Current TC Spacing Dates Back to 1969

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If you ask any trainer that has TC experience, they will all tell you that the schedule is a huge issue. If you ask a trainer that doesn't have TC experience, 90% of them will tell you it's a huge issue. I think that guys who are with horses every day and do it for a living may have some idea as to how long it takes horses to recover from races.

As you may have noticed in the article, Asmussen said that if there was more space between races that it would make it easier. That is obvious.

The Super Bowl has only been around since 1967.

If you want to change the Triple Crown series to reflect the realities of modern, up to the minute, thoroughbred racing...why stop with just the spacing?

How about making the Kentucky Derby 9 furlongs. The Preakness 8.5 furlongs. The Belmont Stakes 10 furlongs? That with a nice five weeks of spacing between each.

126 pounds is also an usually high amount of weight. Why not make it 122lbs for colts and geldings?

The name "Triple Crown" has only been around since the 1930's. That phrase wasn't even coined when Sir Barton first completed the sweep. Why not re-name it the "Grand Slam"

1st leg: Derby (9 furlongs)
2nd leg: Preakness (8.5 furlongs)
3rd leg: Belmont (10 furlongs)
4th leg: Travers (10 furlongs)

The extended spacing will work out great.

I suppose if "Grand Slam" sounds too corny -- why not call it 'The Whirlaway Slam' -- since he's the only horse to officially win all 4 of those races.

All kidding aside -- why fix what isn't broken?

[Rudeboyelvis]

I like the idea of the Whirlaway Slam

[Rudeboyelvis]

Seriously, if CC can't do it this year then it's never going to happen UNLESS we get an even more pathetic 3yo crop in the coming years. Which would be hard to believe. This years crop makes 2008's crop look like 2007's.

[OldDog]

I think it's no accident that the only two horses to contend in all 3 TC races have far and away the most starts. Would it shock anyone to see them finish 1-2 in the Belmont?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

I think it's no accident that the only two horses to contend in all 3 TC races have far and away the most starts. Would it shock anyone to see them finish 1-2 in the Belmont?

that's the thing, i would LOVE to see him win it, just to get people to step back and go hmmmmm.

seems to me if you treat these horses like hothouse flowers, fragile as hell, that's what you'll get.
this horse is a home bred, wasn't kept out of the paddock, away from romping because they didn't want blemishes on him for the sale. they ran him, he's got a great foundation, he hasn't been babied and coddled.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I like the idea of the Whirlaway Slam

me too.

i'd love to see another handicap triple for older horses too, like they used to have. offer bonuses again, like they used to in the tc. get the horses out of the barns! offer up some real money so people will race them.

[Danzig]

tradition is what's going on at the time. that's not why i say don't change it.

i say don't change it because there's no reason to. especially after looking into the current amount of close calls, and the fact that you had 1/4th of the tc winners after the current setup was put in place.
two of the three ran at four.
most of those who almost made it ran again at three with success, and ran at four, also successfully. the ones who didn't, one retired due to breeding demand (smarty) another due to breakdown.
as for i'll have another, weren't there soundness questions from the get go about him?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

tradition is what's going on at the time. that's not why i say don't change it.

i say don't change it because there's no reason to. especially after looking into the current amount of close calls, and the fact that you had 1/4th of the tc winners after the current setup was put in place.
two of the three ran at four.
most of those who almost made it ran again at three with success, and ran at four, also successfully. the ones who didn't, one retired due to breeding demand (smarty) another due to breakdown.
as for i'll have another, weren't there soundness questions from the get go about him?

I think times have changed a lot between the 1970s and now. I think the horses are much more fragile now than they were in the 70s. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how things play out this year and over the next 25 years. I think the horses these days are so fragile that you may only see a TC winner maybe once every 25 year or so in the future. I could be dead wrong but that is my opinion. I think it literally takes a "Super Horse" to do it.

Don't get me wrong. I think it should be extremely difficult to win the TC. It should be so difficult that only the kind of horse that comes around once a decade should be able to do it. But I think it's to the point where it's much tougher than that. I think we are to the point now where it takes a "Super horse" that only comes around once every 25-50 years. I could be totally wrong because the fact that there hasn't been a winner in 36 years could be a fluke. If you have an event that normally happens 10% of the time, it would not be that unusual to have an 0 for 36 streak. Looking at 36 events is not really that big of a sample. It could be a fluke but I don't think so.

