human accomplishment at the expense of his own horse and then he calls out everyone else for not doing the same even though there was no "paper accomplishment" for those other owners to win.

[Dahoss2002]

Should fresh horses be allowed to run in the Preakness to upset the Derby winner and also allowed in the Belmont to upset a Triple Crown contender?

Horse racing is a dynamic sport. Tonalist was not ready to compete in the Derby. If you want to make the triple crown like a "starter series", your post has some merit. Otherwise, get in contact with our president and he would probably propose a law to disallow the fresh horses upsetting the derby winner.

[rastajenk]

He wouldn't just propose a law. He'd make it an executive action, saying "The debate is over."

[acorn54]

i don't know where the idea of not allowing fresh horses to run in a triple crown race came from, maybe it's the political correctness mentality sweeping across america these days. it is totally absurd.

[OTM Al]

Thank you. That is the crux of the whole TC thing. It's a concept. Probably some NY newspaper 100+ years ago. How many KD winners, up until Sec, skipped the Preakness? I don't know for sure, but I'd guess dozens maybe. I had only been involved in horse racing about 3 or 4 years when Spend A Buck skipped the Preakness. I didn't realize you were even allowed to do that.

"What? He's not going for the Triple Crown? You can do that?" Seriously, that's the way I thought then. I couldn't believe they did that.
You are very close. It was a newspaper writer's invention after Gallant Fox won all three races in 1930. Later they figured out Sir Barton had done it too. Man O War never ran for the TC as it didn't exist. Of course going for the real Triple Crown, where that writer took the term from, almost never happens anymore as the St Leger is regularly bypassed.

[westny]

If you're a racing immortal, beating fresh horses is a requirement to achieve that lofty claim. It's been a requirement since the TC began, and always will be, and always should be. Society is really becoming lame-ass with this whoa-is-me thing.


Oh really? That is why most TC winners raced against only 4-7 competitors...likely the horses who ran in both TC races prior to the Belmont...not "fresh horses lying in wait" in the Belmont...the new vogue.

Alydar should have skipped the Preakness and rested before the Belmont.

[acorn54]

Oh really? That is why most TC winners raced against only 4-7 competitors...likely the horses who ran in both TC races prior to the Belmont...not "fresh horses lying in wait" in the Belmont...the new vogue.

Alydar should have skipped the Preakness and rested before the Belmont.


the operative word in your paragraph is MOST.

[westny]

the operative word in your paragraph is MOST.


One TC winner...maybe in the 40's/50's/60's raced against more horses than 7...11 maybe

Bob Baffert made a very interesting comment when he was on a local NY radio show (Mike Francesca on WFAN) in 2001 prior to WE Belmont.

Baffert said, "in the prior decades ...when your horse entered a race there were maybe 4/5 horses as well bred as your horse. Others were "inferior".
Now, with the breeding of (then 30k) horses a year and the proliferation of excellent horses going to stud...the playing field is level.

You are facing tb's as well bred as your horse...maybe better...it is a lot harder to win (sic) a TC race nowadays. Add the penchant for skipping a TC race to have a well rested horse going into the Belmont and it is likely no TC winners until a reincarnation.

[acorn54]

i stand corrected and thanks for the history of the tc
you seem to be quite knowledgeable about the tc
what do you see as the solution, to keep the triple crown intact, yet remain as significant a series of races as it was in the past.

[tucker6]

Oh really? That is why most TC winners raced against only 4-7 competitors...likely the horses who ran in both TC races prior to the Belmont...not "fresh horses lying in wait" in the Belmont...the new vogue.

Alydar should have skipped the Preakness and rested before the Belmont.
I bet you're the type of guy that likes to hand out participation medals to everyone. Winning the TC is not supposed to be easy. There is not one TC champion in the modern era that wasn't competing against fresh horses in either the Preakness or Belmont or both. Now you want to add field size as a boo-hoo issue. CC would have lost yesterday whether the field was smaller or whether he was facing the exact same field each race. He just didn't have it in the stretch, and it may have been his breeding.

[tucker6]

One TC winner...maybe in the 40's/50's/60's raced against more horses than 7...11 maybe

Bob Baffert made a very interesting comment when he was on a local NY radio show (Mike Francesca on WFAN) in 2001 prior to WE Belmont.

Baffert said, "in the prior decades ...when your horse entered a race there were maybe 4/5 horses as well bred as your horse. Others were "inferior".
Now, with the breeding of (then 30k) horses a year and the proliferation of excellent horses going to stud...the playing field is level.

You are facing tb's as well bred as your horse...maybe better...it is a lot harder to win (sic) a TC race nowadays. Add the penchant for skipping a TC race to have a well rested horse going into the Belmont and it is likely no TC winners until a reincarnation.
Baffert can say that, but my opinion is that training has changed more over the years than the horses.

[JohnGalt1]

Baffert can say that, but my opinion is that training has changed more over the years than the horses.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but every Triple Crown winner raced without Lasix, at least in the Belmont since it was not allowed in 1978.

[Nitro]

I certainly agree with the majority of common sense comments posted here. Why don’t we just call an ace an ace and acknowledge that Coburn is simply a big sore looser. Anyone involved in this game for any length of time realizes that anything can happen in a horserace; including loosing. Forget about the concept of “freshness”! His horse just wasn’t good enough to get it done. You can’t imagine how many players I spoke to prior to the Belmont who threw Tonalist out completely just because it only had 4 prior races. Most of them agreed that it didn’t have the foundation to last 1 ½ miles. ( This conditioning concept is something that’s also commonly referred to prior to the KY Derby because none of the 3-year olds have run 1 ¼ miles ). An interesting note: Only 2 horses in the Belmont broke their Maidens at 1 1/8 miles: Tonalist and Commissioner.

