Does anyone know if there was ever a time when horses who did not run in the Derby were not allowed to run in the Preakness and Belmont?
I thought I remembered always having new horses in the last two races, my friend said no. Can’t seem to google the right words for an answer.
There is no rule prohibiting horses from running in the Belmont only.
[QUOTE=DLee;6305481]
Does anyone know if there was ever a time when horses who did not run in the Derby were not allowed to run in the Preakness and Belmont?[/QUOTE]
Not allowed isn’t true as there never have been any such rules in place. Think about it - Pimlico and Belmont would effectively just have the table scraps running post-Derby. Now have there been years where the Belmont Stakes was made up of just horses who had run in either the Derby or Preakness? I’m sure it has happened at least once.
Keep in mind Man O’War skipped the Kentucky Derby and won the Preakness and Belmont.
When MOW was running the 3 races were not combined into a series.
There is no requirement that a horse run in the Derby to be eligible to go in the other two. Bernardini won the Preakness after not running in the Derby.
Only about 5 or 5 Derby runners will be coming back. In some years it’s only 1 or 2. The rest are new shooters. The Belmont will have still more new shooters and a few returning from the Derby after skipping the Preakness.
Historically there has never been a requirement that starting in the Derby makes a horse eligible for the other two.
Thanks! That’s what I thought. 
In fact, one of the things that makes the Triple Crown “special” is that the winner has to beat all of the horses that only run one of the three races.
There STILL isn’t an official series. They’re all GI stakes open to three-year-olds who meet (at least in the Derby’s case) the earnings requirements. There’s a trophy for a Triple Crown now, and sometimes special sponsored bonuses (I recall there used to be some point-based thing for a while with one sponsor?) but they’re all regulated by different states and completely separate races. The first Triple Crown winner is Sir Barton, who won IIRC in either 1918 or 1919. (Was he four or five when he had the match race with Man o’ War?)
[QUOTE=danceronice;6305988]
There STILL isn’t an official series. They’re all GI stakes open to three-year-olds who meet (at least in the Derby’s case) the earnings requirements.[/QUOTE]
Yes and no with the official series. There is a TC nomination fee and process although that doesn’t mean a horse cannot get into the Derby, Preakness and/or Belmont if not previously nominated. See the Derby thread with this years Louisiana Derby winner who had plenty of graded money but no nomination.
I cited MOW simply as an example of a horse having run in just two of the three races. His efforts did indeed pre-date the popular coined phrase ‘Triple Crown’. The uppercase “Triple Crown” was first used in 1930 when Daily Racing Form’s columnist, Charles Hatton, used it while covering Gallant Fox’s winning efforts. However The New York Times used lowercase ‘triple crown’ in 1923:
The Times wrote in a year where the Preakness preceded the Derby, “Thomas J. Healey had Walter J. Salmon’s Preakness winner, Vigil, and his owner wired today that he would be here” — in Louisville, Ky. — “Friday to see his colt try to capture his second classic in the triple crown of the American turf.”
The Triple Crown trophy was commissioned in 1950 by the Thoroughbred Racing Association (made by Cartier) and presented retroactively to 1948 Triple Crown Winner Citation.
Accordingly to wikipedia - so trust it as much was you want or not - “Each year thereafter [1950], retroactive trophies were presented to the first eight winners of the Triple Crown in reverse order until all of the previous winners or their heirs were awarded.”
So the connections of Sir Barton (the first winner of all three) from 1919 received in 1957 a Triple Crown trophy.
The series as an entity dates only to the late 30’s.
There is one nomination fee and at times there have been bonuses for a sweep. Yes, all three races are run under different jurisdictions, but going back to the late 30’s horsemen has percieved the Derby/Preakness/Belmont as a unit, called the Triple Crown. Prior to then the three races were important 3yo fixtures but entirely unrelated like the Preakness the Swaps and the Haskell are today.
Sir Barton won the TC in 1919 after having broken his maiden in the Derby. I think it was Gallant Fox who won the Preakness before the Derby.
Prior to the “NY blackout years” in the early 19teens, the Derby was regarded more as a midwestern fixture and not an important stop for an “east coast” 3yo. In that era, the big eastern outfits were in MD and NY. The Preakness was often the first big race back for 3yo’s returning from winter quarters in the Carolinas. It wasn’t until big outfits like HP Whitney’s won the Derby with Regret that east coast horses began showing up in droves. The series was solidified by Calumet, a KY based outfitsending Whirlaway through (with a race between the Preakness and Belmont) in '41.