Anyway, it is to the point where some people in the industry including owners, trainers, and track operators think that this is a discussion worth having. The powers that be will discuss this and weigh the pros and cons to making a change. As I said before, if they do make a change I hope it is only a minor change. If they shortened all the distances and did it over 8-9 weeks, I think that would ruin it. Those races would just be like any other races. I wouldn't want that to happen.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

I suppose if "Grand Slam" sounds too corny -- why not call it 'The Whirlaway Slam' -- since he's the only horse to officially win all 4 of those races.

All kidding aside -- why fix what isn't broken?

Grand Slam? This is making me hungry. Move one of the races to a Florida track and call it the Moons Over My Hammy.

I agree, don't fix what isn't broken. If it's next to impossible, great. Baffert thinks the Derby-Preakness timing is just fine, esp. for the KD winner because the Derby winner's still riding high and can swing right into it in good form. The Derby horses this year held form going into that race as they usually do. There's a benefit to the Belmont being frickin' hard to get for a number of reasons. Belmont Park's moved races to the undercard to make for an even bigger day, I can't see them moving. Obviously "the first Saturday in May" isn't something the Derby's giving up. The MJC needs to let it go.

[Aly-Sheba]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

The Super Bowl has only been around since 1967.

If you want to change the Triple Crown series to reflect the realities of modern, up to the minute, thoroughbred racing...why stop with just the spacing?

How about making the Kentucky Derby 9 furlongs. The Preakness 8.5 furlongs. The Belmont Stakes 10 furlongs? That with a nice five weeks of spacing between each.

126 pounds is also an usually high amount of weight. Why not make it 122lbs for colts and geldings?

The name "Triple Crown" has only been around since the 1930's. That phrase wasn't even coined when Sir Barton first completed the sweep. Why not re-name it the "Grand Slam"

1st leg: Derby (9 furlongs)
2nd leg: Preakness (8.5 furlongs)
3rd leg: Belmont (10 furlongs)
4th leg: Travers (10 furlongs)

The extended spacing will work out great.

I suppose if "Grand Slam" sounds too corny -- why not call it 'The Whirlaway Slam' -- since he's the only horse to officially win all 4 of those races.

All kidding aside -- why fix what isn't broken?

Exactly don't fix it if it's not broke!! Or they can change it to 3 and 4 year olds and if a 3yr olds wins the Preakness and Belmont and the Derby as a 4 yr old they could call it the Tiger Triple Crown!!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

The Super Bowl has only been around since 1967.

If you want to change the Triple Crown series to reflect the realities of modern, up to the minute, thoroughbred racing...why stop with just the spacing?

How about making the Kentucky Derby 9 furlongs. The Preakness 8.5 furlongs. The Belmont Stakes 10 furlongs? That with a nice five weeks of spacing between each.

126 pounds is also an usually high amount of weight. Why not make it 122lbs for colts and geldings?

The name "Triple Crown" has only been around since the 1930's. That phrase wasn't even coined when Sir Barton first completed the sweep. Why not re-name it the "Grand Slam"

1st leg: Derby (9 furlongs)
2nd leg: Preakness (8.5 furlongs)
3rd leg: Belmont (10 furlongs)
4th leg: Travers (10 furlongs)

The extended spacing will work out great.

I suppose if "Grand Slam" sounds too corny -- why not call it 'The Whirlaway Slam' -- since he's the only horse to officially win all 4 of those races.

All kidding aside -- why fix what isn't broken?

I agree with you to a point. I wouldn't want to make major changes to it. I think one of the things that makes it so intriguing is that it is such a huge challenge. But I think it would still be a huge challenge if they added an extra week between the Derby and Preakness. Then you would have three really tough races in 6 weeks instead of 5 weeks. I'd be on the fence about adding one more week between the Preakness and Belmont.

I agree with you that you shouldn't fix what isn't broken. But I think the TC is partially broken. It's not totally broken because it is still extremely popular and there are a lot of great things about it. But I think it is partially broken because it ruins so many horses and I think it has gotten to the point where it is really too difficult to win all three. It's all relative. If CC wins this year and then another wins the TC in the next 5-10 years, I will say I was wrong. It may in fact be a fluke that no horse has won in 36 years. I don't think it's a fluke but I could be wrong.

