One Triple Crown Theory Still Holds True.

[RacingFan1992]

American Pharoah did a lot of firsts when he won the Triple Crown. He became the first descendant of Storm Bird/Storm Cat to win the TC. He became the first to never race at Belmont Park as a two year old.

There is one thing that he still has in common with the other 11 and I knew was always correct was when to race and when not to race for the Triple Crown campaign. AP was given a 5 month layoff before starting up for his 3 year old season. No horse who ever won the Triple Crown raced in December of his 2 year old season and January of his 3 year old season. Thank You AP for proving those people wrong who said a 5 month layoff is detrimental.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by RacingFan1992

American Pharoah did a lot of firsts when he won the Triple Crown. He became the first descendant of Storm Bird/Storm Cat to win the TC. He became the first to never race at Belmont Park as a two year old.

There is one thing that he still has in common with the other 11 and I knew was always correct was when to race and when not to race for the Triple Crown campaign. AP was given a 5 month layoff before starting up for his 3 year old season. No horse who ever won the Triple Crown raced in December of his 2 year old season and January of his 3 year old season. Thank You AP for proving those people wrong who said a 5 month layoff is detrimental.

The TC winners sample is so small that the kind of statistics you are talking about here, do not have any significant importance. More than this, the very long time spans among them, with all the changes in the breeding, training, drugs etc also makes this types of comparisons impossible

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

The TC winners sample is so small that the kind of statistics you are talking about here, do not have any significant importance. More than this, the very long time spans among them, with all the changes in the breeding, training, drugs etc also makes this types of comparisons impossible

These were my very thoughts as I read his post. However, at least we don't have to hear the 'toss him out because he's never raced on Big Sandy' line again.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by tucker6

These were my very thoughts as I read his post. However, at least we don't have to hear the 'toss him out because he's never raced on Big Sandy' line again.

Or, that he could never win because he was ridden
by a jockey whose Belmont win rate was abysmal.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Or, that he could never win because he was ridden
by a jockey whose Belmont win rate was abysmal.

haha yeah. Some implore jocks to add race days at Belmont to give him more familiarity with the track. Now that is probably a wise course of action in general, but as has been shown, not a necessity to win.

[RacingFan1992]

Originally Posted by tucker6

These were my very thoughts as I read his post. However, at least we don't have to hear the 'toss him out because he's never raced on Big Sandy' line again.

That one right there shut me up for sure. lol.

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Or, that he could never win because he was ridden
by a jockey whose Belmont win rate was abysmal.

Originally Posted by tucker6

haha yeah. Some implore jocks to add race days at Belmont to give him more familiarity with the track. Now that is probably a wise course of action in general, but as has been shown, not a necessity to win.

I still believe having a good rider at that track is a huge plus. When you look at Triple Crown race winners you will find the same riders winning most of them. Some of that is due to the best riders getting the best mounts but this cannot explain all of their success as they have brought home some bombers over the years. It's possible Espinoza's Belmont record looks worse on paper than it actually is simply because he probably didn't have the best horses available to him at Belmont as he's mainly a Left Coast rider.

Some of the betting angles still held up. AP is from the hot RAN sire line. His 9F prep had fast closing fractions, Mahmoud-x, Solid BSF at 2 and 3, and most of the other contenders had little compelling evidence to back them.

[Thomas Roulston]

He is also the first horse with a Dosage Index above 4.00 to win the Triple Crown - and only the second (after Affirmed) with no Solid or Professional chef-de-race influences in his Dosage Profile to do it.

So this debunks Dosage, right?

Hardly: Just about all of the horses American Pharoah beat in all three of the Triple Crown races had distance pedigrees which were nothing to write home about either (well over half had no Solid or Professional points) - the point being that in the past, there were lots of Triple Crown horses that had outright "stamina-side" pedigrees (DI <1.00, CD <0.00), so American Pharoah's net pedigree disadvantage was far smaller than what contenders with a DI >4.00 had to beat in the past.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

He is also the first horse with a Dosage Index above 4.00 to win the Triple Crown - and only the second (after Affirmed) with no Solid or Professional chef-de-race influences in his Dosage Profile to do it.

So this debunks Dosage, right?

Hardly: Just about all of the horses American Pharoah beat in all three of the Triple Crown races had distance pedigrees which were nothing to write home about either (well over half had no Solid or Professional points) - the point being that in the past, there were lots of Triple Crown horses that had outright "stamina-side" pedigrees (DI <1.00, CD <0.00), so American Pharoah's net pedigree disadvantage was far smaller than what contenders with a DI >4.00 had to beat in the past.

While your may be correct that his winning the TC does not negate dosage, I suspect some confirmation bias in your post to prove such non-linkage. The fact remains that he ran a very fast 12f race with a dosage over 4.00.

[Thomas Roulston]

Yes, I am "biased" - I find the progressive shortening of the distances of "classic" races, to appease the breeders' refusal to breed horses for stamina any more, appalling.

Did you see the Dwyer the other day? It was run at 1 mile. I can remember when it was a mile and a quarter - back in the days when there would be an Aqueduct summer meeting, before Saratoga - another thing whose demise I also lament (back in the days where there were two different pre-Saratoga spring/summer meets instead of one, off-the-turf races were far less frequent because the Stewards could afford to let soft-turf races remain on the grass without fear of the turf courses getting too chewed up). And the Jockey Club Gold cup now at a mile and a quarter when it was two miles during my lifetime? I can still recall Shuvee beating the boys in the 2-mile JC Gold Cup - twice.

And don't even get me started about the discontinuance altogether of the Display Handicap and the Gallant Fox Handicap - and, most recently, the Breeders' Cup Marathon.