Current TC Spacing Dates Back to 1969

[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.