Belmont to be 9 furlongs

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

Barclay Tagg, trainer of Tiz The Law, was quoted as saying he'd prefer the Belmont to remain 12 furlongs to maintain its classic status. I'm not shocked by the distance change, but I wonder how much the higher ups at NYRA debated between 9 furlongs and 10 furlongs, since 10 furlongs is considered a "classic distance".

At any rate, where one tradition falls by the wayside (at least for this year), perhaps other more deplorable traditions will fall by the wayside, too. Namely, the ducking and diving and separating of top class horses throughout the year.

The Sackatoga owner guy politicked for this along with moving the Travers up on the calendar. However, he also skipped the Arkansas Derby in part because he didn't want to "face Baffert". Is he now going to backpedal out of a shortened Belmont under the pretense that its classic status is now suspect thereby avoiding Baffert until perhaps the Kentucky Derby?

Meanwhile, will Bob Baffert, who said he would not run in a 12 furlong Belmont...by the way, who cares?...Baffert already doesn't run in the Belmont even in a normal year...he'll only run if he has a TC candidate...that's been clear since he ducked the race with Preakness winner Lookin' At Lucky...outside of Justify (and his lead blocker) and American Pharaoh I think he's run only 2 horses in the Belmont in the past 15 years...anyways, will Baffert run ALL 3 of his top 3yos in the Baffert-approved classic Belmont? Or will he treat it like any other race and send one over and keep one for the Los Alamitos Derby and another for the Ohio Derby?

At any rate, I petition Martin Panza to bring back the Lawrence Realization later this year and also put it back on the dirt where it used to be. That way there's at least one 12 furlong race for 3yos in New York this year.

Quality post.

[NJDfan1711]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This notion that you need to "prep" horses a month in advance to run 12 furlongs rather than 10 is something that trainers of older generations would completely mock.

Honestly, how many horses are EVER "prepped" for the Belmont? Most of them come out of other races at shorter distances, including TC races. It isn't like ANY trainer of any 3 year old is circling a Saturday in June on the calendar and saying "I will slowly work my horse up to 1 1/2 miles".

They can run different distances. It isn't some mystical feat of training that they are able to do this. They do it all the time.

The horses could have run 1 1/2 miles in late June. Belmont just caved to some big-name trainers who wanted to make the race easier to win.

To me this is akin to pitch counts in baseball where people think there's some magical wall at the 100 pitch mark and a pitcher needs to be pulled immediately upon reaching that mark in a game, like they're suddenly gonna forget how to throw a baseball, or that the velocity is gonna go from 95MPH to 65 after the 101st pitch.

The difference being that those are humans, and they can tell a manager/coach if they're exhausted and should be pulled from the game. Horses on the other hand have no such voice, and it's difficult to tell exactly if/when a horse is reaching such a point.

Maybe trainers aren't physically circling the Belmont on the calendar and using it as a mark to train their horses for, but I believe some may do that symbolically in their mind, and I think you're oversimplifying running in general. It's no different than a person running. You could run a mile everyday for two weeks and probably get good at it, where you're running consistent times and it doesn't seem like a big deal - but after two weeks you try to go a mile and a half, or even just a mile and a quarter - that extra 1/4 mile is going to make a difference, and you may struggle. Maybe just the first time or two as you get used to it, but because you've never done it before you're going to be winded.

Again, not saying everyone puts emphasis on it, but to totally disregard it is a bit naïve I think.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by jay68802

You are confusing what is more important to the industry, handle or fans.

I'm not sure what you mean.

I think putting the Met on it's own card with a supporting stake or two would be better for everyone because it used to have enormous value on its own. Now it's just a prelim generating diminishing returns on the Belmont undercard.

IMO, it never made sense to measure the success or failure of the move just by how much the Met handles. You could run a statebred maiden 35k on Belmont day and it would handle a lot, let alone a nice listed stake.

The Met by itself used to make an entire card attractive enough to have to go to the track and ultimately bet more on all 10 races. It's doesn't do that for the Belmont card.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by NJDfan1711

To me this is akin to pitch counts in baseball where people think there's some magical wall at the 100 pitch mark and a pitcher needs to be pulled immediately upon reaching that mark in a game, like they're suddenly gonna forget how to throw a baseball, or that the velocity is gonna go from 95MPH to 65 after the 101st pitch.

