Back to Back Triple Crowns?

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by tucker6

This is not aimed at you, but the use of "changes to the breed" is one of the biggest fallacies out there in any walk of life. Do we really believe 40 years of breeding can really change the breed that much? More than any other change such as training, medication, etc? And don't think that dumb luck doesn't play a part. How many horses lost the TC that were worthy, but just didn't have it on one of those three days?

I know what you mean, but I'm just trying to understand why it took 38 years to have a horse win a triple crown again, & I'm confident in saying we will see another this year. I don't know what's going on, but something is as we are facing back to back triples.

[PowerUpPaynter]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

I know what you mean, but I'm just trying to understand why it took 38 years to have a horse win a triple crown again, & I'm confident in saying we will see another this year. I don't know what's going on, but something is as we are facing back to back triples.

I dont know man. I think he wins in Baltimore then Loses at Belmont. Remember winning the Triple Crown is really really hard to do. Smarty Jones, Big Brown, California Chrome felt like locks too.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by PowerUpPaynter

I dont know man. I think he wins in Baltimore then Loses at Belmont. Remember winning the Triple Crown is really really hard to do. Smarty Jones, Big Brown, California Chrome felt like locks too.

Points taken. I thought Chrome & Smarty Jones had a decent shots at winning & didn't. Its just a feeling I have that we see back to back after 38 years of not even one.

Tge next 4 weeks will definitely be interesting.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

I know what you mean, but I'm just trying to understand why it took 38 years to have a horse win a triple crown again, & I'm confident in saying we will see another this year. I don't know what's going on, but something is as we are facing back to back triples.

Variance.

Take note of something-- TC's have historically come in clumps. 3 in the 1930's, 4 in the 1940's, none in the 1950's or 1960's, 3 in the 1970's.

And there's NO reason for that. Not changes in the breed, not anything. Just statistical variance.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

Points taken. I thought Chrome & Smarty Jones had a decent shots at winning & didn't. Its just a feeling I have that we see back to back after 38 years of not even one.

Tge next 4 weeks will definitely be interesting.

I never felt CC was in the same ballpark as Smarty Jones at all.

The only thing that has worn me out about the Triple Crown chase is favorite obsession.

You haven't been that guy SecretAgentMan. It's been fun with you this whole spring brother. I'm looking forward to the Belmont. Preakness always is the eminently winnable race for Derby winner but I'll look at it.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

I never felt CC was in the same ballpark as Smarty Jones at all.

The only thing that has worn me out about the Triple Crown chase is favorite obsession.

You haven't been that guy SecretAgentMan. It's been fun with you this whole spring brother. I'm looking forward to the Belmont. Preakness always is the eminently winnable race for Derby winner but I'll look at it.

I don't see Nyquist losing in the Preakness, but 1/2 odds isn't good. I wish they could guarantee payouts of at least even money on every triple crown race.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

I never felt CC was in the same ballpark as Smarty Jones at all.

The only thing that has worn me out about the Triple Crown chase is favorite obsession.

You haven't been that guy SecretAgentMan. It's been fun with you this whole spring brother. I'm looking forward to the Belmont. Preakness always is the eminently winnable race for Derby winner but I'll look at it.

CC is a far more accomplished racehorse than SJ.

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

CC is a far more accomplished racehorse than SJ.

Certainly, but that's like saying a college graduate is more accomplished than a high school dropout. Smarty had to retire early but accomplished as much as Chrome until that point.

I have a feeling we're in for a Belmont tote board special again.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by tucker6

This is not aimed at you, but the use of "changes to the breed" is one of the biggest fallacies out there in any walk of life. Do we really believe 40 years of breeding can really change the breed that much?..

Your assertion is absolutely untrue. Decades ago the leading sires topped out at about 30 or so foals a year. In their lifetimes, Bold Ruler had 355, Bull Lea had 377 and Princequillo had 480. In 1980 there were 68,000 races. In 2010 there were 51,000. In 1980 there were about 36,000 foals born. In 2010 there were about 30,000.

Tapit is just 15 and has already sired almost 1,000 foals. Currently there are 14 stallions among the top 75 in North America that have already sired over 1,000 foals, some way over a thousand. Storm Cat had over 1,400.

The change is clear. There are fewer stallions with a much greater influence on the breed than ever before. Furthermore, the number of annual major races beyond a mile-and-an-eighth on dirt has fallen from about 50 to about 25 over just the last 30 years. IOW, this extreme concentration of pedigree influence correlates with a decline in the distance capability of the breed in general. The gene pool has shrunk dramatically. So yes, "40 years of breeding can really change the breed that much."

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

Certainly, but that's like saying a college graduate is more accomplished than a high school dropout. Smarty had to retire early but accomplished as much as Chrome until that point.

I have a feeling we're in for a Belmont tote board special again.

Smarty Jones didn't have to be retired so early especially when that 5 million dollar bonus is factored in. It was very disappointing to see him retired so early.

[clocker7]

At least grant that Chrome was injured early in the Belmont. It's not like he threw in a clinker afterwards, either.

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by clocker7

At least grant that Chrome was injured early in the Belmont. It's not like he threw in a clinker afterwards, either.

He did in PA.

[Robert Fischer]

Preakness looks to be more difficult than the Derby for Nyquist.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by Steve R

Your assertion is absolutely untrue. Decades ago the leading sires topped out at about 30 or so foals a year. In their lifetimes, Bold Ruler had 355, Bull Lea had 377 and Princequillo had 480. In 1980 there were 68,000 races. In 2010 there were 51,000. In 1980 there were about 36,000 foals born. In 2010 there were about 30,000.

Tapit is just 15 and has already sired almost 1,000 foals. Currently there are 14 stallions among the top 75 in North America that have already sired over 1,000 foals, some way over a thousand. Storm Cat had over 1,400.

The change is clear. There are fewer stallions with a much greater influence on the breed than ever before. Furthermore, the number of annual major races beyond a mile-and-an-eighth on dirt has fallen from about 50 to about 25 over just the last 30 years. IOW, this extreme concentration of pedigree influence correlates with a decline in the distance capability of the breed in general. The gene pool has shrunk dramatically. So yes, "40 years of breeding can really change the breed that much."

All those stats you presented only prove that the gene pool is more concentrated in the stallion dept. They say nothing as to the actual effects over a 40 year period.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by tucker6

All those stats you presented only prove that the gene pool is more concentrated in the stallion dept. They say nothing as to the actual effects over a 40 year period.

Really? No major American record on dirt beyond a sprint distance has been broken in almost 30 years while records at 5 1/2, 6 and 6 1/2 furlongs all have been set since 2009. There are half the number of major classic distance races on dirt than there were 30 years ago. The AWD of the top ten sires by number of SWs between 1983 and 1990 is close to a mile-and-a-sixteenth while the the AWD of the top ten sires by number of SWS since 2010 is slightly over a mile. I believe those are fairly dramatic effects. And you think this is just a random circumstance and not reflective of a major shift in the character of that concentrated gene pool? Good luck with that.