Steve Haskin's latest: 'Leave Crown Alone'

[Danzig]

i guess staggering is in the eye of the beholder. smarty ran well that day and would most likely have won had some of the other jocks not ridden their own horses into the ground trying to keep him from winning. did birdstone 'stagger home'? no. neither did rags to riches when she went head to head with curlin. i don't think MDO staggered home when he narrowly lost to sarava. victory gallop ran a hell of a race to nip real quiet at the wire.

smarty wasn't quite good enough to win all three races. so, change the races? i don't think so.

it's funny tho-everyone is focused on the belmont part of the equation-but lukas saying the ky derby should be shortened to 9f hasn't got any mention. i think his idea to change that is even crazier than changing the belmont.


btw, i think true champs have won the belmont. the horses should be tested-the test shouldn't be lessened to produce more 'champions*'.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Interesting. Merlinsky said that the belmont is relevant because "only the best can do it" and you guys are telling me a horse that loses that race is still flattered by it. How is that?

Smarty Jones was the best 3 year old of 2004. What does a 12f race have to do with it? If Smarty staggers home a little less slow, does that make him any more of a champion and does the fact that he staggered home as slow as he did make him any less of one? Any meaningful race he had raced in and any meaningful race he would have raced in for the rest of his career would have been 10f at most.

So how was the belmont relevant to his quality as a racehorse? That he could gallantly stagger to the line after running further than his pedigree would suggest that he should? A true test of champions should be a test that a true champion can realistically meet. So I ask...Was smarty jones not a true champion?

Smarty can be the best of 2004 and not be the Triple Crown winner - I don't see a problem with that. Testing horses beyond what they normally do makes for good racing - why do you think fans get so excited over a filly facing the boys or surface switches etc?

Every race that a horse enters will determine their mettle if they are Champion or not...that is what the year end awards are for. Perhaps it's the phrase "Test of Champions" that should get the boot, not the Triple Crown as it stands because some fantasctic horses haven't won or even attempted the Triple Crown. But as a goal in racing, it should stand as it is in my opinion.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i guess staggering is in the eye of the beholder. smarty ran well that day and would most likely have won had some of the other jocks not ridden their own horses into the ground trying to keep him from winning. did birdstone 'stagger home'? no. neither did rags to riches when she went head to head with curlin. i don't think MDO staggered home when he narrowly lost to sarava. victory gallop ran a hell of a race to nip real quiet at the wire.

smarty wasn't quite good enough to win all three races. so, change the races? i don't think so.

it's funny tho-everyone is focused on the belmont part of the equation-but lukas saying the ky derby should be shortened to 9f hasn't got any mention. i think his idea to change that is even crazier than changing the belmont.


btw, i think true champs have won the belmont. the horses should be tested-the test shouldn't be lessened to produce more 'champions*'.

MDO lost to Sarava...at 70-1 and the race went in 2:29.71 making it second only to commendable as slowest this decade. Yes...he fought...but it was still a crawl.

The final quarter mile of the Birdstone-smarty race was one of the slowest in belmont history...yes they were crawling its just smarty crawled slower.

Rags to riches was certainly not crawling. She ran a great last quarter although the rest of the race was slow.


I disagree with Lukas about the derby. 10f is pretty much the classic distance these days.

[cakes44]

I'd be interested in DWL's record(# of starters, % ITM) in TC races since his last victory. If I was in the cold streak he's in, I'd want some changes too.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

As for your question regarding Rachel Alexandra - I don't think many felt less of Smarty Jones after the Belmont.

In my case, that would have been impossible.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

MDO lost to Sarava...at 70-1 and the race went in 2:29.71 making it second only to commendable as slowest this decade. Yes...he fought...but it was still a crawl.

The final quarter mile of the Birdstone-smarty race was one of the slowest in belmont history...yes they were crawling its just smarty crawled slower.

Rags to riches was certainly not crawling. She ran a great last quarter although the rest of the race was slow.


