Triple Crown thoughts
 

Good (physically and mentally strong) horses are becoming harder to come by. Only one horse made all three legs, Looking At Lee. Different horses hit the board in all three races, 9 different horses hit the board. Making races 2 and 3 weeks apart is seeming more and more like a problem. There have been exceptions in recent years but they are rare.

The weekend offered some really great racing, Belmont is on to something with the festival but the Triple Crown itself is kind of hype of hype now, when there are results like this and the lack of participation pretty much guarantees these results. The horses are actually showing the physical signs of not making it. American Pharoah is looking more and more like a freak or an Iron Horse compared to the modern 3 yo. I'm not a horse expert, I've been around them and know them, I'm more of a math, statistics and social science type person..............they have to take a look at the logistics of the Triple Crown in the near future. Don't ask Burnsy, ask a few of these trainers. I just look at the stats and sociology.

I think yesterday defines Always Dreaming as a fit horse in the right place at the right time. I think he is at best the 5th best horse to run in all three races.

Totally agree Tom, but that's been the case in many of those Derby's, that's the horse I look for now, the "right now" horse. The peak race of the horses life becomes the derby. Nyquist, Mine That Bird, Giacomo, Orb, Super Saver and I'll Have Another, who only lasted one more race. The rest of those never lived up to it. Even the mighty Street Sense was out of the picture by mid summer. Who knows what's going on with Always Dreaming. Maybe, (hopefully) he will bounce back.

These are just the winners of the Derby. The Triple Crown should have some consistency, if its going to be called a "Triple". That's the main point, one horse (out of 20) competes in all 3? As soon as you lose, you are out, in many cases. And the elephant in the room is people saying that their horse can't do it. People don't say it out loud. But the intentions show loud and clear when one horse can't hit the board twice (in 3 races) because there are so few that come back to each one. That doesn't even touch on the ones that really can't go due to ailments and/or fatigue. Tradition and all that crap sounds great, horse racing and baseball are stuck on this nonsense...........that's why the new generations could give a crap. Its getting harder and harder to call this thing a "Triple"........no other sport could get away with it. I can almost agree with drunk guy (owner) that was bitching about California Chrome after the Belmont at this point. One horse ran in all 3, that's a joke.

I think Cloud Computing will end up being the best horses of the crop.

Every year, certain negative horseplayers whine about the proverbial 'bad' or below-average crop.

This year, those 'stopped clocks' may have gotten it right.

Always Dreaming is really impressive when he has things favorable enough.

Classic Empire was very tough in defeat in the Preakness. Tough enough to look at his Derby as an optimist. He was great in the Juvenile, and at least carried some of that forward to add to this crop.

Cloud Computing is a solid horse. He raced in only the Preakness, and got a good setup, but he provided a quality alternative in the 2nd jewel.

Battle of Midway was a very cool late bloomer. Probably the 4th best horse in the Derby, and was about 16th or so IIRC in odds rank.

Irish War Cry was OK.

Baffert had an off year in terms of Triple Crown additions.

Timeline had to be brought around slowly for races like the Haskell and Travers.

GREAT betting races from the the preps to the Triple Crown series. Interesting to follow along and forward.

I think the Triple Crown races are setup OK as it is, for now. The main purpose of these races is to bring in new fans (and therefore bettors, owners) to the sport. It’s not for the longtime, rabid, gambling-degenerated oldtimers like us.

We've already had a Triple Crown winner this century, so getting another one is not that big of a deal anymore IMO. If we don't have another TC winner in a while, that may be a good thing and add to the mystique. The Belmont is more exciting when there’s a TC on the line and there’s been a drought for a while. If this only happens once every few years, so be it. Between 1979 and 2015, 13 horses have gone on to win both the Derby and the Preakness, with 12 of those running in the Belmont. So, that’s roughly one every three years that we have a super-exciting Belmont, which is OK by me.

As far as "new generations giving a crap" , I'm not sure if they would give more of a crap if the races were spaced and setup so the best 3-year-olds did compete in all three races and were well-rested. The three races are currently over five weeks; if we spaced them out more than that, the young fans might lose interest given their propensity for short attention spans. However, if we go for decades without someone winning the first two legs, that’s a problem.

I love it every year. It definitely lost steam with no TC on the line and some horses skipping the Belmont, but I enjoyed it like I always do.

Looking back at the "heydey" of racing and we have the following horses that ran in all 3 legs of the Triple Crown:

1977: Seattle Slew, Run Dusty Run, Sir Sir
1978: Affirmed, Alydar (5 horse field in the Belmont)
1979: Spectacular Bid, Golden Act, General Assembly, Screen King (only 5 horses ran in the Preakness in 79)

If anything, we are at least getting reasonable sized fields in the TC races post Kentucky Derby nowadays. I couldn't even imagine the outcries in today's world if we would see 5 horse fields in the Preakness and/or Belmont.

Supposedly horses aren't as fit or able to run 12F as they used to be. Then again, the 70s had two renditions of 5 horse fields, two 8 horse fields, and two 9 horse fields. In the 2010's we have had the following field sizes for the Belmont: 12, 12, 11, 14, 11, 8 (Amer Ph), 13, 11.

Good point Lemon. If the three races were spaced every five weeks, other trainers wouldn't be as anxious to enter because they wouldn't feel they had a "rest" advantage, which could result in small fields.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say we may not have seen the best 3yo of this crop yet. I'm not particularly impressed with anyone. I don't think it's impossible for a new face to jump up and take over the division by the end of August. Arrogate wasn't on the radar at this point last year and this crop may not even be as good as last year's crop.

Let me add one horse to the mix. I think McCraken may turn out to be pretty good. He made a really nice wide move in the Derby.

Disappointing triple crown trail but I thought it made for some very good betting angles. Of course I hit nothing so what do I know.

Baffert had the triple crown covered. IMO, Mastery was much the best 3-year old but we will never know. IMO, Reach the World was going to be a classic winner one day but succumbed to an injury.

I am hearing some big things out of BB's camp about his 2-year olds. We will know soon what next year's TC will look like.

Tough game, rigorous schedule with fragile contestants; horse racing continues on its inexorable decline.

:11:

Class, have you read anywhere WHEN (What Decade?) racehorses began to race fairly regularly as 2 yr olds...? I don't know, but it seem a tad young for them to start in so early with heavy training....maybe the division lately is the result of racing thoroughbreds too early...

But he had a Belmont Day for the books!:headbanger: