Is it Time Now?

[King Glorious]

To change the TC series or do we wait till we get another couple of winners in the next five years? Today was anti-climactic for me after American Pharoah. I think people got comfortable in feeling that it was becoming more difficult because of the long break between winners. I felt that all of the near misses signaled that it was actually becoming easier. First, start with the way horses are bred now. You have fewer and fewer that are bred to excel at longer distances. So you go into the TC series with maybe 3-4 horses that you feel could be contenders to win the series. After the Derby, only one of those horses runs back in the Preakness. The advantage that horse then holds over the Belmont field is often huge and even when the Derby/Preakness winner lost in NY, you still felt it was an upset and not a case where a better horse won.

My feeling has always been that a Derby at 9f becomes harder to win, not easier. The reasoning is because there would be more horses that can handle the distance and be logical contenders. By spacing the Preakness out to a month later, you’d increase the chances of the top contenders returning instead of sitting out. Keep it at 9.5f. A month later, run a 10f Belmont. The 12f is no longer a test to see which of the top 3yos can challenge their elders at the championship distance of 12f because that’s not where the championships are contested anymore.

Fresher horses running at distances they can handle better would make the series tougher, not easier. Or we can hold on to traditions, however outdated they are, and wait til we get another few winners in the next 6-8 years and it becomes boring and commonplace.

[Konk]

Two winners in 37 years, and 3 in 25 before that?
We had three in the 70's and then almost 40 years for the next.
I would call that too easy!

[richard burch]

Laughable. Just 5 years ago people were saying we have to make it easier. Wait until another 30 years go by without a winner and lets see what they say.

[Hickory Hill Hoff]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

To change the TC series or do we wait till we get another couple of winners in the next five years? Today was anti-climactic for me after American Pharoah. I think people got comfortable in feeling that it was becoming more difficult because of the long break between winners. I felt that all of the near misses signaled that it was actually becoming easier. First, start with the way horses are bred now. You have fewer and fewer that are bred to excel at longer distances. So you go into the TC series with maybe 3-4 horses that you feel could be contenders to win the series. After the Derby, only one of those horses runs back in the Preakness. The advantage that horse then holds over the Belmont field is often huge and even when the Derby/Preakness winner lost in NY, you still felt it was an upset and not a case where a better horse won.

My feeling has always been that a Derby at 9f becomes harder to win, not easier. The reasoning is because there would be more horses that can handle the distance and be logical contenders. By spacing the Preakness out to a month later, you’d increase the chances of the top contenders returning instead of sitting out. Keep it at 9.5f. A month later, run a 10f Belmont. The 12f is no longer a test to see which of the top 3yos can challenge their elders at the championship distance of 12f because that’s not where the championships are contested anymore.

Fresher horses running at distances they can handle better would make the series tougher, not easier. Or we can hold on to traditions, however outdated they are, and wait til we get another few winners in the next 6-8 years and it becomes boring and commonplace.

Find another sport to follow

[Hickory Hill Hoff]

Originally Posted by Konk

Two winners in 37 years, and 3 in 25 before that?
We had three in the 70's and then almost 40 years for the next.
I would call that too easy!

[Hickory Hill Hoff]

Originally Posted by richard burch

Laughable. Just 5 years ago people were saying we have to make it easier. Wait until another 30 years go by without a winner and lets see what they say.

[richard burch]

Maybe the NBA should make the G.S. Warriors play with 4 guys next year or spot every team 15 points too.

The only one I feel for is Tom Durkin who deserved to call a Triple Crown winner. He leaves and Colmus gets 2 in 4 years. Ughhhh.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

To change the TC series or do we wait till we get another couple of winners in the next five years? Today was anti-climactic for me after American Pharoah.

I wonder if people felt the same way when Seattle Slew and Affirmed followed up closely after Secretariat busted open a long dry spell.

I felt that all of the near misses signaled that it was actually becoming easier.

If a "near miss" is defined as a horse winning 2/3rds of the Triple Crown, then the dry spell between Citation and Secretariat saw 62.5% "near miss" Triple Crowns while in the interim between Affirmed and American Pharaoh only 55.5% of the Triple Crowns were "near misses".

So the premise that the Triple Crown has become easier is on a shaky foundation.