I disagree with Lukas about the derby. 10f is pretty much the classic distance these days.

i just don't see how anyone can take any of his comments seriously when some of them are completely ridiculous. most people think that the reason so many top races are 10f because the derby is 10f-and therefore the 'classic' distance. so, what would happen if the derby was shortened? i think that would be a far bigger mistake to make than changing the belmont, and would have a bigger impact on the entire sport.
the issue isn't that the belmont is too long. the real issue imo is that too many other races have been shortened, and that weights aren't correct in these other races. too often you see the comment 'nothing left to prove'. older horses should have something to prove. but it seems that a horse can be asked to do no more at four than they are asked to do at june, as a three year old.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

You wouldn't be able to compare the races to past Triple Crown races.

A lot of the fun would be lost if you changed the distance

You are aware that of the 11 TC winners, only the last three have won it under it's current format aren't you? Some winners won it when they had to run the Preakness a week after the Derby. I think one won the Preakness four days after the Derby. Some won it when the Belmont was only two weeks after the Preakness. Some won it when it was four weeks after the Belmont. Perhaps if you had given Smarty Jones or Real Quiet an additional week of rest before the Belmont, they too could have won it. Perhaps if you had made some of those that won the Belmont four weeks after the Preakness instead run it two weeks later, they wouldn't have won. It's sort of misleading to talk about all the tradition when it's already been changed several times and only the last three have won it the way it's currently set up.

It's still my contention that a shorter race is going to be harder to win. I believe that if the Derby were 9f, we'd have more horses that fit the conditions of the race and were logical contenders. This would be even more true for a 10f Belmont. In any race where you have more logical contenders, more legitimate threats, that race is going to be harder to win, not easier. It may be a little easier to run but harder to win because more horses are capable of winning and therefore you margin for error is much smaller. Personally, I'd much rather see the races become more of a combination of speed and stamina than what they have started to become lately and that's the best 9f outlasting the other 9f in a crawlfest to the finish. At the end of every Derby, you usually only have 1-2 horses that are still running at the end. In the Belmont, we are lucky to get one.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

You are aware that of the 11 TC winners, only the last three have won it under it's current format aren't you? Some winners won it when they had to run the Preakness a week after the Derby. I think one won the Preakness four days after the Derby. Some won it when the Belmont was only two weeks after the Preakness. Some won it when it was four weeks after the Belmont. Perhaps if you had given Smarty Jones or Real Quiet an additional week of rest before the Belmont, they too could have won it. Perhaps if you had made some of those that won the Belmont four weeks after the Preakness instead run it two weeks later, they wouldn't have won. It's sort of misleading to talk about all the tradition when it's already been changed several times and only the last three have won it the way it's currently set up.

It's still my contention that a shorter race is going to be harder to win. I believe that if the Derby were 9f, we'd have more horses that fit the conditions of the race and were logical contenders. This would be even more true for a 10f Belmont. In any race where you have more logical contenders, more legitimate threats, that race is going to be harder to win, not easier. It may be a little easier to run but harder to win because more horses are capable of winning and therefore you margin for error is much smaller. Personally, I'd much rather see the races become more of a combination of speed and stamina than what they have started to become lately and that's the best 9f outlasting the other 9f in a crawlfest to the finish. At the end of every Derby, you usually only have 1-2 horses that are still running at the end. In the Belmont, we are lucky to get one.

yes, it's true that there have been changes over the years...the preakness used to be before the derby-the derby used to be in mid-week. but the belmont has been run at 12f since 1926, so it's the other races that have changed more recently.
the argument isn't that it's been changed before-the argument for changing it from most seems to be to make it easier to win. everyone knows that most horses kept from winning the tc have been hamstrung by the belmont. thusly, if you change the belmont, you have more t.c. winners. yippee. making it easier, imo, is not a valid argument for change. after all, if it was easy, anyone could do it-it would no longer take a special horse. so what's the point in having it at all?

i agree with haskin. better to do without a tc winner than to dumb it down.