I’m also in agreement with those who can really appreciate what a TC winner stands for! However, I can’t agree with those who just want to see another TC winner for the sake of just seeing it happen. Personally, if it happens I would like to see another true champion take it. I must admit I’ve been spoiled because I was fortunate enough to witness the 3 prior TC winners. Although it has that all-important will to win (heart) and is certainly a very nice racehorse, I feel very comfortable stating unequivocally that CA Chrome as a 3-year old is not even close to the caliper of an Affirmed, a Seattle Slew, or Secretariat. Great horses don’t need excuses! They get it done in spite of all the potential obstacles: Like their competitors for instance!

[The WindfallAngler]

Now you want to add field size as a boo-hoo issue. CC would have lost yesterday whether the field was smaller or whether he was facing the exact same field each race. He just didn't have it in the stretch, and it may have been his breeding.Your logic isn't strictly rigorous. I am unconvinced.

[The WindfallAngler]

Great horses don’t need excuses! They get it done in spite of all the potential obstacles: Like their competitors for instance!Yes, and when they do, "they get it done" against a mere 4.4 Belmont Stakes opponents, on average.

Honestly, nowadays I view with jaundiced eye, these Triple Crown champions. Because I've begun to appreciate, as never before, the extra difficulties faced by Real Quiet, California Chrome, etc. in attempting to defeat a Belmont Stakes average field of 9.2 since 1978.

[tucker6]

Yes, and when they do, "they get it done" against a mere 4.4 Belmont Stakes opponents, on average.

Honestly, nowadays I view with jaundiced eye, these Triple Crown champions. Because I've begun to appreciate, as never before, the extra difficulties faced by Real Quiet, California Chrome, etc. in attempting to defeat a Belmont Stakes average field of 9.2 since 1978.
yes, Seattle Slew, Affirmed, and Secretariat barely qualify as great horses because of those small Belmont fields. I used to think running 1.5 miles in 2:24 was fantastic until I saw that he only faced four horses. What are the odds that he could go to the front immediately and maintain that speed against 8 horses like he did against 4?? :rolleyes:

[kinznk]

One TC winner...maybe in the 40's/50's/60's raced against more horses than 7...11 maybe

Bob Baffert made a very interesting comment when he was on a local NY radio show (Mike Francesca on WFAN) in 2001 prior to WE Belmont.

Baffert said, "in the prior decades ...when your horse entered a race there were maybe 4/5 horses as well bred as your horse. Others were "inferior".
Now, with the breeding of (then 30k) horses a year and the proliferation of excellent horses going to stud...the playing field is level.

You are facing tb's as well bred as your horse...maybe better...it is a lot harder to win (sic) a TC race nowadays. Add the penchant for skipping a TC race to have a well rested horse going into the Belmont and it is likely no TC winners until a reincarnation.


The foal crop of 2011 was 25500, just below the 1974 and 1975 but greater than that of 1970. Horses in the TC drought have competed against many more horses than those of the past. When looking at foal crop numbers one gains an appreciation for Secretariat, Seattle Slew, and Affirmed. The other TC winners were good horses but had more room for error as they were running against 5000 others. The foal crops have been declining and a TC winner will emerge as they dip lower.

[The WindfallAngler]

yes, Seattle Slew, Affirmed, and Secretariat barely qualify as great horses because of those small Belmont fields. I used to think running 1.5 miles in 2:24 was fantastic until I saw that he only faced four horses. What are the odds that he could go to the front immediately and maintain that speed against 8 horses like he did against 4?? :rolleyes: :D
Well, but why should they enjoy advantages over future triple crown aspirants? And here I thought maybe you'd missed my point...

After all, FARMAWAY was able to equal the world record for 1 3/16 miles on dirt, and his career overall? 23: 8-5-1. (It was SECRETARIAT's stablemate, RIVA RIDGE, set that world record, in 1973. His career score? 30: 17-3-1 ....9 times out of the money.) In this connection, I once watched DOUBLE DISCOUNT set his 1:57 2/5 world record (at Santa Anita).

But a big figure -- a world record figure, mind you -- would not avail Double Discount as he chased still-reigning triple crown champ AFFIRMED, well back of Italy's champ, SIRLAD, and the game runner TEXT (who were pulling 12-pounds each) in the 1979 Hollywood Gold Cup ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO_Bu3YjZxM )

...any more than SPECTACULAR BID's 1:57 4/5- 1¼ Mile world record would do him the least bit of good, in the 1979 Jockey Club Gold Cup: Where, in-between Spectacular Bid's 1979 Delaware 1-1/16 track record (1:41 3/5) and his Meadowlands Cup (1-1/4 in 2:01 1/5), Spectacular Bid finally met Affirmed (receiving 5 pounds and Bill Shoemaker).

Yet Affirmed beat The 'Bid as he pleased, turning back each of Bid's four attempts (and the one run by COASTAL) to get by. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSBV25QzS-E )

What has meaning, for me, isn't so much the big figure Record Holder, but the champ with the tenacity to disappoint big fig record holders.

Classier horses race against big-figure horses, then beat them ...(Often, while running much slower times.)

You'll excuse me if I refrain from joining the metronomic lockstep of you ardent Secretariat followers- for reasons good and sufficient. (Another time, perhaps.) Anyway, FRANKEL was likely better.

And the mare KINCSEM undoubtedly best of all.

[Nitro]

Good points there Tucker6!

Yes, and when they do, "they get it done" against a mere 4.4 Belmont Stakes opponents, on average.

Honestly, nowadays I view with jaundiced eye, these Triple Crown champions. Because I've begun to appreciate, as never before, the extra difficulties faced by Real Quiet, California Chrome, etc. in attempting to defeat a Belmont Stakes average field of 9.2 since 1978. That’s quite a description of your eye problem. Normally when I view a horserace I like to use both of my eyes. I have a feeling that you’re not referring to the yellowed color of your eye being caused by a jealous reaction to the previous performances of these TC winners. Instead you make dubious inferences to so-called statistical difficulties based on field size.
You want to talk about REAL “difficulties”? Then do me a favor and next time you have a chance take a close look (with both eyes open) at the running of the 1977 KY Derby. You’ll immediately notice that when the gate opened that Seattle Slew went to its knees! However, in spite of having the entire field in front of him, he still managed to be 1st in of one the fastest recorded ½ mile times in Derby history. Yes, from that point the only one looking back was Jean Cruget and the rest is horseracing history. But not many realize that not only did Slew overcome a normally insurmountable obstacle at the start, but ran the entire race bleeding from the mouth due to severe cut from the bit.
Or how about in 1978 when Affirmed had to duel each and every great TC race against Alydar? Was there a need for him to face a huge field when in fact its only real nemesis was a SINGLE horse?
I shutter to think of how Secretariat would have destroyed this year’s crop of 3-year olds in any one of this year’s TC races. The Derby might as well have been a walkover because in this race alone its estimated that there would have been at least a 20 length winning margin at the finish!

