Time now for the Triple Crown to be changed

[loveracing]

I will probably take heat for this, but the Triple Crown needs a change. When the triple crown first started it was not under the format of two weeks between the derby and preakness and three weeks between the preakness and belmont. My opinion is this, run the races on the first saturday in may, june and july. This way you have the winning derby horse fresh and ready to challenge the new comers in the next legs of the triple crown. Horses are animals and not machines they need rest to race at their best. People will say this change will take luster away from the triple crown, on the contrary the derby and preakness winner will be much more ready for the belmont and the new fresh challengers he may face. Easier to beat a tired derby and preakness winning horse in the belmont than a fresh one. I love the distances of each race that I would not change, so no one can say I am changing anything else.

[ryesteve]

When the triple crown first started it was not under the format of two weeks between the derby and preakness and three weeks between the preakness and belmont.You're right. The races used to be closer together.

[cj]

The current format is what makes it so tough. No way it should be changed.

Wasn't it Citation that won the Jersey Derby as a tuneup for the Belmont after winning the first two legs?

[boomman]

I will probably take heat for this, but the Triple Crown needs a change. When the triple crown first started it was not under the format of two weeks between the derby and preakness and three weeks between the preakness and belmont. My opinion is this, run the races on the first saturday in may, june and july. This way you have the winning derby horse fresh and ready to challenge the new comers in the next legs of the triple crown. Horses are animals and not machines they need rest to race at their best. People will say this change will take luster away from the triple crown, on the contrary the derby and preakness winner will be much more ready for the belmont and the new fresh challengers he may face. Easier to beat a tired derby and preakness winning horse in the belmont than a fresh one. I love the distances of each race that I would not change, so no one can say I am changing anything else.

The time between races is definitely too short (given the fragility of today's breed), especially with just 2 weeks between the Derby and Preakness. My concern though is that if you move it to too many weeks between it takes the luster away from the crown and folks would want to put an asterisk in front of any future Triple Crown Winner. So my suggestion would be to move the Preakness and Belmont back one week each so you would have 3 weeks between the Derby and Preakness and 4 weeks between the Preakness and Belmont. It is an honored tradition and I respect it immensely, but the time has DEFINITELY come for change. The bad thing is, I'm not even sure a change in format will assist in crowning another Triple Crown winner in my lifetime.

Boomer

[DJofSD]

Go ahead. Change it.

Just don't call it a Triple Crown any more. Call it the former series of races that used to mean something and set a standard of excellence but since we've gotten away from the breeding of stout horses and are now only running speed horses we'll name the series of races the Triple Frown.

It's grading on the curve. You'd rather have a TC winner under different rules than to wait until a truly great horse comes around. Typical, you can not win the game so change the rules.

[Moyers Pond]

The TC is only for great horses. There is an average of 1 per decade. That is the way it should be.

Point Given could have easily won the TC. He just didn't have luck. There are horses capable of doing it with a little luck. Big Brown simply wasn't good enough. A horse like PG was. So was a horse like Sunday Silence or Easy Goer. Plenty had the talent, just not the luck.

Spreading out the time between races doesn't give horses the luck they need. It takes a great horse with a little luck, especially in the derby.

[WinterTriangle]

When the triple crown first started it was not under the format of two weeks between the derby and preakness and three weeks between the preakness and belmont.

That would require an actual attention span. :p

Breeding may have changed in horses, but the public has gotten more fickle over the years, too. And their attention spans have dwindled significantly.

[loveracing]

My main focus is a horse needs some rest to be at his best. I would rather see a rested derby and preakness winner trying to win the belmont at full strength rather than a tired one faced fresh challengers.

[DJofSD]

And their attention spans have dwindled significantly.

And I consider that to be an understatement!

[loveracing]

A fresher horse with luck is better than a tired one.

[cj]

My main focus is a horse needs some rest to be at his best. I would rather see a rested derby and preakness winner trying to win the belmont at full strength rather than a tired one faced fresh challengers.

That is generally a myth. Most horses in good form do better when they continue to race. Horses in bad form do better with a layoff.

[DJofSD]

My main focus is a horse needs some rest to be at his best. I would rather see a rested derby and preakness winner trying to win the belmont at full strength rather than a tired one faced fresh challengers.
Let me ask the obvious quesiton here: have you every trained a horse in any discipline? What period of time would constitute a rest?

