Triple Crown compromise?

[zico20]

I have heard all the rants of Coburn about how unfair it is to have horses skip the Derby or Preakness to run in the Belmont. While I disagree with him and horses should be able to run in any race their owners choose, what about this scenario. The three races total 5 million in purses. What about dropping the purse available to horses that skip the Derby or Preakness and going back to the bonus system. So a horse like Tonalist would run as if the race were for 250,000 and he would get 60% of that. The rest of his share would get redistributed. In this case, Commisioner would get 20% of 250,000. This way the tracks don't have to put up the bonus money, it just comes out of the original purse. Only horses that run in the first two are eligible for the bonus money. So two years ago horses like Ill Have Another and Bodemeister would have gotten most of the bonus money.

This does not restrict any horse from running in any race and since making money is the name of the game, it penalizes the connections of Tonalist and Commissioner for skipping the first two legs.

I am not saying I am all for this. It just popped into my head.

[chadk66]

I have heard all the rants of Coburn about how unfair it is to have horses skip the Derby or Preakness to run in the Belmont. While I disagree with him and horses should be able to run in any race their owners choose, what about this scenario. The three races total 5 million in purses. What about dropping the purse available to horses that skip the Derby or Preakness and going back to the bonus system. So a horse like Tonalist would run as if the race were for 250,000 and he would get 60% of that. The rest of his share would get redistributed. In this case, Commisioner would get 20% of 250,000. This way the tracks don't have to put up the bonus money, it just comes out of the original purse. Only horses that run in the first two are eligible for the bonus money. So two years ago horses like Ill Have Another and Bodemeister would have gotten most of the bonus money.

This does not restrict any horse from running in any race and since making money is the name of the game, it penalizes the connections of Tonalist and Commissioner for skipping the first two legs.

I am not saying I am all for this. It just popped into my head.
that makes some sense. Coburn makes a pretty valid argument in that if they have a point system for the Derby why not for the whole triple crown. It's really a double edged sword. You want to see a triple crown winner but you also want to see the best horses compete even if it's just one race in the series.

[mannyberrios]

The Belmont has had fresh horses since the beginning of time

[Dark Horse]

They started a point system for the KY Derby, didn't they? They could extend it, in some sort of weighted way, so that the horses with the most points get in to the other TC races. For example, 20 horses max in the Derby, 14 horses max in the Preakness, and 8 horses max in the Belmont. Then, for instance, participation in the Preakness doubles the points the horses came into the Derby with (plus points for finish in Derby). That would create a much stronger Preakness field. Then, if six or seven horses move on from the Derby to the Preakness, there are just one or two spots left for the Belmont, so the whole idea of lying in wait becomes almost useless. Horses that didn't quite make the Derby would be first on the list for open spots in Preakness or Derby.

I've long favored a points system for all of horse racing, where points can be earned for every single race. That way you could have standings in each category. If NFL teams played without standings, who would care? There would be no story to follow and come back to each week. Standings provide the story, and the suspense. At the end of the year, you would have champions in different categories, instead of a stupid debate about the horse of the year.

They already started it for the Derby. Why not build on that?

[Stillriledup]

If you've raced in the first 2 legs, you carry 121 in the Belmont. If you missed one of the 2, you carry 124 and if you missed both, you carry 126.

[serp]

I would be resistant to any changes to the triple crown but doubly so to any that make it easier to win by discouraging competition.

If change is really needed just so someone can win all 3 then retire the triple crown and call it something else. Honor those that did it as doing something nobody else will be able to do.

Personally, I'd like to keep things the way they are and see if a horse comes along that can do it. Maybe it won't but I'd hate to think such a horse came along and didn't get the chance.

[Clocker]

The Triple Crown is an acknowledgement of the racing industry and racing community of outstanding achievement. It is what it is. There are no rules except that you win three races run by three different tracks under three different sets of conditions, and you are acknowledged for your achievement. Just do it, or don't complain about it. If you define it as something else, than it is something else. But it isn't the Triple Crown.

If you change the rules and conditions for the World Series or the Super Bowl, they aren't the World Series or the Super Bowl anymore. They might even be something that is more representative of abilities of the teams. But they aren't the World Series or the Super Bowl.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

What you want is good contests. You want the best and most competitive fields lining up for every race. This makes for good races to watch and good races to bet on

Coburn's system or any points system artificially weakens the Belmont and so weakens the race as a contest

The system is fine as it is and there is zero merit in any of Coburn's rants

One thing Coburn failed to mention was how weak the Preakness was as a contest. In the Preakness California Chrome only had to face the 7th and 11th placed finishers from the Derby and they ran 2nd and 4th in the Preakness. So the Preakness was easy pickings for CC

In the Belmont he had to face a serious contest with more horses from the Derby and the Peter Pan horses. He came up short over the longer distance and back against a stronger field

Coburn should be happy winning the Derby and a weak Preakness and to have a good horse