And here we go again! Kinznk is apparently relying on more statistical nonsense in an attempt to further detract from the heart and barometer of this game: Speed, Performance and Durability! Last time I looked this game is about actual racing and not about how many horses (of quality or not) are foaled in any given year.

BTW Windfall I won't even respond to your last post, because in case you missed it, this thread is about 3-YEAR OLDS racing in the TC! It's certainly NOT about racing records. It's always amusing to see someone who finds it necessary to change the topic when they're original comments are obviously flawed. But nice try!

[Man o' War]

Chrome faced 4 new shooters for the Belmont and 4 who skipped the Preakness after running in the Derby. Seems reasonable to me for a horse that didn’t tear it up as a 2 year old or ran on the east coast before.
Seattle Slew faced 3 new shooters for the Belmont and 1 who skipped the Preakness.. Secretariat and Affirmed each faced 1 new shooter and also 1 who skipped the Preakness in their Belmonts . Part of the reason so few challenged the TC Champs in their years was that Secretariat, Sham, Affirmed and Alydar had already dominated all the other 3 year olds in their previous races on both coasts and the other trainers didn’t want any part of them anymore. Can’t downgrade the champs for that!! And dissing Citation because he was one of only about 5000 foals that year? The greatest horse Eddie Arcaro said he’d ever ridden out of all the champions he rode in his career? Contrary to my beliefs of Chrome prior to the Belmont, it wasn't the new shooters..he just couldn’t hold his form, unlike the legends I just mentioned…

[The WindfallAngler]

Good points there Tucker6!

...I have a feeling that you’re not referring to the yellowed color of your eye being caused by a jealous reaction to the previous performances of these TC winners. Instead you make dubious inferences to so-called statistical difficulties based on field size. I cited the source of the stats. Make of them what you will.


....It's always amusing to see someone who finds it necessary to change the topic when they're original comments are obviously flawed. But nice try!Actually, the thread is entitled "Fresh horses in triple crown races." That topic however could mean research I find unappealing at present. Which in any event is not so definite as this unheralded, but alarming, increase in Belmont Stakes field size we're seeing, over the passed 36 years (about which I have commented, in this thread and in four others).

The point being, plainly these larger fields are compounding Triple Crown difficulty.

My remarks did not drawn comment. In a fit of pique I half-seriously took a swipe at past TC champions. Which drew a sharp retort from Tucker6 that I found amusing. (Although right away Tucker6 uncorked what looked to be Secretariat's world record time. ...So I branched off from there--excuse the "flaws") And now your reply.

It should be obvious that, by racing among ten other horses--be they rested, tested, or worm infested--the risk of each next TC aspirant being checked, steadied, shuffled back, or boxed-in as result of traffic trouble, has increased, further reducing chances that a dual classic winner will ever succeed.

You see that, don't you? Was is sensible, then? to expect California Chrome to thread his way through ten Belmont Stakes starters...when no Triple Crown winner ever defeated more than seven?

[Dahoss2002]

[QUOTE

You see that, don't you? Was is sensible, then? to expect California Chrome to thread his way through ten Belmont Stakes starters[/QUOTE]
Maybe he should have just run wide the whole race like the winner did from the 11 hole that way no "threading"

[Walter]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dont-expect-to-see-a-triple-crown-anytime-soon/

[clocker7]

Chrome faced 4 new shooters for the Belmont and 4 who skipped the Preakness after running in the Derby. Seems reasonable to me for a horse that didn’t tear it up as a 2 year old or ran on the east coast before.
Seattle Slew faced 3 new shooters for the Belmont and 1 who skipped the Preakness.. Secretariat and Affirmed each faced 1 new shooter and also 1 who skipped the Preakness in their Belmonts . Part of the reason so few challenged the TC Champs in their years was that Secretariat, Sham, Affirmed and Alydar had already dominated all the other 3 year olds in their previous races on both coasts and the other trainers didn’t want any part of them anymore. Can’t downgrade the champs for that!! And dissing Citation because he was one of only about 5000 foals that year? The greatest horse Eddie Arcaro said he’d ever ridden out of all the champions he rode in his career? Contrary to my beliefs of Chrome prior to the Belmont, it wasn't the new shooters..he just couldn’t hold his form, unlike the legends I just mentioned…
The argument isn't whether past champions were worthy or great ones. The question is whether modern 3 yos are facing greater odds against winning the TC. Obviously, the answer is emphatically YES.

If Secretariat and Sham--both coming off a loss in their previous race--would have had to negotiate another 7 starters in their KD, who's to say that Big Red was invincible? What if he had run into 3 or 4 lengths extra of trouble from, say, the 19th post? After all, his 2 1/2 lengths margin of victory in the first two legs weren't all THAT much different from CC's.

Seattle Slew BARELY squeaked through his company to win the KD. Put 4 more runners into the mix, and I dare say that the chances are great that one TC champion might have been deleted from the pantheon.

The nature of the TC has changed, and apples are being compared to oranges. The calendar was never sacrosanct to begin with (as I have demonstrated elsewhere), so providing an extra week between the KD and P would be a fair and historically apt way to bring the level of difficulty back closer to what the oldsters encountered.

[PaceAdvantage]

Obviously, the answer is emphatically YES.The sample size is still rather small to draw such an emphatic conclusion, don't you think? There have been some serious dry spells in the past. 25 years between Citation and Secretariat, then three within a five year span.