But at what point would you guys agree that I am right? What if CC loses this year and not a single horse wins the TC in the next 24 years? That would make it 60 years with no TC winner. At that point would you admit that maybe it's too difficult? By the way, if it was simply a matter of difficulty I probably wouldn't care. But it's more than just difficult. It's really hard on the horses and I think it ends a lot of careers. So a combination of those two things makes me think that it may be worth tweaking just a little bit.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I agree with you to a point. I wouldn't want to make major changes to it. I think one of the things that makes it so intriguing is that it is such a huge challenge. But I think it would still be a huge challenge if they added an extra week between the Derby and Preakness. Then you would have three really tough races in 6 weeks instead of 5 weeks. I'd be on the fence about adding one more week between the Preakness and Belmont.

I agree with you that you shouldn't fix what isn't broken. But I think the TC is partially broken. It's not totally broken because it is still extremely popular and there are a lot of great things about it. But I think it is partially broken because it ruins so many horses and I think it has gotten to the point where it is really too difficult to win all three. It's all relative. If CC wins this year and then another wins the TC in the next 5-10 years, I will say I was wrong. It may in fact be a fluke that no horse has won in 36 years. I don't think it's a fluke but I could be wrong.

But at what point would you guys agree that I am right? What if CC loses this year and not a single horse wins the TC in the next 24 years? That would make it 60 years with no TC winner. At that point would you admit that maybe it's too difficult? By the way, if it was simply a matter of difficulty I probably wouldn't care. But it's more than just difficult. It's really hard on the horses and I think it ends a lot of careers. So a combination of those two things makes me think that it may be worth tweaking just a little bit.

I will agree you are right when you can actually provide statistical backup to your assertion that the TC is too hard on horses. Only three runners in the Derby came back for the Preakness and they ran 1, 2, 4. And the winner and place horses are coming back for the Belmont.

That Bloodhorse piece Steve linked to lays out very well why the Triple Crown is so hard to win. And the biggest factor is just that there are a lot more horses foaled today than in the past. And that many more horses going to the gate in the TC races. As the article states, Smarty Jones beat more rivals in losing the Triple Crown than did any of the actual winners.

For racing, the biggest benefit is having a TC on the line- that's what gets people to Belmont, and what makes them watch on TV. Whether CC wins or loses is irrelevant in terms of audience. Does anyone really think, if CC wins, the average non-racing fan is going to say, "Wow, normally I don't even know what the Travers is, but now I cannot wait!"

Changing the schedule would be nothing other than a business decision and some things should be beyond the reach of what is most profitable. The TC should belong to the fans.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I will agree you are right when you can actually provide statistical backup to your assertion that the TC is too hard on horses. Only three runners in the Derby came back for the Preakness and they ran 1, 2, 4. And the winner and place horses are coming back for the Belmont.

That Bloodhorse piece Steve linked to lays out very well why the Triple Crown is so hard to win. And the biggest factor is just that there are a lot more horses foaled today than in the past. And that many more horses going to the gate in the TC races. As the article states, Smarty Jones beat more rivals in losing the Triple Crown than did any of the actual winners.

For racing, the biggest benefit is having a TC on the line- that's what gets people to Belmont, and what makes them watch on TV. Whether CC wins or loses is irrelevant in terms of audience. Does anyone really think, if CC wins, the average non-racing fan is going to say, "Wow, normally I don't even know what the Travers is, but now I cannot wait!"

Changing the schedule would be nothing other than a business decision and some things should be beyond the reach of what is most profitable. The TC should belong to the fans.

You beat me to it on statistical proof, as perception or opinion shouldn't be the driving force for changing it.
I'm still at a loss to figure out what horses careers were 'ruined' by the triple crown.
The current system produced three winners in five years, over one fourth the total tc winners. Also a lot of horses who won two of three, many who aren't on the list above because they won a different combination...riva ridge, swale, afleet Alex, risen star are just a few. Then you have horses who spoiled the effort of horses on the above list, who also continued to have successful careers after having run in all three tc races. Even genuine risk, who ran first, second,second continued on.