Will we ever see another Triple Crown Winner?
 

I have been wondering about this for a while now and last night I finally had a chance to summarize some data. Based on some quick information taken from Champions it appears that a Triple Crown winner has faced approximatley 10 horses less than those that have won only two legs of the Triple Crown. For the winners of 2 legs I started with 1981. Please let me know if I left anyone out.

Year Horse Derby Preakness Belmont TOTAL
TRIPLE CROWN WINNERS:
1919 Sir Barton 12 12 3 27
1930 Gallant Fox 15 11 4 30
1935 Omaha 18 8 5 31
1937 War Admiral 20 8 7 35
1941 Whirlaway 11 8 4 23
1943 Count Fleet 10 4 3 17
1946 Assault 17 10 7 34
1948 Citation 6 4 5 15
1973 Secretariat 13 6 5 24
1977 Seattle Slew 15 9 8 32
1978 Affirmed 11 7 5 23
Average 26.45454545

WINNERS OF 2 out of 3:
1981 Pleasant Colony 21 13 11 45
1984 Swale 20 10 11 41
1987 Alysheba 17 9 9 35
1988 Risen Star 17 9 6 32
1989 Sunday Silence 15 8 10 33
1995 Thunder Gulch 19 11 11 41
1997 Silver Charm 13 10 7 30
1998 Real Quiet 15 10 11 36
1999 Chrismatic 19 13 12 44
2001 Point Given 17 11 9 37
2002 War Emblem 18 13 11 42
2003 Funny Cide 16 10 6 32
2004 Smarty Jones 18 10 9 37
2005 Afleet Alex 20 14 9 43
Average 37.71429

Any thoughts

Your 2 out of 3 list doesn't include many other horses: Nashua, Tim Tam, Carry Back, Kauai King, Native Dancer, Northern Dancer, Majestic Prince, Little Current, others.

Sorry, my bad.

Citation faced the least # of horses. He stunk.

I don't think that horses like Alex should count...

IMO, only the horses that won the Derby and the Preakness should be listed. In reality, those were the only ones that had a shot at the Triple Crown to begin with.

Yeah he did stink. He couldn't even win 17 races in a row. Sure he won 16 in a row, but if he had actually been good he would have won at least 17. Plus he only raced 45 times in his life but he still managed to finish off the board in one of those starts. What a mule.

As for the question, competing against more horses and larger fields does make it more difficult. But if another truly special horse comes along....it still could happen.
Look at War Admiral. He faced a number of horses that certainly compares to what the horses today run against....but he managed to do it, because he was simply a better horse than the Funny Cides and Real Quiets of the world.

Some of that difference may be due to the Triple Crown winners scaring off horses in the later legs. The Derby also -- who knows how many trainers kept their horse home instead of running against Slew in the 1977 Derby? Trainers probably weren't exactly looking forward to running against Secretariat at Pimlico or Belmont after he demolished the Derby field in record time.

Plus, trainers of today may be more willing to run horses in races where they don't have a chance anyway. Look at some of DWL's Derby entrants over the last couple of years. All the major trainers lately have slung some real bombs at the Derby.

In terms of since 1981, you left out Tabasco Cat who won the second and third legs in 1994. I think that's right, lots of people forget him. I know I had to look this up at least once...

Also left off Hansel, 1991.

I dont know if this is as certain as you are making it to be.


For instance if Nerud was having this discussion in the first place, doesnt it mean that some owners at least thought they had enuf pull to insist on it? IF it was such a foregone conclusion then why would Nerud have to tell this to his owner?


Or take the case of Majestic Prince in the Belmont that was pure owner driven. That was 1969 probably the same approx. time as they Nerud story. Need to do some more research on this before it looks like a viable theory.

The bottom line is that 10 out of the last 13 years a horse has won two out of three. One of these years - either because of a particularly talented colt, or a good colt in a particularly weak crop - it will happen.

I think that's a good pt. so at that pt. we would be down to simply comparing the Belmont fields of those who won TC vs Belmont fields of those who had 2 but failed at Bel. I guess.

That doesn't seem like a good point to me at all.
A full field of 20 in the Derby COULD certainly prevent a horse from winning the Derby compared to say the average field size for the Derby in the 1940s. It doesn't really matter which leg they lose, because a large field COULD be responsible for them losing any of the three races. Horses that win the Derby and Preakness were not actually any closer to the TC than horses that win two of the other races. It may seem that way because they were live going into the final leg, but that doesn't mean they were actually closer.

You'll see one in the next 3 years.

How does this make any sense? If a horse wins the Kentucky Derby, then he automatically has a chance to go on for the chance to win the Triple Crown. If he loses the Derby (like Alex did), then he has no chance to win the Triple Crown.

I see what you're saying about 2 legs being 2 legs, but a horse has to be live out of the Derby for them to even have a chance at winning the whole thing. That's not the case if they only win the Preakness and Belmont.

NO

Oh but if they lose the Preakness, that is okay?
Thay have to win all 3 races. The original poster's question is about how the number of horses competing in ALL 3 races affects any individual horse's chances of winning the TC. It doesn't matter which race it is. Just because the Derby is first does not make it ANY more important in the TC series. Each race is 33.3333333333% of the whole thing.
Facing a large field in the Derby could prevent a horse from winning the TC for exactly the same reasons that it could in either of the other races.
Afleet Alex was just as close to winning the TC as Funny Cide was. The race he lost came first.....but that is completely meaningless.

I'm not arguing about which 2 of the 3 were most important or that the percentages are distributed any differently than what you are saying. Funny Cide was in contention for it BECAUSE he won the first leg (as well as the 2nd.) Afleet Alex was not. If the Preakness or Belmont was 1st, I'd say the same thing.

As for facing a large field, I agree completely with you. I think it's much more difficult nowadays to win the Derby with a 20 horse field than it was when they were facing smaller fields.