[Cannon Shell]

The only thing about the Triple Crown that should be changed is having the last race on a different network. The Triple Crown is the one enduring tradition of the sport that actually works and has gained in popularity.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, it's true that there have been changes over the years...the preakness used to be before the derby-the derby used to be in mid-week. but the belmont has been run at 12f since 1926, so it's the other races that have changed more recently.
the argument isn't that it's been changed before-the argument for changing it from most seems to be to make it easier to win. everyone knows that most horses kept from winning the tc have been hamstrung by the belmont. thusly, if you change the belmont, you have more t.c. winners. yippee. making it easier, imo, is not a valid argument for change. after all, if it was easy, anyone could do it-it would no longer take a special horse. so what's the point in having it at all?

i agree with haskin. better to do without a tc winner than to dumb it down.

Depends on whether you think it's easier to win. I think the 100m is a harder race to win than the 1500m when I'm watching track and field. Do you agree that more horses can handle 9f than 10f? Nowdays, you might only get a horse or two that can effectively handle the 10f. Don't you think that a race that has 6-7 horses that are capable of handling the distance effectively would make that race tougher to win than one where you only have 1-2? I really think it would make it even harder. Plus, adding a couple more weeks between each race and bringing back the TC bonus would encourage more trainers to run back their good horses in all three races. Perhaps if there were two more weeks between the Derby and Preakness, a bigger purse and the bonus system in place, Birdstone runs in the Preakness and then doesn't have the freshness advantage over a worn-down Smarty Jones.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Depends on whether you think it's easier to win. I think the 100m is a harder race to win than the 1500m when I'm watching track and field. Do you agree that more horses can handle 9f than 10f? Nowdays, you might only get a horse or two that can effectively handle the 10f. Don't you think that a race that has 6-7 horses that are capable of handling the distance effectively would make that race tougher to win than one where you only have 1-2? I really think it would make it even harder. Plus, adding a couple more weeks between each race and bringing back the TC bonus would encourage more trainers to run back their good horses in all three races. Perhaps if there were two more weeks between the Derby and Preakness, a bigger purse and the bonus system in place, Birdstone runs in the Preakness and then doesn't have the freshness advantage over a worn-down Smarty Jones.

the thing that stands out to me is that the argument, in general, is that horses can't finish the race. you said one or two are there at the end, dala said they 'stagger' home. so it seems that the main bone of contention is that the race is too long.
i personally see no compelling reason to change it. spread them out, change the distance-and quit calling themm the classics while you're at it. they would mean no more than any other race at that point.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The only thing about the Triple Crown that should be changed is having the last race on a different network. The Triple Crown is the one enduring tradition of the sport that actually works and has gained in popularity.

I don't think that's true. Gained in popularity among whom? Certainly not the general public. I'd bet that more than 75% of those that say they watch the TC don't know what the three distances are, don't know what the three tracks are, don't know how much time is between the three races, and couldn't name more than three of the previous TC winners. I'd bet that if you went to a racetrack or OTB, more would know those answers but still less than 50% of them would. I bet that if you asked the next 100 people you saw to name one TC winner, after Secretariat, you'd get as many Seabiscuit answers as any other horse. Today, you might get as many Rachel Alexandra answers as any other horse.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I don't think that's true. Gained in popularity among whom? Certainly not the general public. I'd bet that more than 75% of those that say they watch the TC don't know what the three distances are, don't know what the three tracks are, don't know how much time is between the three races, and couldn't name more than three of the previous TC winners. I'd bet that if you went to a racetrack or OTB, more would know those answers but still less than 50% of them would. I bet that if you asked the next 100 people you saw to name one TC winner, after Secretariat, you'd get as many Seabiscuit answers as any other horse. Today, you might get as many Rachel Alexandra answers as any other horse.

The Triple Crown has gained in popularity especially among the general public. Record attendance, record handle, increased media attention...

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

In my case, that would have been impossible.

I knew you were a meanie pants.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

I knew you were a meanie pants.

wow. that is BRUTAL. lol

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The only thing about the Triple Crown that should be changed is having the last race on a different network. The Triple Crown is the one enduring tradition of the sport that actually works and has gained in popularity.

Endured since the last time they tweaked it. As KG has shown, the triple crown has been tweaked more than once. Why is it such a crime to tweak it now to go with the realities of horse racing today?

As far as popularity, handle and attendence why are you convinced that tweaking the triple crown would adversely affect it in those areas?