First, start with the way horses are bred now. You have fewer and fewer that are bred to excel at longer distances. So you go into the TC series with maybe 3-4 horses that you feel could be contenders to win the series. After the Derby, only one of those horses runs back in the Preakness. The advantage that horse then holds over the Belmont field is often huge and even when the Derby/Preakness winner lost in NY, you still felt it was an upset and not a case where a better horse won.

A quick fix of that would be to bring back the $1 million bonus for the horse that tallies the most points in all 3 Classics and the $5 million bonus for the Triple Crown sweep.

As far as the NY upsets, not sure the Bet Twice, Easy Goer, Touch Gold, Victory Gallop, Empire Maker or even Lemon Drop Kid and Birdstone Belmonts were considered true upsets.

My feeling has always been that a Derby at 9f becomes harder to win, not easier. The reasoning is because there would be more horses that can handle the distance and be logical contenders. By spacing the Preakness out to a month later, you’d increase the chances of the top contenders returning instead of sitting out. Keep it at 9.5f. A month later, run a 10f Belmont. The 12f is no longer a test to see which of the top 3yos can challenge their elders at the championship distance of 12f because that’s not where the championships are contested anymore.

This is a downstream intervention that ignores larger systemic problems (i.e., breeders no longer breed for stamina) in the name of simply making the races more "competitive". In fact it takes the same micro-level alteration (i.e., making races shorter) seen in the handicap ranks as justification.

Why not explore upstream solutions that promote and emphasize stamina to compliment the abundance of speed and precocity (and unsoundness) that currently plagues the sport? Instead of artificially making races more competitive, why not force breeders to focus on neglected facets of the sport (i.e. classic distances, older horse divisions)?

Even if you couldn't compel breeders to alter their methods, sometimes the pendulum simply swings the other way. The top stallion in North America right now is Tapit, partly on the basis of his ability to impart stamina in his offspring (he earned yet another placing in the Belmont Stakes today). If a single stallion begins to dominate a certain subset of races (e.g., sprints, middle distances, classic distances), then it is the breeders who will be forced to become more competitive lest Tapit sire a Belmont winner annually.

Fresher horses running at distances they can handle better would make the series tougher, not easier.

Just as you would give tacit approval to the elimination of stamina in the makeup of a Thoroughbred, you would also abandon the characteristic of robustness. Whatever one thinks of Justify's ability from a historical standpoint, certainly--as many have pointed out--winning 6 races in a the span of 112 days is a feat unlikely to be matched in the near future.

Why reward owners and trainers (and breeders) for keeping their horses in the barn during their active racing years and then retiring them from competition before they've arguably reached their peak at 4 or 5 years of age?

Or we can hold on to traditions, however outdated they are, and wait til we get another few winners in the next 6-8 years and it becomes boring and commonplace.

Are those traditions (ability to carry speed over a distance, able to maintain form in a short time frame, etc.) "outdated" or are they simply being outflanked by a new era of greedy and influential players in the sport who forego the true qualities in a champion Thoroughbred along with the horsemanship necessary to foster them in the name of "stallion making", pinhooking, and other forms of speculation and exploitation that need not ever be validated on an actual racetrack?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

I wonder if people felt the same way when Seattle Slew and Affirmed followed up closely after Secretariat busted open a long dry spell.


If a "near miss" is defined as a horse winning 2/3rds of the Triple Crown, then the dry spell between Citation and Secretariat saw 62.5% "near miss" Triple Crowns while in the interim between Affirmed and American Pharaoh only 55.5% of the Triple Crowns were "near misses".

So the premise that the Triple Crown has become easier is on a shaky foundation.


A quick fix of that would be to bring back the $1 million bonus for the horse that tallies the most points in all 3 Classics and the $5 million bonus for the Triple Crown sweep.

As far as the NY upsets, not sure the Bet Twice, Easy Goer, Touch Gold, Victory Gallop, Empire Maker or even Lemon Drop Kid and Birdstone Belmonts were considered true upsets.


This is a downstream intervention that ignores larger systemic problems (i.e., breeders no longer breed for stamina) in the name of simply making the races more "competitive". In fact it takes the same micro-level alteration (i.e., making races shorter) seen in the handicap ranks as justification.

Why not explore upstream solutions that promote and emphasize stamina to compliment the abundance of speed and precocity (and unsoundness) that currently plagues the sport? Instead of artificially making races more competitive, why not force breeders to focus on neglected facets of the sport (i.e. classic distances, older horse divisions)?

