Tradition

King Glorious · #1 05-05-2008, 03:24 PM

How important is it? Seems like whenever people like me bring up the idea of changing the TC series, the first words from the opponents are about tradition. They want the TC series to stay the same. Even though the way we breed the horses has changed. Even though the way we train them has changed. Even though the way we race them has changed. Even though the surfaces we run them over has changed. Today's horses can't carry the weights, they can't run as far, they can't run as often, and they can't run as long. Today's horses are being asked to do what yesterday's horses did even though everyone generally acknowledges that the horses are not the same. That just seems stupid to me.

We can cry and complain about the current state of the breed and wish that we could get them back to the way they were but that's not going to happen. That horse has left the barn and isn't coming back. The economics of the sport just won't allow that to happen. So changes have to be made in other ways. I was glad to hear about how France made some adaptions to their races. There has been talk of doing some changing to English racing too. These are countries with far more tradition than the U.S. Traditions can and should be altered if it's for the betterment of the game and of the horse.

People keep telling me that the changes I propose (shortening the races and spacing them out being the biggest ones), would make the TC easier to win. I think that's completely untrue. I think it would make it harder to win. In anything, limiting the number of qualified competitors makes the competition easier to win. I feel like a 9f Derby would be harder to win than a 10f one. At 10f, there's only going to be a few of the horses in the race that are suited to handle it. At 9f, more of them are suited for it so it would take a horse beating more horses that are running at a distance they can handle. More qualified competition would make it harder to win. Same thing with spacing the races out. Allowing more horses to return and run in peak condition would make the series less about survival of the fittest and more about showing who is the actual best.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

SniperSB23 · #2 05-05-2008, 03:30 PM

I don't agree with messing with the distances but I'm starting to come around to the idea of changing the spacing. The prospect of Big Brown running again in two weeks terrifies me. Add to that no one wanting to come back in two weeks to take him on and I think it may be time to change the spacing of the races.

horseofcourse · #3 05-05-2008, 03:34 PM

You could certainly space them such as running the Preakness on traditional Belmont day the first saturday of June and running the Belmont on the 4th of July regardless. Make it an all-american celebration in triple crown tries. It will never happen, but I dont' think it would be the worst thing in the world, nor making them 9f, 9.5f and 10f races. All the old traditionsl 12f races and longer are no more, so why can't you change the TC??

ghartman02 · #4 05-05-2008, 03:41 PM

Tradition is a fleeting thing. Remember The Kentucky Derby from 1875-1894 was run at 1 1/2 miles, as was the Oaks. Times had changed then and the distance was reduced to the current 1 1/4 miles. The Oaks has been run at 1 1/2 miles, 1 1/8 miles, 1 1/16 miles and back to 1 1/8 miles. Gallant Fox won the Preakness in 1930, then the Derby and Belmont. The Kentucky Derby used to be run in mid may until the 19 teens when the First Saturday in May became more prominent (unless it was May 1st, and then the race was run May 8th).

I agree that the Triple Crown needs to be at least discussed with the powers that be. I think a set of First Saturdays would work (First Saturday in May, First Saturday in June, First Saturday in July). I think we can keep the distances. The biggest effect would be the folks in Baltimore with their traditions. I don't think it would be easier to win in fact keeping the horse at their peak is always a tough challenge.

In England, I believe the 1000 and 2000 Guineas is run The First Saturday in May, The Epsom Derby and Epsom Oaks the first weekend in June, and The St Leger in September.

Other sports have changed drastically in the last 50 years. Baseball and Football have playoffs, The Olympics changed the Winter games so now we have an Olympics every 2 years. NASCAR introduced the Chase for the Championship a few years ago which riled the traditionalist.

Change is tough, and yes as a "traditionalist" horse player, I tend to shy away from change. Until 1986, you couldn't bet an exacta, trifecta, or any other exotic in the Derby. The Blue Grass until 1989 was run 9 days prior to the race on a Thursday. I hated that change to 3 weeks out, but it has worked better, and my guess is the Blue Grass will be 4 weeks out in the next few years. So tradition and change are at odds, but if it's in the best interest of the sport then hopefully it's accepted.

GBBob · #5 05-05-2008, 03:47 PM

nice first post...

RolloTomasi · #6 05-05-2008, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Allowing more horses to return and run in peak condition would make the series less about survival of the fittest and more about showing who is the actual best.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

The purpose of classic races is to identify those individuals that have the traits necessary to become prized breeding animals (whether or not the actual horses become potent producers is another issue althogether). Several other prestigious races have been altered as a result in the change in the Thoroughbred (well that and the Breeder's Cup). The Triple Crown is pretty much the last bastion (ignoring turf racing--and the new Marathon division) of durability and stamina.

Taking that away by shortening the distance and increasing the spacing, allows brilliant, yet unsound horses to "become" Triple Crown" winners and thus sought-after breeding prospects. That would only hasten the decline in the breed of the very traits that the Triple Crown should be promoting. And what happens when suddenly the horses can't even stay 9f? Is the Triple Crown gonna be made up of extended sprints?

Maybe in the end the Triple Crown races will go the way of archaic stakes like the San Juan Capistrano (I think the Belmont Stakes is only a few steps away from that really), but personally, I'd much rather have a Grade 3 Kentucky Derby at 10f than I would a Grade 1 Kentucky Derby at 7f.

King Glorious · #7 05-05-2008, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

The purpose of classic races is to identify those individuals that have the traits necessary to become prized breeding animals (whether or not the actual horses become potent producers is another issue althogether). Several other prestigious races have been altered as a result in the change in the Thoroughbred (well that and the Breeder's Cup). The Triple Crown is pretty much the last bastion (ignoring turf racing--and the new Marathon division) of durability and stamina.

