[QUOTE=amastrike;7621811]
I think we should start a petition to just get rid of the Preakness and Belmont altogether and rename the Derby “The Triple Crown”, that way whatever horse wins the Derby wins The Triple Crown.[/QUOTE]
Good thing I didn’t have a drink in hand or you would owe me a new keyboard. :lol:
I personally think we should have a blanket of half dead carnations to drape over the horse that comes closest to winning the TC every year. Sort of Miss Congeniality for the horsey set.
I liked Forbes’ mag’s take on the whole thing.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/cliffoxford/2014/06/11/22/
'Nuff said, 'til next year!
I liked Forbes’ mag’s take on the whole thing.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/cliffoxford/2014/06/11/22/
'Nuff said, 'til next year!
[QUOTE=BlueLodge;7622037]
I liked Forbes’ mag’s take on the whole thing.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/cliffoxford/2014/06/11/22/
'Nuff said, 'til next year![/QUOTE]
They left out the whole stepped on out of the gate thing and blamed it on a bad ride. They must have watched the race on their iphone.
Well, I can certainly understand where Mr. Coburn is coming from, although I don’t quite agree with his methodology. Being a huge fan of Afleet Alex and still upset about him losing his triple crown bid in the Derby of all things, I think they should limit the Derby to maybe 10 horses. Or maybe just the winners of certain prep races, like the FL Derby, the Wood Memorial, the SA Derby. Oh . . . wait. That method would have disqualified Secretariat. Oh well. Back to the drawing board.
Dern, now my tongue is stuck in the side of my cheek!
It was a bad ride.
[QUOTE=Bristol Bay;7613281]
If the Triple Crown is indeed a media construct, it’s a popular one. Everyone agrees it would be good for the sport if more horses won it. So why not make it a series of races as many have suggested?
In other sports, rules are changed all the time to avoid injuries or to increase scoring. Hockey changed the rules so there can only be one player defending the area in front of the net. More goals are scored as a result. Basketball had already made a similar adjustment. Baseball lowered the mound and widened the strike zone. All of these tweaks were to make the games more fan-friendly, as my husband put it.
So, okay, people are hungry for a Triple Crown horse. Make it fair so a good horse has a better chance.
Racing history and tradition haven’t kept tracks from closing.[/QUOTE]
Someone from Pimlico suggested; Derby 1st Saturday in May; Preakness, 1st Saturday in June, Belmont, First Saturday in July. Horses skipping either of the first two would still have an advantage, but it would be a more level playing field, and the Pimlico commenter DID mention it would provide a bigger build-up to a possible Triple Crown and the attendant boost to horse racing, which is near the bottom of popularity these days, tied with boxing.
As for changing historic races, well, the Jockey Club Gold Cup was first run in 1919. At TWO miles. Only the Display Handicap 2.25 mi. is/was longer - I haven’t checked to see if that race is still run. The Gold Cup stayed at 2 miles until the 70s. Then it was cut to 1.5 miles, now it’s at 1.25 miles, probably to make it easier to win. So there is no bar to changing the way historic races are run.
[QUOTE=GottaQHFilly;7622267]
It was a bad ride.[/QUOTE]
Jerry Bailey, winner of two Belmonts, among other races, doesn’t agree.
[QUOTE=Sparrowette;7621686]
Now that you’ve probably read some of the other posts, I’d like to add, that I think you owe laurierace an apology.
What I like about the CoTH boards here is that this is not an “I love my pretty horsie!” type of place. Most of the people I see here know their stuff, so generally, when answering a post where someone needs to know that my opinion may not be as good as someone else’s, I try to ID myself as a greenie. And I try to show respect to those whom I know are better informed than me.[/QUOTE]
Disagree. Think quite a bit of Laurierace, and appreciate so much of what she contributes, but many of her comments are acerbic to those who are just learning. Sure they’ve been giving us headaches with the change the Triple Crown thing. But not even those with significant racing experience are always right. And I thought her suggesting everyone else go away quite rude.
And believe some of that attitude throughout by several individuals has been the reason for certain people leaving the board.