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The only thing about the Triple Crown that should be changed is having the last race on a different network. The Triple Crown is the one enduring tradition of the sport that actually works and has gained in popularity.

Do you think that changing the Derby to 9f would make many of the new people that watch racing for the first time on Derby Day say "Well, I'm not watching that now?" How about the Preakness dropping over 30k in attendance because they don't allow the infield partying and drinking this year? The party is what brought many of the people, not the fact that the race was 9.5f. Do you think that if the Preakness was one week later, people wouldn't watch it anymore? The Belmont draws over 100k when a TC is on the line. It draws barely 70k when there's not. People are coming for the event, not because of the distance and conditions of the race. I guarantee you that the vast majority of people do not know the conditions of the races and wouldn't even notice if they were changed.

[Smooth Operator]

Originally Posted by Kasept

It's a fallacy that the breed has changed. It takes hundreds of years for significant evolutionary movement in a breed. What's changed are the training methods and nature of the financial aspect of breeding/sales/racing.

The training changed because of the value of the animals involved, trainers cautiousness with them due to their value, and ownerships' need for a return on the much greater investment(s) involved. You don't see Neil Howard, John Shirreffs, and Shug McGaughey having trouble developing horses as an example, because with the owners they are associated with, there is no urgency to earn back what's been invested within year one of the owner's horses on the racetrack.

The Belmont and similar classic distance events are relevant because identifying horses that can excel at those distances are harbingers of the traits the breeding side of the game is supposed to be seeking. The great mystery from the people saying the race distances should be shortened, is that if you do, you only serve to further enhance the sprint and middle distance sire types that are exactly the ones alledgedly 'weakening the breed'. A.P. Indy is the predominant sire of this generation. Which two wins of his confirmed his attributes as a future sire? The Belmont and BC Classic.

In the meantime, in the last two sophomore seasons, Smooth Air and Musket Man have demonstrated perfectly that endurance/stamina are completely obtainable from any sprint-pedigreed horse. If you train them old school, long and slow, supposedly fragile 6f horses bred to go short can magically go 8.5-10f. As a result of the methods of old style training by Bennie Stutts and Derek Ryan, those two have succeeded at distances no one thought they could possibly 'get'.

Screwing around with the Triple Crown distances, and spacing, would be a guaranteed road to ruin for the breed for racing.

That's a good post right there, Steve.

Have always felt that stamina and durability go hand-in-hand.


Would love to the BCC contested at twelve panels.

[Riot]

I feel horses have changed. Look at them. Natural evolution isn't the selection process, breeders are. Select for it or lose it, that's genetics 101. A breed can be markedly changed in only 2-3 generations. It happened in Quarter Horses with Impressive. It happened in Arabians. I think it's definitely happened in TB horses. The TB horses today do not look, to me, like the TB horses of the 1980's, nor of the 1970's, nor of the 1940-50s.

Like Steve pointed out, horse genetics are selected for by the breeders for success at sales and commercial breeding, not for winning classic races at classic distances. Not for breeder-owners having classic- winning horses (that make their money on the track, not the shed) then bringing them home as stallions.

That said, I completely agree, leave the Triple Crown alone. Don't dumb it down to fit the animals and trainers and breeders of today. Let them figure out how to get it back.

[GenuineRisk]

I don't think D Wayne really cares about whether the TC races are changed; I think he cares about getting his name in the paper and is very good at giving quotes that will do just that. And he succeeded, because here's a whole thread based on an editorial based on something he said.

I think the best thing that could be done to raise the chances of a Triple Crown would be to limit the size Derby field. The more horses in a race, the more luck factors into the win. I think if the Derby field in '05 had been 14 we'd be arguing about whether Afleet Alex was a deserving Triple Crown winner and who did he really beat.

That said, I don't know that I'd change it. Even with the huge field permitted, we've had lots of near misses in the TC since Affirmed won. It'll happen again. The 11 TC winners were lucky as well as good (some luckier than others, I guess, seeing as how only six of them are in the first 20 of Bloodhorse's Top 100 of the 20th Century).