Even if you couldn't compel breeders to alter their methods, sometimes the pendulum simply swings the other way. The top stallion in North America right now is Tapit, partly on the basis of his ability to impart stamina in his offspring (he earned yet another placing in the Belmont Stakes today). If a single stallion begins to dominate a certain subset of races (e.g., sprints, middle distances, classic distances), then it is the breeders who will be forced to become more competitive lest Tapit sire a Belmont winner annually.


Just as you would give tacit approval to the elimination of stamina in the makeup of a Thoroughbred, you would also abandon the characteristic of robustness. Whatever one thinks of Justify's ability from a historical standpoint, certainly--as many have pointed out--winning 6 races in a the span of 112 days is a feat unlikely to be matched in the near future.

Why reward owners and trainers (and breeders) for keeping their horses in the barn during their active racing years and then retiring them from competition before they've arguably reached their peak at 4 or 5 years of age?


Are those traditions (ability to carry speed over a distance, able to maintain form in a short time frame, etc.) "outdated" or are they simply being outflanked by a new era of greedy and influential players in the sport who forego the true qualities in a champion Thoroughbred along with the horsemanship necessary to foster them in the name of "stallion making", pinhooking, and other forms of speculation and exploitation that need not ever be validated on an actual racetrack?

you really are the best poster on this site

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by jms62

you really are the best poster on this site

Agreed!

[moses]

Wouldn’t Justify have won even if the races were shorter? Which 3 year old that didn’t run is going to beat him at 9f, 9.5f, and 10f?

If you wanted to make any changes, maybe shorten only the Preakness. But I wouldn’t really advocate for that either. I think it’s fine the way it is.

[moses]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Agreed!

Agreed. Always enjoyable to read.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

I wonder if people felt the same way when Seattle Slew and Affirmed followed up closely after Secretariat busted open a long dry spell.


If a "near miss" is defined as a horse winning 2/3rds of the Triple Crown, then the dry spell between Citation and Secretariat saw 62.5% "near miss" Triple Crowns while in the interim between Affirmed and American Pharaoh only 55.5% of the Triple Crowns were "near misses".

So the premise that the Triple Crown has become easier is on a shaky foundation.


A quick fix of that would be to bring back the $1 million bonus for the horse that tallies the most points in all 3 Classics and the $5 million bonus for the Triple Crown sweep.

As far as the NY upsets, not sure the Bet Twice, Easy Goer, Touch Gold, Victory Gallop, Empire Maker or even Lemon Drop Kid and Birdstone Belmonts were considered true upsets.


This is a downstream intervention that ignores larger systemic problems (i.e., breeders no longer breed for stamina) in the name of simply making the races more "competitive". In fact it takes the same micro-level alteration (i.e., making races shorter) seen in the handicap ranks as justification.

Why not explore upstream solutions that promote and emphasize stamina to compliment the abundance of speed and precocity (and unsoundness) that currently plagues the sport? Instead of artificially making races more competitive, why not force breeders to focus on neglected facets of the sport (i.e. classic distances, older horse divisions)?

Even if you couldn't compel breeders to alter their methods, sometimes the pendulum simply swings the other way. The top stallion in North America right now is Tapit, partly on the basis of his ability to impart stamina in his offspring (he earned yet another placing in the Belmont Stakes today). If a single stallion begins to dominate a certain subset of races (e.g., sprints, middle distances, classic distances), then it is the breeders who will be forced to become more competitive lest Tapit sire a Belmont winner annually.


Just as you would give tacit approval to the elimination of stamina in the makeup of a Thoroughbred, you would also abandon the characteristic of robustness. Whatever one thinks of Justify's ability from a historical standpoint, certainly--as many have pointed out--winning 6 races in a the span of 112 days is a feat unlikely to be matched in the near future.

Why reward owners and trainers (and breeders) for keeping their horses in the barn during their active racing years and then retiring them from competition before they've arguably reached their peak at 4 or 5 years of age?


Are those traditions (ability to carry speed over a distance, able to maintain form in a short time frame, etc.) "outdated" or are they simply being outflanked by a new era of greedy and influential players in the sport who forego the true qualities in a champion Thoroughbred along with the horsemanship necessary to foster them in the name of "stallion making", pinhooking, and other forms of speculation and exploitation that need not ever be validated on an actual racetrack?