Also going to add here. One of the things that dismays me is the gulf between H/J, eventing, and/or other disciplines, with those who race. Certainly there are many who know each other and get along well. But I know several with nice barns who believe all the rumors about racing - nursemare foals, all the drugs every single horse is loaded with, etc., etc. So IMHO think it’s a good idea to bridge the gap. And if those who don’t know racing are bullheaded enough to insist on something they don’t understand, yeah - that’s really annoying. But being an example, and setting rumors straight - which I’m glad to see happens fairly frequently here - serves the TBs well - especially all those looking for a home upon retiring.
Looked it up. The Display Handicap, aka The New York Handicap, was a race for 3 year olds and up, run at 2.25 miles. Named for a son of Man O’War. It was last held in 1990, due to dwindling fields (because no one breeds for stamina/distance horses any more!) The more six furlong sprints on the card, the more betting, the more money…
The San Juan Capistrano at Santa Anita is now an invitational handicap and probably is the longest race still extant, at 1.75 miles on the turf. The most exciting race (aside from Affirmed’s TC) I’ve ever watched was when Olden Times, a sprinter/miler was sent out as a rabbit in the San Juan Capistrano for some other Ellsworth/Tenney horse (maybe Prove It?). Shoemaker aboard. He opened up 23 lengths on the field, and hung on to win by, IIRC, a nose or a short head. When they were presenting the trophy to Mrs. Ellsworth, she kept saying, “but he’s only supposed to go a mile!”
[QUOTE=Sandy M;7622516]
Looked it up. The Display Handicap, aka The New York Handicap, was a race for 3 year olds and up, run at 2.25 miles. Named for a son of Man O’War. It was last held in 1990, due to dwindling fields (because no one breeds for stamina/distance horses any more!) The more six furlong sprints on the card, the more betting, the more money…
The San Juan Capistrano at Santa Anita is now an invitational handicap and probably is the longest race still extant, at 1.75 miles on the turf. The most exciting race (aside from Affirmed’s TC) I’ve ever watched was when Olden Times, a sprinter/miler was sent out as a rabbit in the San Juan Capistrano for some other Ellsworth/Tenney horse (maybe Prove It?). Shoemaker aboard. He opened up 23 lengths on the field, and hung on to win by, IIRC, a nose or a short head. When they were presenting the trophy to Mrs. Ellsworth, she kept saying, “but he’s only supposed to go a mile!”[/QUOTE]
There was a 2 mile stakes race, the Belmont Gold Cup, on the Friday before the Belmont.
The American St Leger at Arlington is a 14f race, like the race it is named after.
[QUOTE=Sandy M;7622516]
Looked it up. The Display Handicap, aka The New York Handicap, was a race for 3 year olds and up, run at 2.25 miles. Named for a son of Man O’War. It was last held in 1990, due to dwindling fields (because no one breeds for stamina/distance horses any more!) The more six furlong sprints on the card, the more betting, the more money…
The San Juan Capistrano at Santa Anita is now an invitational handicap and probably is the longest race still extant, at 1.75 miles on the turf. The most exciting race (aside from Affirmed’s TC) I’ve ever watched was when Olden Times, a sprinter/miler was sent out as a rabbit in the San Juan Capistrano for some other Ellsworth/Tenney horse (maybe Prove It?). Shoemaker aboard. He opened up 23 lengths on the field, and hung on to win by, IIRC, a nose or a short head. When they were presenting the trophy to Mrs. Ellsworth, she kept saying, “but he’s only supposed to go a mile!”[/QUOTE]
Display was a grand racehorse but a bad actor. He fought every starter he ever met, and stormed from racetrack to racetrack. He was DANGEROUS but a wonderful racer.
Even when retired at stud at the farm he was kept in chains and rugged enclosures. I have to find quotes about him from the era for you all…
Hallie
I was skimming through some of the posts, FB etc. I was feeling pretty indignant about Coburn being right. However, the very nature of the horse business is a gamblers dream. Breeder, rider, trainer, owner, so many variables to make an elite champion of any equestrian sport. It’s a gamblers dream. If you’re gonna play…
[QUOTE=haligator;7622646]
Display was a grand racehorse but a bad actor. He fought every starter he ever met, and stormed from racetrack to racetrack. He was DANGEROUS but a wonderful racer.