Is a 36 year dry spell that out of line when we've already seen a 25 year run followed by three quick ones?

[Tom]

The answer is emphatically NO!

[sbcaris]

Here is a stat worth looking at: In the last 13 years there was ONLY one Belmont winner that raced in all three legs of the Triple Crown. That was Afleet Alex. That is a powerful winning trend of 92% Belmont winners since Sarava in 2002 (2002-2014) were horses that did NOT race in all three events.

[The WindfallAngler]

Maybe he should have just run wide the whole race like the winner did from the 11 hole that way no "threading"Whether or not ground loss was much of a factor, the #2 post + Injury ensured a fail.

And seeing as CC was a mere 1.75 back at the finish, with a safe start he wins.
Even from the 2 post.

[clocker7]

The sample size is still rather small to draw such an emphatic conclusion, don't you think?

Who needs a sample size? All one has to do is look at the increased size of the fields to realize that 2010s runners face a bigger gauntlet than any of the previous TC winners did. More traffic alone makes it tougher; can you give us a reason to think that it makes things easier?

[RacingFan1992]

Ban Lasix and you will see so many fresh horses drop like rocks and who the true champions are.

[NY BRED]

What the hell, change the entire game and DQ all Derby and Preakness horses finishing worse than 4th or fifth, regardless of bad trips etc.

Then we can possibly end up with a match race with 2 or three
horses in the Belmont and watch a horse breakdown, and again
watch PETA crush this game.

No reason to follow tradition or reason based upon recent insane
statements by losing connections and their disciples.

[pupatariat]

Horses like Afleet Alex and Point Given suggest that the TC will be won again and is definitely possible. Look at Afleet Alex. He barely missed the win in the 2005 Derby, then dominated the Preakness and Belmont against large fields with fresh shooters. The same could be said of Point Given. There have been several horses since Affirmed that failed to win the Derby, then went on to win the other two classics... Risen Star, Tobasco Cat and Hansel come to mind along with the aforementioned Afleet Alex and Point Given. Had any of those horses had better luck in the Derby, we would likely not be having this conversation. The large Derby field of 19-20 horses may have cost more TC aspirations than fresh horses in the Belmont. Perhaps the auxiliary starting gate in the Derby should be done away with limiting the field to 14 runners.

[Nitro]

The argument isn't whether past champions were worthy or great ones. The question is whether modern 3 yos are facing greater odds against winning the TC. Obviously, the answer is emphatically YES.

If Secretariat and Sham--both coming off a loss in their previous race--would have had to negotiate another 7 starters in their KD, who's to say that Big Red was invincible? What if he had run into 3 or 4 lengths extra of trouble from, say, the 19th post? After all, his 2 1/2 lengths margin of victory in the first two legs weren't all THAT much different from CC's.

Seattle Slew BARELY squeaked through his company to win the KD. Put 4 more runners into the mix, and I dare say that the chances are great that one TC champion might have been deleted from the pantheon.

The nature of the TC has changed, and apples are being compared to oranges. The calendar was never sacrosanct to begin with (as I have demonstrated elsewhere), so providing an extra week between the KD and P would be a fair and historically apt way to bring the level of difficulty back closer to what the oldsters encountered.Clocker7 you've struck a cord!

Without creating any ill feelings I just wanted to say that I believe that the premise of your so called argument as stated is feeble at best. This becomes even more evident when you have to resort to using hypothetical “What Ifs”. On top of that by trying to diminish the reality of an actual horse’s performance with subjective and opinionated nonsense takes your commentary completely out of the realm of credibility.

Frankly your interpretation and the adjectives used to describe those 2 TC winners are as far as I’m concerned - appalling. For the benefit of those who may have missed or be unfamiliar with Secretariat’s 3 TC performances I only offer a single fact: It owns the combined stakes records for the fastest KY Derby, Preakness and Belmont Stakes EVER run. I personally find it hard to believe that the addition of a few more competitors would have changed a thing!

Thank goodness these last 3 TC winners didn’t have the suggested additional time off. Their Performances and Durability would have only been further denigrated by the likes of those who really lack an appreciation of extraordinary accomplishments. Instead of supporting and trying to preserve the toughest standards, obviously the objective of these same minds is to do anything they can to create mediocrity. They disguise it by calling it “fairness”. But this mentality is nothing more then a reflection of an enabling society that condones this attitude in so many facets of life.

So why do so many feel that the TC is different today then was just 30 some odd years ago? Why haven’t we seen another TC winner in 37 years? Well I believe it has to do with the 2 most important factors - Again: Performance and Durability, or the lack there of. It has nothing to do with breeding or freshness. I used to think that the cause was simply the direct effect on these factors through the introduction and wide spread use of drugs like Lasix. Later I realized that not only does it have an immediate affect, but something that’s even more important:
1) A significant loss of horse-body fluids after a race.
2) The time it takes to replenish those fluids.
3) The inability of trainers to maintain a proper conditioning regiment in between races.
So, I would agree that the suggestion of adding more time-off between these races is exactly what today’s trainers and owners are looking for. Not to make it fair, but to compensate for drug use in all 3 TC events!

Ban Lasix and you will see so many fresh horses drop like rocks and who the true champions are.Nice post RacingFan1992. I wanted to elaborate on your point a bit.

[clocker7]

Nitro, I became a horse racing fan in the 60s and intensely so in the 70s. So I harbor no ill will against the first champions that I cheered for. I simply am taking a neutral, balanced, fair approach to the history of the the sport, and any real handicapper (or historian) naturally would do.

You did not even consider the main point that I made: past outcomes might have been different had past champions had to face 19-20 horse fields that modern ones are subjected to. How hard is it to concede that without introducing emotions? Just the fact that odds rise on all entrants--as field sizes increase--is rock-solid proof of my argument. But deny if you wish ... there's a lot of evidence denial going around these days.

[BettinBilly]

The issue here is the ignorance of Thoroughbred Racing within the General Public.

