The Triple Crown: A Modest Proposal - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

bill1951 · 05-30-2014, 01:20 AM

If forty years pass without any horse winning the Triple Crown, then does the Triple Crown still exist? If we set criteria for a horse to prove that he is one of the best in history, and no horse is good enough to meet the criteria, then arguably the criteria has become outdated and irrelevant.

This leads into the inevitable calls for change that will soon be aimed at the Triple Crown if no horse can win it anymore as it exists. It is much too valuable for racing to just dispose of it. The racing establishment will seek ways to make the Crown attainable again. The first suggestion that will arise from almost everyone is that the mile and a half race be eliminated in favor of a shorter distance.

There is a lot of merit to this idea. Since thoroughbreds are never called on during their racing careers to run a mile and half on dirt anymore, why should it be the measure of a great horse that he can win a race of that distance.

There would be a lot of opposition to this break with tradition and I would be in full sympathy with it. If a horse can win at distances of a mile and three sixteenths and a mile and a half then he is a very special horse. But this would not provide any more winners of the Triple Crown.

This would be a big difficulty for Belmont too. I don't think that a mile and three eights would be an acceptable alternative and Belmont never runs dirt races at this distance. I believe that most would want the three races to be at different distances, but even if a second mile and a quarter race were acceptable, Belmont has a very queer start to the few mile and a quarter dirt races that are run there in a year.

A possible answer came to me when I was reading about the opposition to moving the Metropolitan Mile from its traditional Memorial Day running to Belmont Stakes day. The "Met" mile is considered to be one of the most prestigious races for a horse to win if he wants to go into retirement with a very healthy stud fee. I presume that this is largely because its distance of a one turn flat mile makes into something like a test in a horse for near-sprinter speed in a racing era where speed has become a much valued asset. At the same time the one mile distance protects a horse with "cheap" speed from jumping out and speed-popping a field of horses when they weren't expecting it. Stamina is needed.

So, there it is, a simple proposal that keeps the three races on the same schedule at the same tracks, with the last distance of the Belmont still as unique as it has always been. And, who knows, every ten or fifteen years a horse might sweep all the races and earn the Triple Crown.

tucker6 · 05-30-2014, 06:42 AM

what are you proposing??

rastajenk · 05-30-2014, 06:48 AM

I think he's saying make the Belmont an 8f affair.

BettinBilly · 05-30-2014, 09:57 AM

Devil's Advocate;

If you make the Belmont shorter so that it is more "Achievable" for a horse to win the Triple Crown, then you are modifying the series and changing the race entirely. The old winners will be on a different platform than the new winners. Some would say the new distances are too easy and the Crown no longer has the status that it used to have, and that the legacy that was the Triple Crown has then been discontinued. The new series is something entirely different.

I think a more reasonable argument could be made that to win the Triple Crown, contending horses must run all three races. You may not skip the Preakness and then enter the Belmont.

bill1951 · 05-30-2014, 10:12 AM

Sorry if unclear. Proposal to make the third race of the Crown the flat one-turn mile at Belmont. The same as the Metropolitan Mile, a Grade 1 race that is greatly respected and is now more relevant to today's racehorses.

I'm not wedded to the idea and don't expect many people to agree. It seems clear that if no horse can meet the Triple Crown criteria in forty years then people are going to start proposing changes. This change just occurred to me. Happy to listen to other proposals or criticisms. But don't you agree that if no horse can win it in forty years (yes, we have a few years to go), then it is no longer a good measurement of the talent of today's racehorse?

Although I was an Easy Goer fan, clearly the better horse at any distance except one and a half miles was Sunday Silence. He should have been a Triple Crown winner. Neither horse ever raced a mile and a half again, mainly because there are no other Grade 1 dirt stakes in the country at that distance.

Redboard · 05-30-2014, 10:19 AM

I would like to see something done and I believe that your idea would be worth trying, but I’m not sure shortening the race would help much. I would rather see the Belmont pushed back two weeks. This would prevent the Birdstones and Empire Makers of the world from skipping the Preakness and being “fresh” for the Belmont. If there were five weeks between the Preakness and Belmont, the connections wouldn’t rest their derby runner seven weeks.
Historically it would not be inconsistent because the dates of the Preakness and Belmont have been moved.

clocker7 · 05-30-2014, 10:55 AM

In the BloodHorse article linked to in another thread, it mentioned that track officials have been in contact to discuss spacing the races a little wider.

