Originally Posted by King Glorious (Post 1111122)

To change the TC series or do we wait till we get another couple of winners in the next five years? Today was anti-climactic for me after American Pharoah. I think people got comfortable in feeling that it was becoming more difficult because of the long break between winners. I felt that all of the near misses signaled that it was actually becoming easier. First, start with the way horses are bred now. You have fewer and fewer that are bred to excel at longer distances. So you go into the TC series with maybe 3-4 horses that you feel could be contenders to win the series. After the Derby, only one of those horses runs back in the Preakness. The advantage that horse then holds over the Belmont field is often huge and even when the Derby/Preakness winner lost in NY, you still felt it was an upset and not a case where a better horse won.

My feeling has always been that a Derby at 9f becomes harder to win, not easier. The reasoning is because there would be more horses that can handle the distance and be logical contenders. By spacing the Preakness out to a month later, you’d increase the chances of the top contenders returning instead of sitting out. Keep it at 9.5f. A month later, run a 10f Belmont. The 12f is no longer a test to see which of the top 3yos can challenge their elders at the championship distance of 12f because that’s not where the championships are contested anymore.

Fresher horses running at distances they can handle better would make the series tougher, not easier. Or we can hold on to traditions, however outdated they are, and wait til we get another few winners in the next 6-8 years and it becomes boring and commonplace.

Originally Posted by Konk (Post 1111124)

Two winners in 37 years, and 3 in 25 before that?
We had three in the 70's and then almost 40 years for the next.
I would call that too easy!

Originally Posted by richard burch (Post 1111139)

Laughable. Just 5 years ago people were saying we have to make it easier. Wait until another 30 years go by without a winner and lets see what they say.

Originally Posted by King Glorious (Post 1111122)

To change the TC series or do we wait till we get another couple of winners in the next five years? Today was anti-climactic for me after American Pharoah.

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi (Post 1111150)

I wonder if people felt the same way when Seattle Slew and Affirmed followed up closely after Secretariat busted open a long dry spell.


If a "near miss" is defined as a horse winning 2/3rds of the Triple Crown, then the dry spell between Citation and Secretariat saw 62.5% "near miss" Triple Crowns while in the interim between Affirmed and American Pharaoh only 55.5% of the Triple Crowns were "near misses".

So the premise that the Triple Crown has become easier is on a shaky foundation.


A quick fix of that would be to bring back the $1 million bonus for the horse that tallies the most points in all 3 Classics and the $5 million bonus for the Triple Crown sweep.

As far as the NY upsets, not sure the Bet Twice, Easy Goer, Touch Gold, Victory Gallop, Empire Maker or even Lemon Drop Kid and Birdstone Belmonts were considered true upsets.


This is a downstream intervention that ignores larger systemic problems (i.e., breeders no longer breed for stamina) in the name of simply making the races more "competitive". In fact it takes the same micro-level alteration (i.e., making races shorter) seen in the handicap ranks as justification.

Why not explore upstream solutions that promote and emphasize stamina to compliment the abundance of speed and precocity (and unsoundness) that currently plagues the sport? Instead of artificially making races more competitive, why not force breeders to focus on neglected facets of the sport (i.e. classic distances, older horse divisions)?

Even if you couldn't compel breeders to alter their methods, sometimes the pendulum simply swings the other way. The top stallion in North America right now is Tapit, partly on the basis of his ability to impart stamina in his offspring (he earned yet another placing in the Belmont Stakes today). If a single stallion begins to dominate a certain subset of races (e.g., sprints, middle distances, classic distances), then it is the breeders who will be forced to become more competitive lest Tapit sire a Belmont winner annually.


Just as you would give tacit approval to the elimination of stamina in the makeup of a Thoroughbred, you would also abandon the characteristic of robustness. Whatever one thinks of Justify's ability from a historical standpoint, certainly--as many have pointed out--winning 6 races in a the span of 112 days is a feat unlikely to be matched in the near future.

Why reward owners and trainers (and breeders) for keeping their horses in the barn during their active racing years and then retiring them from competition before they've arguably reached their peak at 4 or 5 years of age?