My friends whom are not into Horse Racing (except if there is buzz about the Triple Crown once a decade or so) are mostly agreeing with Coburn. They agree that only runners of the Derby and the Preakness should be allowed to run the Belmont and that fresh horses should not be allowed to enter select races without running all three. If you know nothing about how Horse Racing works, on the surface this position seems logical. Unfortunately for them, they don't understand that each race within the Crown is an Independent venue, and that the Crown is the sum of these races. With or without the Crown, these races would exist independently. They somehow think that the races were developed to drive a new title called the Triple Crown and that it is unfair (to them) to have fresh horses enter the Preakness and/or Belmont.

Ignorance of how the sport works drives irrational statements. Unless there is a National Governing Body that determines the Crown is Independent and then decides to restructure how the races are run within the title, there is little more to discuss. It is what it is.

[RacingFan1992]

This is off topic but if we do not have a Triple Crown winner by 2023 we will break the all time record for not having a Triple Crown winner since the three races were in play in 1875.
1875-1919 (45 years) Sir Barton
1920-1930 (11 years) Gallant Fox
1931-1935 (5 years) Omaha
1936-1937 (2 years) War Admiral
1938-1941 (4 years) Whirlaway
1942-1943 (2 years) Count Fleet
1944-1946 (3 years) Assault
1947-1948 (2 years) Citation
1949-1973 (25 years) Secretariat
1974-1977 (4 years) Seattle Slew
1977-1978 (NA) Affirmed
1979-2014 (36 years)
My math may be wrong but you get the point. Nine more years and we will make history.

[ILovetheInner]

I think the observation that the non racing person thinks Coburn has a point is a valid one, but the flip side is would there be a lack of luster, to the very same people, were there changes made and throughout a horses TC sweep they were reminded of this again and again? Were there actually to be a first TC winner since Affirmed who faced a redesigned, softer schedule, etc.? For those who think it is horrible for there not to have yet been a TC winner since 1978, isn't a little ironic to support the assurance that it never will happen again by redesigning the schedule, simply to ACHIEVE it. A false achievement were it altered to allow it happen? Bah. We either say the TC is dead or keep it right where it is.

Derby field sizes are a legitimate sigh. I remember the big deal around Cannonade's Derby....what was that, 21?....and indeed that year a troubled Little Current went on to win the Preakness and Belmont masterfully. It was different then. Making it the Derby meant going with a horse who had a chance (subject to interpretation, lol) But now every Tom, Dick and Uncle Harry seems to want to go. I don't only think it makes for silly large field sizes, but wastes horses who should have been given more time and were not.

However, with all that said, I don't think traffic would have stopped Secretariat or Seattle Slew....Secretariat WAS invincible, and Slew was an ultimate warrior who could get it done. And in terms of all the times we have had crowded Derby fields, what horse in the aftermath has affirmed the travesty? Horses either got injured, many had good campaigns, but who amongst them won the BCC Classic? Who amongst them dominated the handicap division in the fall and franked their greatness?

TC winners are warriors and they are durable. We have yet to see a crowded Derby field stop anyone in a TC winner context. We have seen horses who did not have A game on the first Saturday in May, we have seen horses who didn't have that extra something for the Belmont. We have seen horses who might have had spectacular post TC campaigns, but we'll never know as they failed to stay sound. Seattle Slew, on the other hand, came near to death, wasn't expected to race again, but came back to own the stage. That's a TC winner. They are toughness, they are durable and they are warriors. And when one truly good enough who is those things comes along, then we will see it again, it will be franked, and all will be right with the universe.

[tucker6]

Nitro, I became a horse racing fan in the 60s and intensely so in the 70s. So I harbor no ill will against the first champions that I cheered for. I simply am taking a neutral, balanced, fair approach to the history of the the sport, and any real handicapper (or historian) naturally would do.

You did not even consider the main point that I made: past outcomes might have been different had past champions had to face 19-20 horse fields that modern ones are subjected to. How hard is it to concede that without introducing emotions? Just the fact that odds rise on all entrants--as field sizes increase--is rock-solid proof of my argument. But deny if you wish ... there's a lot of evidence denial going around these days.
Have you ever considered that your point has no merit? Let's take Secretariat in the KD as you suggest. He raced in a 14 horse field and broke dead last through at least the first 1/4 mile. As the field stretched out, he slowly inhaled the other horses until he was essentially even with the front three as they came to the head of the stretch. He raced on the outside the ENTIRE way around the track. Where in his run can you point to a period where another 4-6 horses or breaking from the 19th gate would have hindered the trip he made in that race? That trip, IMHO, was hinder-proof, and no amount of extra horses were going to change the outcome.

[The WindfallAngler]

Have you ever considered that your point has no merit? Let's take Secretariat in the KD as you suggest. He raced in a 14 horse field and broke dead last through at least the first 1/4 mile. As the field stretched out, he slowly inhaled the other horses until he was essentially even with the front three as they came to the head of the stretch. He raced on the outside the ENTIRE way around the track. Where in his run can you point to a period where another 4-6 horses or breaking from the 19th gate would have hindered the trip he made in that race? That trip, IMHO, was hinder-proof, and no amount of extra horses were going to change the outcome.I doubt that you can persuade us the point is without merit, by cherry picking examples to support your case. Statistics show increasing field size. Larger fields mean extra traffic.

More traffic -- which is obviously a * hindrance * and not help -- has increased the difficulty of winning the triple crown. Is this fair to modern thoroughbreds? Dial it back to where it was.

[tucker6]

I doubt that you can persuade us the point is without merit, by cherry picking examples to support your case. Statistics show increasing field size. Larger fields mean extra traffic.

More traffic -- which is obviously a * hindrance * and not help -- has increased the difficulty of winning the triple crown. Is this fair to modern thoroughbreds? Dial it back to where it was.
Cherry picking?? I used Clocker7's own example of Secretariat. You know, a TC winner. Rather than deflect, please show me where my analysis of the 73 KD was incorrect??

Let's take Big Red's other two TC races that year. Please explain how increased field sizes would have prevented his victory in those two races? Or am I cherry picking those two races as well? Let's face it, you guys made a categorical statement that field size prevents horses from winning the TC, but in the first examples I showed, it wasn't the case. Shall we look at Seattle Slew and Affirmed as well, because they don't support your cause either?