Have you ever looked at the race records of great horses in the past to see what a good horse can do?

[magwell]

I will probably take heat for this, but the Triple Crown needs a change. When the triple crown first started it was not under the format of two weeks between the derby and preakness and three weeks between the preakness and belmont. My opinion is this, run the races on the first saturday in may, june and july. This way you have the winning derby horse fresh and ready to challenge the new comers in the next legs of the triple crown. Horses are animals and not machines they need rest to race at their best. People will say this change will take luster away from the triple crown, on the contrary the derby and preakness winner will be much more ready for the belmont and the new fresh challengers he may face. Easier to beat a tired derby and preakness winning horse in the belmont than a fresh one. I love the distances of each race that I would not change, so no one can say I am changing anything else. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[loveracing]

Racing 3 times in 5 weeks can make a horse go off form

[loveracing]

Your statement shows you must think a horse is a machine that doesn't need any rest to run at its best.

[cj]

That isn't what I'm saying at all. I do think, however, the chances any horse would win the third leg with more rest are probably being way overblown.

[WinterTriangle]

In a race this long, fresh will not overcome pedigree.

IMHO, the Belmont is more the "breeders race" than the other 2 legs of the TC.

And that's who came in. Horses who were bred to get the 1 1/2 distance.

[Bruddah]

You can change all of the factors you want in the TC series, but you can't change Luck. With a little Luck we would have had at least 2 TC winners or more in the lasts 10 years. If we had, where would these discussions be?

If you want to change something to get another TC winner, change field size. Someone correct me, because I haven't researched this, but I think the other TC winners didn't need to win against 20 horse fields in the Ky Derby. Which means they used less energy to win the first leg of the TC. (JMHO)

The modern day contenders to the TC haven't failed to win against large fields, they have mostly failed at the 1 1/2m Belmont distance. Some of those like Smarty Jones and Charismatic failed just short at the wire.

There is nothing wrong with the TC challenge. It is, what it is suppose to be...A Challenge. Todays competitors need just a bit more racing luck. Todays Society wants instant gratification and that includes wanting TC winners.

It will happen when the right horse has the right Luck. Seemed to me BB had everything going his way, including weak competition, but Lady Luck reared her ugly head again. So What? The next real Champion of this Sport may be in next years crop. :jump:

[loveracing]

Nothing wrong with being rested for a challenge though. Horses are not machines.

[Greyfox]

Golf has it right. They don't put their 4 Majors over 5 weeks !

The Masters is in April.
The U.S. Open is in June.
The British Open is in July.
The P.G.A. is in August.

If horse racing wants to promote the game, the majors need to be spread out to keep in the public eye. It's just that simple.

[loveracing]

Seems you agree with me

[DJofSD]

Bruddah, you are right, you can not change luck. And I believe that luck comes to those that are well prepared.

There was a graphic on one of the broadcasts yesterday, I can not recall if it was ESPN or ABC. BB has the number one ranking when you tally the total number of horses beaten to be in position to win the TC. Or something like that -- I would need to rewatch too many hours of recorded DVR content to find it immediatley, perhaps later.

[46zilzal]

The current format is what makes it so tough. No way it should be changed.


Yes let's make it easier....CRAP. Why is it a cherished goal? Because you have to both GOOD and LUCKY (ask Swale's, Riva's, or a bunch of others about the luck part).

[ryesteve]

Golf has it right. They don't put their 4 Majors over 5 weeks !

The Masters is in April.
The U.S. Open is in June.
The British Open is in July.
The P.G.A. is in August.
I'd think that makes it harder. Golfers are streaky... it's a lot harder to maintain a high level of play over 4 months than it is to get into a great groove during a given month. And it's not as if golf is as physically demanding as running races. Most of these guys are playing a tournament every weekend anyway.

[Greyfox]

I don't care if it makes it harder or easier. My interest is in doing a better job of promoting the sport. Spreading the dates out would increase public interest in the long run. Otherwise, except for the Breeders Cup, there are 47 weeks where the major majors are missing. Does that make any sense at all?