Thank you for the reasoned response. I would like to say that I am not in favor of getting stamina out of tbe breed. A few years ago, the introduced the BC Marathon and I was happy about that race and the added importance that they gave to some races in the division that pointed horses to the Marathon. I thought it was sort of an “If you build it, they will come” sort of move. It hasn’t seemed to work that way though. My worry is that we stick with traditions so long that we let something that was special become commonplace.

I think back to the history of the sport and we talk about the near misses. I don’t have the historical perspective you have (I’ve only been watching races since 1986) but I have a feeling that back in the days before that, the horses that stopped TC attempts were good horses that were logical contenders and closer to on par with the Derby/Preakness winner than what we get today. No, it’s not an upset when Easy Goer or Bet Twice or Touch Gold wins. Those were good horses all along that had proven they were in the same class as the horses they beat. I don’t see that these days. I do agree with you 100% that the bonus would help.

In the end, I don’t want to walk away feeling like I did yesterday. It was anti-climactic for me. I had zero belief anyone could beat Justify and it wasn’t because I feel he is just a superior horse. I feel like the conditions set it up to where if you get one horse that is good enough, it’s less challenging. I’d like to see a series where several horses fit the conditions and are logical contenders in each race and there be actual incentive to run in each race.

[cakes44]

I actually do think the new point system has made it easier, or at least more likely anyway. Less speedballs get into the KD now, meaning less pace collapses, making it easier for the best horse to win the first leg. When the best horse wins the KD, then you have the best horse being the one with the chance to win the TC, and not some horse that relies on other horses falling apart to win. JMO...fire away.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by cakes44

I actually do think the new point system has made it easier, or at least more likely anyway. Less speedballs get into the KD now, meaning less pace collapses, making it easier for the best horse to win the first leg. When the best horse wins the KD, then you have the best horse being the one with the chance to win the TC, and not some horse that relies on other horses falling apart to win. JMO...fire away.

I think this is true and we can look at the run of favorites in the derby to support your point. Although it is easier it still is a difficult task given todays trainers and their propensity to give their horses significant amount of time between races.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by cakes44

I actually do think the new point system has made it easier, or at least more likely anyway. Less speedballs get into the KD now, meaning less pace collapses, making it easier for the best horse to win the first leg. When the best horse wins the KD, then you have the best horse being the one with the chance to win the TC, and not some horse that relies on other horses falling apart to win. JMO...fire away.

I get what you’re saying and I agree. The Derby has been won by favorites at a very high rate recently. That has turned the Preakness into an almost walkover since most of the top also rans from Kentucky end up skipping the race. At that point, we are left to see whether the fresh horse can upset the Belmont.

As a sports fan, I like to see competition. If I want to watch displays of brilliance, I can watch the Warriors. But they have made the results a foregone conclusion. I’d much rather see a playoffs where several teams have realistic chances to win.

I’d like to have this conversation in five years. I believe we’ll have at least two more winners in that span.

[freddymo]

Yesterday was awesome. If you can't find joy in a worthy TC winner, it probably makes sense to dive deep into the intricacies of Curling. Yeah it was a bit of a phony race, Justify showed up, he ran great, and save some odd decisions in the first turn I thought the race unfolded precisely how it should for a champion.

I don't know; when the SA Derby, KD, Preakness, and Belmont become common for colts in their 3rd 4th 5th and 6th start I guess I will yawn as well until then, I am pretty sure I witnessed a fantastic series of accomplishments.

[Merlinsky]

No to changing the Triple Crown, no to shortening the Derby field, no to shortening the Preakness. The only change worth making is a special gate without the auxiliary gap. C'mon Churchill, do it, it's time.

No to the bonus. It was fun til the Prairie Bayou incident. I can't watch that again. Some sort of bonus for somebody wouldn't be wrong, but I'd like it to be different than one for the TC. Maybe give Todd Pletcher his very own bonus to run in the Preakness. Give him a sack of money in unmarked bills you drop in the Pimlico infield.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by cakes44

I actually do think the new point system has made it easier, or at least more likely anyway. Less speedballs get into the KD now, meaning less pace collapses, making it easier for the best horse to win the first leg. When the best horse wins the KD, then you have the best horse being the one with the chance to win the TC, and not some horse that relies on other horses falling apart to win. JMO...fire away.

Agree with this.

Had a long discussion about 2 years ago with Ed D about this and the Derby has fundamentally changed with the points system. Mixed reactions as a gambler but it has identified the best horse better (most of the time- Always Dreaming an exception.)