Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > Main Forum > The Paddock
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #9  
Old 03-28-2007, 05:13 PM
Cajungator26's Avatar
Cajungator26 Cajungator26 is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hossy's Mom's basement.
Posts: 10,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miraja2
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.