Maybe, just maybe, great horses can overcome field size through versatility. I know it's a novel approach, but we should consider that point of view. :rolleyes:

[BettinBilly]

I realize that this topic has been beat to death, but for sake of throwing some expert opinions at it regardless of the fact that Secretariat was a record setter;
I have to agree with William Nack and everyone else that was featured in ESPN's "Sports Century" special regarding Secretariat as being voted as one of the 20th Century's greatest top 50 athletes - The ONLY Quadruped that made the list. Most of those gentlemen interviewed in that documentary are/were Icons in our sport. The consensus of their opinion?
No horse could have beaten Secretariat that day at Belmont.

One said, "I believe in Pegasus because I saw him that day at Belmont, I mean I never saw anything like that in my life. I mean, 31 lengths? Do you know what that means? It's like they were racing on two different race tracks."

If you have not seen this documentary, it is definitely worth a view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhfi6zOLdK4

[RacingFan1992]

If field size is a hindrence then Assault was one hell of a race horse. He came up against 17 horses in the Derby, 10 in the Preakness, and 7 in the Belmont. On top of the field size he had the traffic problems in the first two and stumbling in the Belmont. Also he was a cripple who won the Triple Crown in 4 weeks not the "standard five." Do not even try using the argument of it was a weak crop. That is the excuse for every thoroughbred argument. Secretariat winning by 31, Oh weak crop. :rolleyes: KEEP THE FORMAT THE WAY IT IS EXCEPT FOR THE DERBY POINT SYSTEM. Anything worth having is worth the wait. HELLO 25 years from Citation to Secretariat. :eek:

[Robert Goren]

I think with the advent of Lasix, you can't get a horse to run that close together and get maximum efforts. I don't think we see another TC winner until Lasix is banned. I don't see that happening anytime soon. The fresh horse has an edge in the Preakness and an overwhelming advantage in the Belmont. Chrome if he races again will be leaving horses like the Belmont runners who beat him far back in the fall when he is getting the proper amount of time between races. With Lasix, a route horse appears to need about 5 weeks between starts in order to get that maximum effort.

[Tom]

No horse could have beaten Secretariat that day at Belmont.

Most NASCARs would have been hard pressed to keep up! :lol:

Thanks for the tip - I'll look for that doc to watch.

[clocker7]

Have you ever considered that your point has no merit? Let's take Secretariat in the KD as you suggest. He raced in a 14 horse field and broke dead last through at least the first 1/4 mile. As the field stretched out, he slowly inhaled the other horses until he was essentially even with the front three as they came to the head of the stretch. He raced on the outside the ENTIRE way around the track. Where in his run can you point to a period where another 4-6 horses or breaking from the 19th gate would have hindered the trip he made in that race? That trip, IMHO, was hinder-proof, and no amount of extra horses were going to change the outcome.
A bigger field means a bigger chance of break issues, collisions and traffic that Secretariat might not have "inhaled" so easily. And, just by possibly having to go one extra path wider around either turn, he could have lost more than half of the 2 1/2 lengths he won by.

It's not a wild hypothetical, guy. Trip handicappers consider it all the time. Look, just think back to all of the recent analysis of California Chrome's KD and P wins; namely, that he might not repeat his perfect rides. Andy Beyer thought that the hypothetical was worth discussion, and partially based his "toss" on the probability of traffic intervening.

[tucker6]

A bigger field means a bigger chance of break issues, collisions and traffic that Secretariat might not have "inhaled" so easily. And, just by possibly having to go one extra path wider around either turn, he could have lost more than half of the 2 1/2 lengths he won by.

It's not a wild hypothetical, guy. Trip handicappers consider it all the time. Look, just think back to all of the recent analysis of California Chrome's KD and P wins; namely, that he might not repeat his perfect rides. Andy Beyer thought that the hypothetical was worth discussion, and partially based his "toss" on the probability of traffic intervening.
weak responses usually have words like "might have" and "could have". Your hypothetical about Secretariat is not reasonable supportable by the facts in any of his three races. If I had a hypothesis that stated that more versatile horses with staying genes win the TC, I'd be far more likely to have supporting evidence than you do. Just because you "may" or "could" be correct doesn't mean you are. I realize that there is a chance I am incorrect. Problem is, you don't see the same in your argument, which is much more tenuous IMHO.

[clocker7]

weak responses usually have words like "might have" and "could have". Your hypothetical about Secretariat is not reasonable supportable by the facts in any of his three races. If I had a hypothesis that stated that more versatile horses with staying genes win the TC, I'd be far more likely to have supporting evidence than you do. Just because you "may" or "could" be correct doesn't mean you are. I realize that there is a chance I am incorrect. Problem is, you don't see the same in your argument, which is much more tenuous IMHO.
I suggest that you re-watch the video of this year's KD, and take note of the rodeo up to the point of going into the first turn.

To rely upon some fantasy that the 1973 KD would have been run identically--with many additional horses adding complicating factors early in the race to a trailing horse--is a pretty weak position. There's a plethora of extra potential nastiness that could have done any horse in.

[ILovetheInner]

There is no argument that big fields have some horses winning and others losing which might not have in other circumstances in the KYD. If this was about a smaller Derby field allowing for fairer and truer results, there would be no argument. However, this is being said in relation to the TC, and horses who win that, at least the three I saw achieve it and the many I have seen fail, are serious warriors of substantial talent. Trouble lines often are for lesser horses. When you are talking about horses that grandly talented, they become unneeded excuses in all but the most extraordinary of situations. Trip handicappers know to look beyond the mere trouble line and to consider what the true impact was, and are equally aware that some horses are beyond most forms of a results-affecting trouble. Certainly Slew awed many for overcoming his rodeo of a start and moving towards a front that was far from crawling....and he still laughed. As he sprinted up, he could have gotten boxed in, but bulled his way through....not a lot of racehorses wanted to mess with Seattle Slew. And then we have the anecdote of Cordero, who felt disarmed as Slew positioned himself just off of the pace setting For the Moment, giving Cordero the stare down, which he said he had never experienced before. You don't beat that, which is the point. If we start clearing out this hurdle and that for a horse to win the TC, they will not be on par with the winners before.

