Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > **TRIPLE CROWN TRAIL**


View Poll Results: Will Nyquist win TC?
Yes 41 40.59%
No 60 59.41%
Voters: 101. This poll is closed

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 05-10-2016, 01:32 PM   #61
RXB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
Those other 9 races weren't 10 furlong races with 45 second half miles and 1:35 and change miles.
Six of the 10 races featured relatively normal paces, two had fast paces and two had relatively slow paces. So on the whole, a normal set of races and yet the results were very different from normal. There was a very obvious and easily definable trip for success all day long: a little off of the pace but not very far away, staying off of the rail and moving outside of the early leader somewhere on the turn. Sound like Nyquist? I said that he ran well, I'm just not willing to hype the pace aspect given that his position was nearly ideal for how the track was playing.

The Pat Day Mile was the other race that featured a fast pace. It was also the only other race where a horse from the back half hit the exacta, but as with the Derby that closer never threatened the winner who was near the lead early, moved up outside the frontrunner to take the lead on the turn and won by 2.5 lengths despite being within a length of the hot early fractions.
RXB is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-10-2016, 04:07 PM   #62
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by RXB
Let's be fair: in the Belmont Stakes, Sham dueled head-to-head through 6f in 1:09 4/5 against a super horse. Do you really think that those three other horses (none of whom were G1 calibre) would've defeated him if he'd gone at a relatively normal clip for that race? I don't.
I do. Sham ran horribly. He couldn't finish ahead of Pvt. Smiles and never ran again.

Plus, how mamy horses ducked the Belmont because of Secretariat?

Giving the Belmont win to Sham is ridiculous.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-10-2016, 04:18 PM   #63
duncan04
Let's go Reds!!
 
duncan04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by upthecreek
Didn't help this year TV ratings,attendance, and handle ALL DOWN FROM LAST YEAR
https://twitter.com/raypaulick/statu...49441329618944
Do TV ratings matter? I say no. I know both Turfway and Belterra Park had Derby parties and both were well attended. I'm sure it was like that at tracks across the country.
__________________
The less you bet the more you lose when you win!!
duncan04 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-10-2016, 04:25 PM   #64
tucker6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
I do. Sham ran horribly. He couldn't finish ahead of Pvt. Smiles and never ran again.

Plus, how mamy horses ducked the Belmont because of Secretariat?

Giving the Belmont win to Sham is ridiculous.
This is a foolish post. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Sham would have won the Belmont, but you make it seem as if he would have run the EXACT same way without Secretariat in the TC series, and that just isn't a plausible scenario.
tucker6 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-10-2016, 04:53 PM   #65
clocker7
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 692
Sham lost to Angle Light twice in his career, including his final prep at the Wood. He was not a superhorse.

Secretariat toyed with him in the Preakness.
clocker7 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-10-2016, 05:03 PM   #66
clocker7
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 692
The Belmont racing strip in 1973 was lightning fast. That Sham faded on it was a testament that he was a spent colt long before Secretariat and those other bums left him in their rear view mirrors. I'm still a little bit befuddled why Pincay didn't just pull him up.
clocker7 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-10-2016, 07:16 PM   #67
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker6
This is a foolish post. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Sham would have won the Belmont, but you make it seem as if he would have run the EXACT same way without Secretariat in the TC series, and that just isn't a plausible scenario.
You are shifting the burden here. Sham ran last that day. He couldn't even beat Pvt. Smiles, who was a terrible racehorse. He laid an egg.

So in this sort of discussion, the person arguing that this horse who ran a race that couldn't even beat a $35,000 claimer would have actually won the thing has the burden of proving that. All my side has to say is "that's ridiculous, look how bad he ran".

There are horses who we can pretty definitively say would have won the TC in different years or if one horse hadn't existed. They include Majestic Prince, Alydar, Sunday Silence, Easy Goer, Real Quiet, and Smarty Jones. But Sham isn't in that group, because you have to prove that he was going to WIN the Belmont, which seems to me to be impossible, even if we grant that he would have been able to run better than he did.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-13-2016, 05:31 PM   #68
Steve R
Registered User
 