[horses4courses]

What you want is good contests. You want the best and most competitive fields lining up for every race. This makes for good races to watch and good races to bet on

Coburn's system or any points system artificially weakens the Belmont and so weakens the race as a contest

The system is fine as it is and there is zero merit in any of Coburn's rants

One thing Coburn failed to mention was how weak the Preakness was as a contest. In the Preakness California Chrome only had to face the 7th and 11th placed finishers from the Derby and they ran 2nd and 4th in the Preakness. So the Preakness was easy pickings for CC

In the Belmont he had to face a serious contest with more horses from the Derby and the Peter Pan horses. He came up short over the longer distance and back against a stronger field

Coburn should be happy winning the Derby and a weak Preakness and to have a good horse

Agreed.

Woody Stephens made a living putting fresh shooters into the Belmont.
It's a fact of life that some trainers will place their horses strategically.
You can't blame them for that - in fact, it should be applauded.

If you restricted the TC to those horses who only qualified via the Derby,
not very many of them would contest the latter two races having run up the track in the Derby.
The 20 runners who went into the gate at Churchill would be whittled down
to near half that for the Preakness, and into single digits by New York.

Including, say, the top 30 Derby qualifiers as TC eligible at that point
will still give you fresher horses come Belmont.
Mr. Coburn is out of line, and just feeling sorry for himself and his horse.

A radical change in format to the Triple Crown is a lousy idea.
If it ever came about, you could call it something else,
but it would no longer be the Triple Crown.

[nearco]

that makes some sense. Coburn makes a pretty valid argument in that if they have a point system for the Derby why not for the whole triple crown. It's really a double edged sword. You want to see a triple crown winner but you also want to see the best horses compete even if it's just one race in the series.

They have a point system for the Derby because every dumbass with an owner's licence wants to have a "Derby horse". So they have to limit the field somehow.
They almost never need to limit the field for the Preakness and the Belmont as there are never more entries than spots. If there are more entries than spots, then both those races use graded stakes earnings to limit the field.
What the f&#$k is people's problem with the idea that each race is a stand alone race, owned and operated by a different racetrack, in a different state, and that each of them predates the Triple Crown by 60-70 years.
Each race can, and should be, entered separately.
They are only linked by this man made idea of the "Triple Crown". In the same way that the Australian Open, The French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open are called the "Grand Slam" of tennis. There is no requirement that a tennis player has to play in all 4 competitions.
Likewise, a golfer attempting to sweep the Majors can run up against "fresh shooters" in any of the Majors. Wouldn't you consider it absurd if participation in the PGA was limited only to golfers who had played in the Masters and the British Open?

There is nothing wrong with the way it is. Someday a horse will come along and the stars will align and we'll have a Triple Crown winner. It will happen when it happens.

[nearco]

Btw, if you think the US Triple Crown is hard, take a look at the English Triple Crown. You have to beat specialist horses in each race. The 2000 Guineas is chock full of top class milers, horses that will never run past a mile in their careers. The Derby is full of middle distance horses, that will spend their entire careers running at 10-12f. The St Leger will have out and out stayers running in it, horses to whom the idea of running in a G1 mile race would be a bizarre concept. Can you imagine if a condition of entry in the St Leger was that you had to have run in the 2000 Guineas? Looney bin stuff.

[dinque]

belmont would have been a three horse race with a dnf...that triple crown scenario would have been wonderful for racing...the dumbass triple crown would produce about 5 winners in a decade making the race pretty dull...leave it alone, I know it's harder now but so what...it's supposed to be hard and that's why it's special

[NJ Stinks]

If you change the rules and conditions for the World Series or the Super Bowl, they aren't the World Series or the Super Bowl anymore. They might even be something that is more representative of abilities of the teams. But they aren't the World Series or the Super Bowl.

Clocker, don't know where you were when they did it but the "rules and conditions" to get into the World Series and Super Bowl have changed. Both leagues now have playoffs instead of just having the top team in each league/conference play for the league title. That got us a bunch of "Wild Card" teams winning the Super Bowl and the Cardinals winning the World Series with a regular season record barely above .500 a few years ago.

Obviously, these new rules & conditions (playoffs) didn't ruin your enjoyment when watching the World Series or Super Bowl.

I'll say this in Colburn's defense. The guy knew what CC had to go through to get to New York. There were 4 horses yesterday that did nothing to qualify except say they wanted to run. (I won't include Commanding Curve, Samraat, Wicked Strong, or Medal Count because they did run in the Derby.) It's kind of like somebody jumping into a marathon after the others in the field already ran 16 miles. Would anybody be surprised that the leader after 16 miles was beaten by the interloper?