Are those traditions (ability to carry speed over a distance, able to maintain form in a short time frame, etc.) "outdated" or are they simply being outflanked by a new era of greedy and influential players in the sport who forego the true qualities in a champion Thoroughbred along with the horsemanship necessary to foster them in the name of "stallion making", pinhooking, and other forms of speculation and exploitation that need not ever be validated on an actual racetrack?

Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 1111153)

:tro: you really are the best poster on this site

Originally Posted by Dunbar (Post 1111163)

Agreed!

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi (Post 1111150)

I wonder if people felt the same way when Seattle Slew and Affirmed followed up closely after Secretariat busted open a long dry spell.


If a "near miss" is defined as a horse winning 2/3rds of the Triple Crown, then the dry spell between Citation and Secretariat saw 62.5% "near miss" Triple Crowns while in the interim between Affirmed and American Pharaoh only 55.5% of the Triple Crowns were "near misses".

So the premise that the Triple Crown has become easier is on a shaky foundation.


A quick fix of that would be to bring back the $1 million bonus for the horse that tallies the most points in all 3 Classics and the $5 million bonus for the Triple Crown sweep.

As far as the NY upsets, not sure the Bet Twice, Easy Goer, Touch Gold, Victory Gallop, Empire Maker or even Lemon Drop Kid and Birdstone Belmonts were considered true upsets.


This is a downstream intervention that ignores larger systemic problems (i.e., breeders no longer breed for stamina) in the name of simply making the races more "competitive". In fact it takes the same micro-level alteration (i.e., making races shorter) seen in the handicap ranks as justification.

Why not explore upstream solutions that promote and emphasize stamina to compliment the abundance of speed and precocity (and unsoundness) that currently plagues the sport? Instead of artificially making races more competitive, why not force breeders to focus on neglected facets of the sport (i.e. classic distances, older horse divisions)?

Even if you couldn't compel breeders to alter their methods, sometimes the pendulum simply swings the other way. The top stallion in North America right now is Tapit, partly on the basis of his ability to impart stamina in his offspring (he earned yet another placing in the Belmont Stakes today). If a single stallion begins to dominate a certain subset of races (e.g., sprints, middle distances, classic distances), then it is the breeders who will be forced to become more competitive lest Tapit sire a Belmont winner annually.


Just as you would give tacit approval to the elimination of stamina in the makeup of a Thoroughbred, you would also abandon the characteristic of robustness. Whatever one thinks of Justify's ability from a historical standpoint, certainly--as many have pointed out--winning 6 races in a the span of 112 days is a feat unlikely to be matched in the near future.

Why reward owners and trainers (and breeders) for keeping their horses in the barn during their active racing years and then retiring them from competition before they've arguably reached their peak at 4 or 5 years of age?


Are those traditions (ability to carry speed over a distance, able to maintain form in a short time frame, etc.) "outdated" or are they simply being outflanked by a new era of greedy and influential players in the sport who forego the true qualities in a champion Thoroughbred along with the horsemanship necessary to foster them in the name of "stallion making", pinhooking, and other forms of speculation and exploitation that need not ever be validated on an actual racetrack?

Originally Posted by cakes44 (Post 1111186)

I actually do think the new point system has made it easier, or at least more likely anyway. Less speedballs get into the KD now, meaning less pace collapses, making it easier for the best horse to win the first leg. When the best horse wins the KD, then you have the best horse being the one with the chance to win the TC, and not some horse that relies on other horses falling apart to win. JMO...fire away.

Originally Posted by cakes44 (Post 1111186)

I actually do think the new point system has made it easier, or at least more likely anyway. Less speedballs get into the KD now, meaning less pace collapses, making it easier for the best horse to win the first leg. When the best horse wins the KD, then you have the best horse being the one with the chance to win the TC, and not some horse that relies on other horses falling apart to win. JMO...fire away.

Originally Posted by cakes44 (Post 1111186)

I actually do think the new point system has made it easier, or at least more likely anyway. Less speedballs get into the KD now, meaning less pace collapses, making it easier for the best horse to win the first leg. When the best horse wins the KD, then you have the best horse being the one with the chance to win the TC, and not some horse that relies on other horses falling apart to win. JMO...fire away.