Steve R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Costa Rica
Posts: 1,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magister Ludi
The last race of the Triple Crown was the Kentucky Derby, added in 1875. There have been 12 Triple Crown winners in 141 years. 12/141 ~ 8.5%...
The TC was "created" after the fact in 1930 by Charles Hatton of DRF when Gallant Fox won all three races eleven years later than Sir Barton. Prior to that only two horses had won two of the three. Saunterer in 1881 didn't even run in the Derby. Neither did Belmar in 1895. The three races didn't actually become a target until the 1920s. So realistically there have been 12 horses who tried and succeeded in 97 years, not 141, for a percentage of 12.4.
Steve R is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-13-2016, 06:24 PM   #69
clocker7
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve R
The TC was "created" after the fact in 1930 by Charles Hatton of DRF when Gallant Fox won all three races eleven years later than Sir Barton. Prior to that only two horses had won two of the three. Saunterer in 1881 didn't even run in the Derby. Neither did Belmar in 1895. The three races didn't actually become a target until the 1920s. So realistically there have been 12 horses who tried and succeeded in 97 years, not 141, for a percentage of 12.4.
In addition, for quite a few years, the "Preakness" was not a race for 3 yos held at Pimlico. Run at Morris Park in 1890, dark for three years, and then at Gravesend from 1894 through 1908.
clocker7 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-13-2016, 08:04 PM   #70
Steve R
Registered User
 
Steve R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Costa Rica
Posts: 1,220
The TC was won 11 times in its first 60 years, almost a 20% strike rate. Why do people think it has been so hard since then?
Steve R is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-13-2016, 09:14 PM   #71
Lemon Drop Husker
Veteran
 
Lemon Drop Husker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 11,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve R
The TC was won 11 times in its first 60 years, almost a 20% strike rate. Why do people think it has been so hard since then?
Because favorite horses have been close and a really really good one won last year.

Back then, the TC wasn't really the TC as we even sniffingly know it today.

Heck, Triple Crown "winners" won or lost a race in between..., back in the day.
Lemon Drop Husker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-14-2016, 11:27 AM   #72
SecretAgentMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker
Because favorite horses have been close and a really really good one won last year.

Back then, the TC wasn't really the TC as we even sniffingly know it today.

Heck, Triple Crown "winners" won or lost a race in between..., back in the day.


So if horses were running in between the triple crown races back then, what made them more able & stable to stay fit & able to run so well & so many races back then?

Has the breeding changed so much? Something has changed drastically, & maybe it has come full circle, because we are possibly looking at back to back triple crowns.
SecretAgentMan is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-14-2016, 11:50 AM   #73
tucker6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan
So if horses were running in between the triple crown races back then, what made them more able & stable to stay fit & able to run so well & so many races back then?

Has the breeding changed so much? Something has changed drastically, & maybe it has come full circle, because we are possibly looking at back to back triple crowns.
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?
tucker6 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-14-2016, 11:52 AM   #74
Lemon Drop Husker
Veteran
 
Lemon Drop Husker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 11,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan
So if horses were running in between the triple crown races back then, what made them more able & stable to stay fit & able to run so well & so many races back then?

Has the breeding changed so much? Something has changed drastically, & maybe it has come full circle, because we are possibly looking at back to back triple crowns.
The Triple Crown races weren't run within 5 weeks back in the day.
Lemon Drop Husker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-14-2016, 05:01 PM   #75
clocker7
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 692
The breed was already changing back in the 1800s. As shorter races and single-heat dash events became the norm, selective breeding wrought its desired effects. Stamina was less desirable than speed.

It first reared its head in Great Britain, when it went to dash races. It only took a few generations.

Read this history of Parole. It attributes some to training, but that was not the entire picture. By the time Parole entered the scene after the Civil War, heat racing in the US had tailed off, to the point where it was a rarity in the late 1870s. (In fact, prior to going to England, Parole himself had never run in a heat race.) But the gene pool hadn't been affected that much yet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parole_%28horse%29

While there, the Duke of Magenta became ill with influenza, allowing Parole an opportunity to prove his worth. Within one week in April, (6yo) Parole won the Newmarket Stakes (on Apr. 16th, defeating Isonomy) and the City and Suburban Handicap (on Apr. 22nd, defeating 17 horses, including Ridotto). The following day he won the Great Metropolitan which was set at two and a half miles. Only one horse opposed him, Castlereagh, because no other owner wanted to continue competing against Parole. Parole carried 124 pounds against Castlereagh's 110. The English were amazed at this performance but American horses were used to running in grueling heats.
clocker7 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.