[clocker7]

I don't think that I've read anything more ridiculous than those that claim that traffic doesn't have the potential to beat any horse. That's almost akin to saying that re-running the same field of horses will result in the same outcome.

For a full week after Secretariat's loss to Onion, the debate was about Turcotte's decision to stay inside, rather than outside, because of worry about ground loss. (Then the team came up with the excuse that it was due to the "incubation of a virus" that did not manifest itself until a mildly elevated temperature was measured of the following weekend. Then they seized upon it to subdue the criticism.)

Every horse is beatable. Especially in the modern KDs. Put it into a 20-horse field with any kind of trouble at the break, or jostling early on, and the race can be lost. I've looked at Seattle Slew's KD dozens of times. Add a couple of more starters in front of him, and it's very likely that he doesn't escape jail like he barely did anyway. And to refer to his close call as any kind of a romp is laughable.

[tucker6]

Every horse is beatable.

At least we agree on something. As for the rest of your ideas, I daresay that you are fitting circumstances into your preconceived hypothesis and getting the validation you desire. Good for you.

[clocker7]

At least we agree on something. As for the rest of your ideas, I daresay that you are fitting circumstances into your preconceived hypothesis and getting the validation you desire. Good for you.
What's that gibberish supposed to mean?

I have simply stated that trouble can beat any horse, including Secretariat. It is not a radical statement to opine that a horse winning by 2 1/2 lengths could have seen that margin evaporate with only a portion of the collisions that happened in this year's KD. Or from a kick suffered in a bigger field, where the chances of that happening increase. Or from crowding at the gate. Or from a million other things that have beaten great champions of the past.

[ILovetheInner]

The question remains....who is your sample horse who was denied the TC due to traffic. Point Given? Afleet Alex? They had their shot if they were great enough.

Whip was put away on Secretariat once he passed Sham in the KYD. His Preakness is the least talked about, but he was put into the race way early with a ginormous move and laughed. Chic was surprised to see him....he was last seconds before. We love Sham, but Secretariat's move was way too much for him to do a thing about. I've always thought that race to have been more visually impressive than the Belmont, for when he drew off in the latter, at 1 1/2 miles, that race was over. Win by 18 or 31, does it matter? No one else was running by then. And he was put into a speed duel in that. Horrid idea, race ending idea for any horse not named Secretariat. The different aspects in each run make it crystal clear his versatility, flex and condescending mastery, and when you couple that with the hugeness of his peak, what beats that horse in the TC? Falling down would be about it. If he had traffic, the monster move he was capable of would have remedied that good and fast. A lot of times trouble combines with a horse not handy or quick enough, or great enough, to remedy the situation We're distanced from not seeing a truly great horse in a really long time. They don't play by the rules....they are beyond them. Much like Slew getting knocked out at the start then pulling his way up into a fast pace going ten furlongs for the first time. Game over, unless your name was Seattle Slew. That's why people don't want changes. It's not supposed to be easy or even particularly doable.

[clocker7]

The question remains....who is your sample horse who was denied the TC due to traffic. Point Given? Afleet Alex? They had their shot if they were great enough.

Whip was put away on Secretariat once he passed Sham in the KYD. His Preakness is the least talked about, but he was put into the race way early with a ginormous move and laughed. Chic was surprised to see him....he was last seconds before. We love Sham, but Secretariat's move was way too much for him to do a thing about. I've always thought that race to have been more visually impressive than the Belmont, for when he drew off in the latter, at 1 1/2 miles, that race was over. Win by 18 or 31, does it matter? No one else was running by then. And he was put into a speed duel in that. Horrid idea, race ending idea for any horse not named Secretariat. The different aspects in each run make it crystal clear his versatility, flex and condescending mastery, and when you couple that with the hugeness of his peak, what beats that horse in the TC? Falling down would be about it. If he had traffic, the monster move he was capable of would have remedied that good and fast. A lot of times trouble combines with a horse not handy or quick enough, or great enough, to remedy the situation We're distanced from not seeing a truly great horse in a really long time. They don't play by the rules....they are beyond them. Much like Slew getting knocked out at the start then pulling his way up into a fast pace going ten furlongs for the first time. Game over, unless your name was Seattle Slew. That's why people don't want changes. It's not supposed to be easy or even particularly doable.

1. My argument isn't that some "sample horse" has been denied a TC, only that present horses face a gauntlet that older era horses didn't. I sense that such an obvious observation touches a sort spot.

2. Yes, Secretariat was an unbeatable horse, and nothing--including normal, day-to-day racing luck--would have denied him his unblemished record .... no, wait ....

[tucker6]

1. My argument isn't that some "sample horse" has been denied a TC, only that present horses face a gauntlet that older era horses didn't. I sense that such an obvious observation touches a sort spot.

2. Yes, Secretariat was an unbeatable horse, and nothing--including normal, day-to-day racing luck--would have denied him his unblemished record .... no, wait ....
All those words when a simple "I got nothing" would have sufficed. ILoveTheInner gave you the perfect forum to announce which horse that was denied the TC in the last 20 years would have won with fewer horses in the race. Instead, you chose to duck and weave. Ali's rope-a-dope has nothing on you. :rolleyes:

[ILovetheInner]

1. My argument isn't that some "sample horse" has been denied a TC, only that present horses face a gauntlet that older era horses didn't. I sense that such an obvious observation touches a sort spot.

2. Yes, Secretariat was an unbeatable horse, and nothing--including normal, day-to-day racing luck--would have denied him his unblemished record .... no, wait ....