Taking that away by shortening the distance and increasing the spacing, allows brilliant, yet unsound horses to "become" Triple Crown" winners and thus sought-after breeding prospects. That would only hasten the decline in the breed of the very traits that the Triple Crown should be promoting. And what happens when suddenly the horses can't even stay 9f? Is the Triple Crown gonna be made up of extended sprints?

Maybe in the end the Triple Crown races will go the way of archaic stakes like the San Juan Capistrano (I think the Belmont Stakes is only a few steps away from that really), but personally, I'd much rather have a Grade 3 Kentucky Derby at 10f than I would a Grade 1 Kentucky Derby at 7f.

Doesn't this happen now anyway, even without any of them winning the TC? Some of them don't even have to win a TC race and it still happens. You say that the TC should be promoting certain traits in the breed and I agree. But even though it should, it's not.

RolloTomasi · #8 05-05-2008, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Doesn't this happen now anyway, even without any of them winning the TC? Some of them don't even have to win a TC race and it still happens. You say that the TC should be promoting certain traits in the breed and I agree. But even though it should, it's not.

Which recent classic winners have been successful sires? There's maybe 3 or 4 (Unbridled, Thunder Gulch, AP Indy, if you count Sunday Silence). None of those horses were notoriously unsound from what I recall, and none were particularly brilliant either.

The TC only identifies potential stallions, doesn't mean that those horses will be potent or popular. The few that have been consistently good all have imparted some classic attributes to their best offspring. Among recent winners, Empire Maker loomed large late last year with some stamina types.

As far as breeders favoring non-classic stallions, well obviously they have a different agenda. Let them make their own TC out of the Withers, King's Bishop, and Malibu. Or better yet, the Sanford, Saratoga Special, and Hopeful.

Seattleallstar · #9 05-05-2008, 05:16 PM

I thought this was about the Mr Prospector horse that was regally bred

AeWingnut · #10 05-05-2008, 06:31 PM

I had a longer response but the system crashed.

Lets just say that in order to excel we need to lower our standards
so that everything is easily accomplished with little or no meaning or value

31lengths · #11 05-05-2008, 07:00 PM

For what reason exactly do people want the format changed?

Danzig · #12 05-05-2008, 07:02 PM

yes, the races were on different dates, at different distances once upon a time. but how many tc winners won the 'modern' version we still see today? how long has the derby been 10f? the belmont 12, and run in the current counter-clockwise configuration? the preakness two weeks after, instead of the same day as the derby?

if it can't be done, you don't make it easier so that it then can be done. where's the value in winning it then?

i wonder if this subject came up in the years after citation, and before secretariat? probably so....

oh well, this comes up every year...but usually after the tc is lost, not just after the derby.

Danzig · #13 05-05-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 31lengths

For what reason exactly do people want the format changed?

so someone can win.

i'm going to petition that you can run the boston marathon as a relay, that way i can finish a lot higher with the help of my friends.

horseofcourse · #14 05-05-2008, 08:36 PM

Many, many races have changed. The JCGC used to be 12f...I remember way back then. At one time the BC Distaff used to be 10f. (At one time the race was called the BC Distaff as well!!) I actually remember that. In fact before I can remember the JCGC was even 16f. The distance has been changed twice in the last 40 years. Before the 1900s people didn't even drive cars or fly in airplanes. It was simply better. Getting smallpox was also fun. Augusta National used to be 6900 yards or so but it has changed as equipment has changed. They still hand out the green jacket each April.

Change isn't always that bad. The thoroughbred has perhaps changed for the worse, but change has occurred.

I don't care one way or the other, but I honestly don't think change would kill anything.

Zippy Chippy · #15 05-05-2008, 09:43 PM

I thought it was an interesting comment by Lauren Stitch on ATR today: 50 years ago, it wasn't a radical idea to run a horse back after two weeks and then run again after another three. Trainers ran their horses into condition, so horses were used to running with little time in between.

Today's trainers have gotten away from that. They run their horses every four or five weeks, and you are lucky if a horse runs a dozen races in one year.

Maybe the problem isn't the spacing of the races or the distances. Maybe the problem is that today's training methods aren't conducive to keeping a horse sharp enough to run three races in five weeks. Should the Triple Crown change just to suit the changes in training and conditioning?

DaTruth · #16 05-05-2008, 10:07 PM

Before changing the spacing of the races or the distance, why not start with the obvious and limit the Derby field to 14 horses. With 20 horses breaking from the gate, at the very least you have a handful of runners who lose the race before the field even hits the first turn. It is a matter of time before the size of the Derby field leads to a horse or two going down after clipping heels two furlongs into the race. I know the Arc and Epsom Derby draw huge fields, but seldom in those races do you see a calvary charge from the gate with everybody trying to secure a decent position before the first turn.

cowgirlintexas · #17 05-05-2008, 10:30 PM

Is'nt it already changing by replacing dirt tracks with synthetic? Does anyone think that Churchill,Pimlico and Belmont will ever replace their surface? Or will they stick with "tradition" when everyone else did'nt?

SundayStar · #18 05-05-2008, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I don't agree with messing with the distances but I'm starting to come around to the idea of changing the spacing. The prospect of Big Brown running again in two weeks terrifies me. Add to that no one wanting to come back in two weeks to take him on and I think it may be time to change the spacing of the races.

absolutely agree.

make it first saturday in may, first saturday in june and first saturday in july.