Anyway, how many ran against the 12 Triple Crown winners in their 3 events and how many ran against CC? There is no comparison numbers-wise back in the '70's except for Seattle Slew. Slew ran in a field of 15 in the Derby, a field of 9 in the Preakness, and a field of 8 in the Belmont. That's 32 entries in total. Affirmed was in fields of 11, 7, 5 (23 total). Secretariat was in fields of 13, 6, and 5 (24 total). Compare those numbers with California Chrome - 19, 10, & 11 or 40 horses total in all 3 of the Triple Crown races.

Further, Chrome only faced two horses from the Derby field in the Preakness and only 2 horses in the Belmont that he had faced in the Preakness.

I remember when a new shooter in the Preakness or Belmont was unique and worth noting. (For example, remember all the talk about Aloma's Ruler in 1982 or Red Bullet in 2000 in the Preakness? Nowadays the beaten horse who runs back again in the next leg of the Triple Crown is more unique and worth noting than the new shooter.

Anyway, Coburn says it's not fair and I can't say with any certainty that he's wrong.

[Pensacola Pete]

The point system was implemented for the Derby because the field almost always filled, and they had an impartial way way to cut it back to 20. The same problem rarely exists for the Preakness or Belmont. If there's an open stall in the starting gate, a qualified animal gets to use it.

These owners paid a nomination fee to enter their horses into the Triple Crown, and they don't get a refund if these horses aren't entered. They paid for the right to enter their horses into these races, and they have the option of entering the horses into whichever races they want.

[pacer]

They have a point system for the Derby because every dumbass with an owner's licence wants to have a "Derby horse". So they have to limit the field somehow.
They almost never need to limit the field for the Preakness and the Belmont as there are never more entries than spots. If there are more entries than spots, then both those races use graded stakes earnings to limit the field.
What the f&#$k is people's problem with the idea that each race is a stand alone race, owned and operated by a different racetrack, in a different state, and that each of them predates the Triple Crown by 60-70 years.
Each race can, and should be, entered separately.
They are only linked by this man made idea of the "Triple Crown". In the same way that the Australian Open, The French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open are called the "Grand Slam" of tennis. There is no requirement that a tennis player has to play in all 4 competitions.
Likewise, a golfer attempting to sweep the Majors can run up against "fresh shooters" in any of the Majors. Wouldn't you consider it absurd if participation in the PGA was limited only to golfers who had played in the Masters and the British Open?

There is nothing wrong with the way it is. Someday a horse will come along and the stars will align and we'll have a Triple Crown winner. It will happen when it happens.



Well said Colburn needs to go home and stop acting like a baby. If the horse had won would he have said this I don't think so.

[tanner12oz]

his argument doesn't carry any weight with me...its the way its ALWAYS BEEN...its SUPPOSE TO HARD, that's the point...

[cosmicway]

Medal count did the damage.
To what extent remains imponderable.

[pele polo]

Eventually a Kentucky Derby winner will come along and the connections will decide skip the Preakness and/or Belmont.

Eventually the Kentucky Derby's 20 horse field will create and big enough traffic incident in which a horse stumbles and falls.

I see changes in the next years. I'm favor of tradition and keeping the crown the way it is but I do believe the Derby should cut the field to 16.

[cosmicway]

We Greeks have invented geometry, so I would n't give you easy problems to make it easy.

[Greyfox]

Eventually a Kentucky Derby winner will come along and the connections will decide skip the Preakness and/or Belmont.
.

Last year "I'LL HAVE ANOTHER" won both the KD and Preakness and skipped the Belmont. (leg injury reportedly)

Eventually a Kentucky Derby winner will come along and win the Triple Crown.
It is not an impossible feat.

[scottyloo]

I think if Coburn was running the triple crown series, the Preakness and especially Belmont would likely deserve to be downgraded to a G2 or G3. If the second two legs of the triple crown were to be (essentially) limited to one last out winner maximum, what kind of pathetic G1 would that be? Is there any race in the world that it set up like that?

And what happens to great stories like Rachel Alexandra winning the Preakness? You would never have Oaks and Derby winners going up against each in the Preakness. It doesn't happen much now, but why formalize the restriction? Part of the fun of the triple crown now it to see how it all plays out, what horse enter where, who 'the villain' is going to be, etc.

I think it's fun waiting for a triple crown winner ever year, and not getting it. It's like waiting for a team like the cubs to win a world series again.

[onefast99]

If you've raced in the first 2 legs, you carry 121 in the Belmont. If you missed one of the 2, you carry 124 and if you missed both, you carry 126.
Agree there should be a handicap for those who are "fresh". I like your idea a lot.

[cosmicway]

All this is unamerican.

[clocker7]

Like it or not, changes to the Triple Crown will be forthcoming.

Basketball didn't die the days they initiated the shot clock or the three point line. Baseball purists got over their hissy fit with the DH, and later generations still wonder why watching a pitcher bat was so central to their satisfaction.

Ergo, no one will go off in a huff because the rules for eligibility or the calendar for the Triple Crown gets modified. The only ironclad rule in American sports is that rule changes keep them viable and relevant.