It doesn't touch a sore spot, I just think you are making more of it than there is. Screwy results can happen in the KYD due to field size, but when talking of the TC, those horses are supposed to be beyond that. Secretariat is an example you gave, but he employed different tactics in each of the three legs. He could make his own race, and did. He could and did lose, but the Secretariat who ran in the TC was not the Secretariat who lost those races. You need to be a superior horse in perfect peak, not a one trick pony, and you must be a warrior. Your very argument suffers greatly at the hands of Seattle Slew, who certainly would have gotten boxed in, frustrated and out of his game plan....were he not Seattle Slew. A horse who could rectify a calamity in a heartbeat.

There have been a lot of runnings of this race to see the proof that we would have a TC winner were it not for crowded Derby fields. The irony for you is that were there such a horse, it would beyond doubts be Little Current, who may not have even made the race today with starter limits and prequalifiers. He faced a larger Derby field than anyone and it may well have cost him the TC. But with blinkers off he had no speed at all. He would win the Preakness and Belmont decisively with ground saving rides versus the extreme overland route he had to take in Kentucky. But once again, you can't need things your way to win the TC. He did. And that separates him from horses who could make it happen.

[clocker7]

All those words when a simple "I got nothing" would have sufficed. ILoveTheInner gave you the perfect forum to announce which horse that was denied the TC in the last 20 years would have won with fewer horses in the race. Instead, you chose to duck and weave. Ali's rope-a-dope has nothing on you. :rolleyes:
No amount of your twaddle can conceal your resistance to admitting the obvious: big fields produce results that smaller fields don't.

I get the sense that you're so enthralled with Secretariat that you would never admit that a certain field size would have defeated him at Churchill: something that the most jaded handicapper would concede. Even if it were a hundred horses. Because the myth is THAT important in your life.

[tucker6]

No amount of your twaddle can conceal your resistance to admitting the obvious: big fields produce results that smaller fields don't.

I get the sense that you're so enthralled with Secretariat that you would never admit that a certain field size would have defeated him at Churchill: something that the most jaded handicapper would concede. Even if it were a hundred horses. Because the myth is THAT important in your life.
Keep deflecting from the questions. If I were you I'd do the same thing. :lol:

[RaceBookJoe]

Keep deflecting from the questions. If I were you I'd do the same thing. :lol:

I find it more "rainman-ish" than deflecting, he wont let go worse than my ex-gf. Screw it, the heck with Belmont field size, im starting a thread on Preakness weather conditions...dammit Riva Ridge was cheated in 1972, just not fair they made him run on that track, they definitely should have waited a few days. From now on, only fair field sizes and perfect track conditions or the whole thing is just unfair :rolleyes:

[clocker7]

Keep deflecting from the questions. If I were you I'd do the same thing. :lol:
All you have to do is man up.

[clocker7]

I find it more "rainman-ish" than deflecting, he wont let go worse than my ex-gf. Screw it, the heck with Belmont field size, im starting a thread on Preakness weather conditions...dammit Riva Ridge was cheated in 1972, just not fair they made him run on that track, they definitely should have waited a few days. From now on, only fair field sizes and perfect track conditions or the whole thing is just unfair :rolleyes:
My comments were not about the Belmont Stakes size.

And condolences about your luck with women.

[RaceBookJoe]

My comments were not about the Belmont Stakes size.

And condolences about your luck with women.

So you havent mentioned anything about past Belmonts and the size of the fields??

My luck with women has actually been good, you just remind me of one of them haha

[PhantomOnTour]

Are we still talking about this?
:sleeping:

[RaceBookJoe]

Are we still talking about this?
:sleeping:

Only until they give Chrome 2 TC entitlement trophy's for trying :)

[The WindfallAngler]

All those words when a simple "I got nothing" would have sufficed. ILoveTheInner gave you the perfect forum to announce which horse that was denied the TC in the last 20 years would have won with fewer horses in the race. Instead, you chose to duck and weave. Ali's rope-a-dope has nothing on you. :rolleyes:Offhand, two leap to mind, for Belmont Stakes purposes:

I can easily envision PLEASANT COLONY's triple crown. Seeing as he's in the books finishing third, beaten less than two lengths, after breaking from the 10 post and racing wide.

Pleasant Colony faced 10 foes, in his Belmont Stakes. If his race had been contested with four fewer opponents, the ground saved by the simple expedient of reduced turn path radius (both turns) would, by itself, more than make up the winner, Summing's, less-than-two-lengths margin of victory. ...Even while preserving Summing's perfect rail trip (whose jock admitted "saved all the ground"). But whether or not you would stubbornly disallow Pleasant Colony his triple crown, on this basis...

Only an idiot would deny REAL QUIET his triple crown (who also faced ten horses, unlike all of our Triple Crown winners, none of whom ever bested more than 7 horses, averaging far less), were a theoretical random 4 horses subtracted somehow. Engendering less traffic and resulting ground saved, through what I have termed reduced turn path radius. ...Seeing as Real Quiet only had to eclipse Victory Gallop's paper thin margin of 4 inches!

[The WindfallAngler]

In this thread we can perceive the vagaries of both Sturgeon's Law, and Sturgeon's Revelation:

Nothing is always absolutely so, and, ninety percent of everything is crap.

[The WindfallAngler]

So you havent mentioned anything about past Belmonts and the size of the fields??It is I, to whom you may address your point-by-point rebuttal, should you feel the need. Not Clocker7. My comments pertained to Belmont Stakes field size, and not specifically Derby or Preakness fields, because it is here that an increased number of starters can be expected to magnify whatever Fresh Horse effect may be operating.

Exactly how much tougher the Triple Crown has become, has not been elucidated. However, it should be obvious, as others have pointed out, a larger number of starters necessarily influences race outcome.

[RaceBookJoe]

It is I, to whom you may address your point-by-point rebuttal, should you feel the need. Not Clocker7. My comments pertained to Belmont Stakes field size, and not specifically Derby or Preakness fields, because it is here that an increased number of starters can be expected to magnify whatever Fresh Horse effect may be operating.

Exactly how much tougher the Triple Crown has become, has not been elucidated. However, it should be obvious, as others have pointed out, a larger number of starters necessarily influences race outcome.

Then apologies to clocker7, it just seemed like everytime I clicked into this thread his posts about field size were the first thing I saw. my mistake