[ryesteve]

Spreading the dates out would increase public interest in the long run.I'm skeptical. How was the 3 week gap between the Preakness and Belmont filled? Pretty much nothing but talk of quarter cracks and steroids. A lengthier span of dead air doesn't seem like it'd be helpful. What would increase public interest in the long run is if we figured out a way for these horses to have lengthier careers, rather than treating the racetrack as a revolving door between the farm and the breeding shed.

[DJofSD]

Does that make any sense at all?

No.

Why don't we change the Tour de France to run the entire summer. What way they can take the middle of the week off and only race on the weekends when every one can watch it on TV.

[Living Flame]

The current format is what makes it so tough. No way it should be changed.

Wasn't it Citation that won the Jersey Derby as a tuneup for the Belmont after winning the first two legs?

Yep. And there were at least a couple TC winners who also won the Withers in between TC races.:eek: And they did just fine.

Man O War won his first stakes race three days after his maiden win. I think his third race was one week later. Didn't hurt him any.

I can't think of her name, but there was a mare who won two races (possibly both of them stakes) IN THE SAME DAY.

That said, i wouldn't be against more time between modern TC races, but it really won't solve the problem.:)

[loveracing]

Giving a horse more time off doesn't guarantee he will win a triple crown, but he will be fresher to race against new challengers who are fresh.

[loveracing]

Interesting the quarter crack came after the preakness, 2 races in 2 weeks, I bet if there had been more time between races it might not have happened. Big Brown may have won the Belmont, possibly.

[russowen77]

The current format is what makes it so tough. No way it should be changed.

Wasn't it Citation that won the Jersey Derby as a tuneup for the Belmont after winning the first two legs?
I am impressed. That is one fine memory.

[Ron]

Interesting the quarter crack came after the preakness, 2 races in 2 weeks, I bet if there had been more time between races it might not have happened. Big Brown may have won the Belmont, possibly.

Big Brown had quarter cracks before the Derby.

[ghostyapper]

They need to raise the purses of the preakness and belmont to at least 1.5 million. The derby is double either of those races right now and its still a triple crown?

[TheGhost]

What did Real Quiet and Silver Charm lose by? Not much. A head bounce and we have TC winners. It's not like everyone is finishing up the tracks. You just have to be good and have a little luck.

Everyone was saying to change the triple crown before Secretariat came along because no one could win it,but then right off the bat 3 guys did.

[Snow Chief]

With all the recent talk about the weakness of the breed surrounding the Eight Belles tragedy, why should the sport tinker with it's last remaining test of durability, the Triple Crown? You spread out the TC you kill the Haskell, the Travers, the Jim Dandy; they all get squeezed out. We will rarely, if ever, see a three-year-old in the Woodward again, pushing the Travers back a week 15 years ago and moving the JCGC and Woodward up a week is to thank for this. Another reason against it is that you can't push the Belmont too much further past Memorial Day or causal fans will lose interest as it is summer. They will all be out of town for the weekend at the beach, etc. Finally, who cares that Big Brown isn't a Triple Crown winner? it is supposed to be hard to do and the longer it remains unclaimed the longer and stronger it will pique the general publics' interest. Hopefully, Big Brown will redeem himself with some big performances later this year and it will only be more reason to recognize how special the Triple Crown winners really are.

PS- didn't Sir Barton win the Preakness 4 DAYS after winning the Derby?

[Kelso]

Fix the breeding (stop breeding-for-breakdowns) and genuine TC champions will run again.

[WinterTriangle]

What would increase public interest in the long run is if we figured out a way for these horses to have lengthier careers, rather than treating the racetrack as a revolving door between the farm and the breeding shed.

Finally, somebody addresses the elephant in the room, instead of the wrinkles on the elephant.

Not all race horses have the good fortune of the ending up in the breeding shed. Let it be mentioned that the way many are managed during their race career, afterwards they are good only as "pasture buddies". (If you know what that is, then you know what i'm saying.) They're not even sound enough to serve as mounts for trail rides.