I'd be in favor of it. For most of the winners of the TC, it was never a set deal like it is now. And it wouldn't cheapen the endurance standard that is now required. Granted, it would lessen the need for wheel-back ability, but that quality is pretty far down the list for traits that I demand for such an elite champion.

RacingFan1992 · 05-30-2014, 02:38 PM

If anything they should move the Preakness so it is a week after the Kentucky Derby so you have a months rest for the Belmont. People on here might think it is ludicrous but from 1930-1946 the Preakness was run a week after the Derby and we had 6 TC winners. In 1948, the Preakness was moved back a week and a 25 year long drought occurred. Only 4 horses have done the Derby 2 weeks Preakness 3 weeks Belmont. To alter the series says "We are tired of this and let's get something new." DO NOT CHANGE THE TRIPLE CROWN!!!!!

SecretAgentMan · 05-30-2014, 02:45 PM

I think that in order to run in Belnont, last of the TC races, you need to run in the derby & Preakness........none of that skipping the Preakness to be fresh for Belmont.

Does anyone have information in all 11 triple crown winner whether they raced against fresh horses skipping the Preakness like we have seen past 20 years or have the horses run in all 3 races back in those years where we had a triple crown winner?

BlueChip@DRF · 05-30-2014, 03:14 PM

Better yet, instead of distance change, just finish in the top three in all three races and you can claim the triple crown. Close enough, right?

RacingFan1992 · 05-30-2014, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

I think that in order to run in Belnont, last of the TC races, you need to run in the derby & Preakness........none of that skipping the Preakness to be fresh for Belmont.

Does anyone have information in all 11 triple crown winner whether they raced against fresh horses skipping the Preakness like we have seen past 20 years or have the horses run in all 3 races back in those years where we had a triple crown winner?

One of the biggest examples of a horse running against fresh horses and a rivalry was Affirmed. He had Alydar nipping at his heals plus he had a half dozen horses that were different int the Preakness and Belmont.

BlueChip@DRF · 05-30-2014, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RacingFan1992

One of the biggest examples of a horse running against fresh horses and a rivalry was Affirmed. He had Alydar nipping at his heals plus he had a half dozen horses that were different int the Preakness and Belmont.

Only 5 entries in that Belmont. Those other three were vastly inferior to the top two.

SecretAgentMan · 05-30-2014, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RacingFan1992

One of the biggest examples of a horse running against fresh horses and a rivalry was Affirmed. He had Alydar nipping at his heals plus he had a half dozen horses that were different int the Preakness and Belmont.

Ah.....good to know! Then there's no reason to change anything.

dilanesp · 05-30-2014, 03:56 PM

I don't think the Triple Crown matters.

If no horse ever wins it, no horse ever wins it. The reasons why it might be more difficult to win are pretty well documented, and obviously any incentive to win the TC hasn't reversed any of those trends. (It could also just be bad luck. Real Quiet, after all, almost won it, and a number of the horses who didn't win it finished 2nd in the Belmont and would have won it had one other horse not been entered.)

If a horse does win it, most likely the horse gets swallowed up by the parasites in the breeding industry and never runs again. (I so wanted Funny Cide to win it....) But if the horse does run a few more times, it will give the same boost to racing that Cigar or Zenyatta gave it-- we get some press and headlines, a few nice crowds at racetracks, and then it's back to normal.

So there's no reason to tinker with it, or even worry about it. It just has nothing to do with the economic future of the sport. (The only changes I could see making would involve safety, such as limiting the Derby field further so we never get a 9 horse pileup on the clubhouse turn.)

Rex Phinney · 05-30-2014, 03:57 PM

No way put a mile race into the triple crown series.

It's fine how it is, I think people discount the chase of the triple crown, the fact that it has been 36 years since someone won is what makes it such a big deal. To the most casual of fans, if California Chrome wins this year, alot of them will not care so much about these races next year.