Even when retired at stud at the farm he was kept in chains and rugged enclosures. I have to find quotes about him from the era for you all…
Hallie[/QUOTE]
Hard Tack was also a bad actor - and another Man O’War son. I believe he had a fairly short career because he, too, was dangerous. I had a Hard Tack great-great grandson - but he was a racebred Appy. The strain was fairly attenuated/diluted by the time it got to my horse.
It’s nice to know there are some longer races yet, but I wonder about the entries - possibly older handicap geldings? You rarely see a TC-type horse still running in longer races unless they are geldings.
[QUOTE=haligator;7621647]
Laurie is a long time trainer who understands the sport inside and out. She knows her stuff. You’d be surprised how many people on this board are trainers, owners, breeders, grooms, exercise riders, hotwalkers, track officials, TB photographers, etc. I’m an owner, breeder, former exercise rider and groom (and long ago a really bad QH jockey).
Hallie[/QUOTE]
Regardless of racing experience; her comment was very rude.
As mentioned, I am not a pro at all regarding racing and like to ask this “Forum” questions.
Not to read - "I will be glad when people who don’t know anything about racing go away until next May." Which was her quote.
So, I guess I won’t ask why Zenyatta or Cigar were never in the Derby.
Or a question about a bit. I believe C.C. had it on. A round metal bit, along with a normal “D”.
[QUOTE=Sparrowette;7621686]
Now that you’ve probably read some of the other posts, I’d like to add, that I think you owe laurierace an apology.
What I like about the CoTH boards here is that this is not an “I love my pretty horsie!” type of place. Most of the people I see here know their stuff, so generally, when answering a post where someone needs to know that my opinion may not be as good as someone else’s, I try to ID myself as a greenie. And I try to show respect to those whom I know are better informed than me.[/QUOTE]
Apology? I don’t think so. An opinion doesn’t have to be as good as someone else’s. That is why it is called an opinion. I stated my opinion and she made a very rude comment, along with several other posters.
Respect? It goes both ways.
I wonder how many of the folks who express a desire for those who know less about racing to go away are people who, the other 364 days of the year, complain about the failing fortunes of the race industry…
If racing were to become more popular, there is not going to be a training class and entrance exam at the track gates for new fans. The correct answer, for those of you who make any part of your livelihood through thoroughbred racing, is to graciously disagree with foolish and/or inflammatory statements by newbies and keep smiling. Unless you want them to just go away so you can continue to preside over your dwindling club of cognoscenti.
I think the idea of formally linking together the races in any kind of set is dumb, restrictive, and ultimately a non-starter because the racing organizations who put on each race would never agree to it, wisely. However, I think that adjusting the scheduling of the races to 1 month apart would reduce any rest advantage accruing to horses who race in any fewer than all three without diluting the value of achieving a sweep.
See how you can say that without telling people they are stoopit?
[QUOTE=Lori B;7623113]
I think the idea of formally linking together the races in any kind of set is dumb, restrictive, and ultimately a non-starter because the racing organizations who put on each race would never agree to it, wisely. However, I think that adjusting the scheduling of the races to 1 month apart would reduce any rest advantage accruing to horses who race in any fewer than all three without diluting the value of achieving a sweep.
See how you can say that without telling people they are stoopit?[/QUOTE]
But isn’t that kind of what you just did when you said that the idea of linking all three races together (which is essentially the idea that HalterAlter and sporthorsefilly supported) was “dumb”? So didn’t you sort of just do the thing that you’re critical of others for doing? (I realize that you didn’t say that the supporters of that idea are “dumb,” but I don’t believe anyone else here said that either, unless I missed it. Ignorant, yes, but not dumb.)
Also, while I still dislike the idea of changing the spacing between the three races, that is a FAR more reasonable and “doable” proposal than restricting the Belmont Stakes to Derby and Preakness contenders.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
