Will we ever see another Triple Crown Winner?

[cakes44]

Citation faced the least # of horses. He stunk.

[Cajungator26]

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.

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

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.

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.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by easy goer

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.

[randallscott35]

You'll see one in the next 3 years.

[Cajungator26]

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.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

but a horse has to be live out of the Derby for them to even have a chance at winning the whole thing.

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.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by miraja2

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.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by cakes44

Citation faced the least # of horses. He stunk.

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.

[todko]

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.

Originally Posted by Cardus

Lukas aside, the increased number of poorly placed horses in Triple Crown events is more attributable to the increased say owners have in determining their horses' races. Old-time trainers -- like Nerud, who told his owners that if they wanted to stable with him, it was his way or no way -- wouldn't indulge owners who merely want to have a box on a big day.

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.

[miraja2]

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.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by miraja2

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.

You would think... yet this exact situation applied in '04 and '05 and (unfortunately) circumstance prevented either of occurring. SJ and AA were so much better than any of their generation yet they missed by a combined 2 lengths.

In '97, the opportunity was there with an outstanding colt but there were several others nearly equally talented; in '98, same deal.

It'll happen within the next 10 years... but it will require quite a bit of luck as well as talent.