The difference being that those are humans, and they can tell a manager/coach if they're exhausted and should be pulled from the game. Horses on the other hand have no such voice, and it's difficult to tell exactly if/when a horse is reaching such a point.

Maybe trainers aren't physically circling the Belmont on the calendar and using it as a mark to train their horses for, but I believe some may do that symbolically in their mind, and I think you're oversimplifying running in general. It's no different than a person running. You could run a mile everyday for two weeks and probably get good at it, where you're running consistent times and it doesn't seem like a big deal - but after two weeks you try to go a mile and a half, or even just a mile and a quarter - that extra 1/4 mile is going to make a difference, and you may struggle. Maybe just the first time or two as you get used to it, but because you've never done it before you're going to be winded.

Again, not saying everyone puts emphasis on it, but to totally disregard it is a bit naïve I think.

One piece of background to this- thoroughbreds back in the day ran as much as 4 miles, and they still do regularly race far more than 1 1/2 miles in many parts of the world.

There's literally nothing magical about 1 1/2 miles as opposed to 1 1/8 miles, where they "hit the wall" like novice marathon runners do. Both distances are well within the capacities of ordinary thoroughbreds.

[CheckMark]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I don't get why they are doing this, I don't understand why they think 3 year olds can't go 12 furlongs in late June, and any TC winner this year will be cheaper than a paper face mask.

https://mobile.twitter.com/paulickre...76107310419977

Same here

Backwards Triple Crown for an already backwards world!

[GaryG]

Many races, such as te CCA Oaks, have been shortened in distance, but I thought the Belmont was untouchable. This year's winner should get the mother of all asterisks.

We don't breed classic stayers anymore, but plenty of fast, unsound horses that race a few times and disappear. It has become a chicken and egg situation. We breed for speed because there are few opportunities for Cup horses.

[classhandicapper]

the Grade 1, $500,000 Metropolitan Handicap, which is now July 4. The Met Mile tops a card that includes the Grade 1 Manhattan, Grade 2 Suburban, and Grade 3 Poker.

Good move.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Good move.

Today it is May 19 - that means most horses will not get a prep race between now and a Belmont at any distance.
You aren't going to start at 12 and then go backwards, IMHO.

9 furlongs will be long enough for now.

[cutchemist42]

I'm fine with it for 1 year. I like the Met move.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Tom

Today it is May 19 - that means most horses will not get a prep race between now and a Belmont at any distance.
You aren't going to start at 12 and then go backwards, IMHO.

9 furlongs will be long enough for now.

Why can't you start at 12 and then go backwards? There isn't any actual science behind these claims.

[Tor Ekman]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

There isn't any actual science behind these claims.

Sort of like much of the Coronavirus hysteria

[thaskalos]

The whole year will carry an asterisk, so...why shouldn't the Belmont Stakes?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Why can't you start at 12 and then go backwards? There isn't any actual science behind these claims.

There is less than 6 weeks before end of June. That means no preps for most of the 3yos. Last 3yo prep was May 4th, or so.
You are not going to gt today's owners and trainers starting at a mile and a half when most have never been 9, many 8.5.
You don't get many for a normal Belmont stake anymore.
With all the other tracks opening, and many other Gr1 races for 9 furlongs coming up quickly, going for a 12 F Belmont now seems pretty much not a very good idea.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Why can't you start at 12 and then go backwards? There isn't any actual science behind these claims.

Well, the road to the Derby has been stretching out gradually for decades. NYRA - 6-7-8-9 at Aqueduct, 8.5 furlongs then 9 furlongs at all other prep tracks. The only backward mover if the Preakness. So it would seem to be the historical way it goes.

And NYRA decided going 12 was not in it's best interest, so there' that....

[cj]

I'm sure I'll get laughed at, but what would have been wrong with flipping the Travers and Belmont this year? I mean is that any worse than chopping three furlongs off the Belmont? Sure you can run that at opposite tracks for one year.