[Indulto]

I'm skeptical. How was the 3 week gap between the Preakness and Belmont filled? Pretty much nothing but talk of quarter cracks and steroids. A lengthier span of dead air doesn't seem like it'd be helpful. What would increase public interest in the long run is if we figured out a way for these horses to have lengthier careers, rather than treating the racetrack as a revolving door between the farm and the breeding shed.http://www.american.com/archive/2008/june-06-08/triple-threat (http://www.american.com/archive/2008/june-06-08/triple-threat)
Triple Threat
By Raymond Sauer Monday, June 2, 2008
... But the biggest problem facing the sport is its backward economics, first made evident by Secretariat. Quite simply, both potential and actual stars are more valuable in the breeding shed than on the racetrack. ...
... Early retirement robs horse racing of the superstars that are capable of grabbing public attention and keeping people interested in the sport. Big Brown is no exception: like Secretariat, he will head for stud duty at the end of his three-year-old season. Given the rules, this is the only rational decision. His owners pocket $50 million dollars by sending him to stud. Big Brown will generate upwards of $10 million in revenue in 2009, easily three times what he could expect to earn by racing.
...Here’s one proposal for reform: harvest the sperm of Big Brown this winter, enough to inseminate 12 to 15 years’ worth of a current stud book; store the sperm for future use; and geld Big Brown so that his best alternative is to race, rather than to breed, when he is four and five, the peak years of performance for a thoroughbred racehorse.

Sound radical? Of course it does. For one thing, it would require the Jockey Club to end the ban on artificial insemination. If that happened, entrepreneurs and innovators would soon figure out a way to keep the Big Browns of the sport racing in their prime years. The goal is simple: save the genes and keep the stars competing on the track. I have seen many a horse race, but a breeding shed has never drawn a crowd or a wager.

[PaceAdvantage]

I would be absolutely devastated if they ever change a thing about the Triple Crown. But then again, the whole world is moving that way (heck, if not enough people are passing the test, it has to be the test's fault!!!!!) so why should the Triple Crown be any different....:rolleyes:

[kenwoodallpromos]

This may also weed out the worst studs and improve the breed!

[nobeyerspls]

Racing 3 times in 5 weeks can make a horse go off form

That might be true but Big Brown was rested before the Derby and not hard used in the Preakness. Dutrow compared his "correct" management of BB to the wrong way the Smarty Jones people handled the Preakness.
Casino Drive was nurtured into this race carefully and he ended up lame off of two career starts. Look at his inbreeding and that of the others. It became the thing to do to cross Northern Dancer stallions to Mr. Prospecter line mares and vice versa and now the chickens are coming home to roost. With all those crosses at the high-end of stud fees, how do you get an outcross? Thoroughbreds used to go back to three foundation sires. Soon they will go back to just one. Breeders try to capture speed and precocity so that they can get their high-priced runner into the breeding shed quickly. The sooner the better.
Will inbred milers produce classic distance runners? No. They'll produce more horses with short careers.

[bobphilo]

I can definitely see both sides to the argument. On one hand, the Triple Crown should be very difficult to win. On the other hand, given the fragility of modern T-Breds, it has become virtually impossible to achieve under the current structure. That’s why Lukas has come out in favor of changing the distance and timing of the races.


Horses that were able to win the TC in the past were actually able to give improved performances across the 3 races. If any horse manages to win the TC in modern times under the present format, he would be a horse who give a severely inferior performance in the Belmont, but still good enough to win against a weak Belmont field. That’s the kind of TC winner we would have had if BB had not totally had a meltdown but only regressed enough to still beat the weak field. If we keep the current format, that’s the kind of TC winner we will get, if any.


On the other hand, the end of TC winners, or great Belmont performances, may be just what the industry needs to wake to the fact of how badly they’ve screwed up the breed.



http://www.kentucky.com/779/story/428310.html (http://www.kentucky.com/779/story/428310.html)



Bob

[Shenanigans]

No, it should not be changed. We have seen a handful of near misses in the past thirty years. If horses today can't get up to do what horses did yesteryear then change what the real problem is - breeding.

[Imriledup]

I think that the TC format needs to be changed. We don't need horses running in races they wouldn't otherwise run in just to chase some 'trophy'.

BB would NOT have run in the Preakness if there was no such thing as a triple crown.

If Dutrow would have come out and said, "we're not going to the Preakness because i don't believe in bringing a horse back in 2 weeks after a hard and taxing mile and a quarter race"

But, like they all do, greed won out in the end.