87 replies to this topic

[DJ MC]

Well most of the time that interest is gone after the Preakness anyway. That can't be a good reason why you don't do it.

And if a horse wins the first two, the interest will still be there for the Belmont. The race where people could forget or lose some interest would be the Preakness.

 

You can run press over a three-week break. But you can't really do that for a single event over three months.

 

People complain all the time about the NFL offseason coverage, or ad nauseum discussion of particular athletes, and those are subjects they care about. Three months of a sport that so few people find regularly interesting nowadays, and people will go away.

 

Plus, even if there isn't a Triple-Crown attempt, the Preakness still goes almost right into the Belmont, allowing it to remain in the public consciousness. If you have a three-month break, only the 587 people who care about horse racing will come back.

[bnickle]

I disagree. The interest will be there at the Belmont if a horse is going for the TC. Sure, the interest will wane in between the races. But it does now too. Things started really kicking back up maybe Tues or Wed of this past week. A lot of crickets the last two weeks. As far as mainstream media is concerned.



Anyway, even if you are right. It's not enough anymore for the added interest. If running the races over the course of 5 or 6 months makes the playing field even and better yet stops all the drugging up and mistreatment of the horses you do it.

[DJ MC]

I disagree. The interest will be there at the Belmont if a horse is going for the TC. Sure, the interest will wane in between the races. But it does now too. Things started really kicking back up maybe Tues or Wed of this past week. A lot of crickets the last two weeks. As far as mainstream media is concerned.

 

Still though, that's after a 2 1/2 week break. Three months is much, much different in terms of the general public.

 

Anyway, even if you are right. It's not enough anymore for the added interest. If running the races over the course of 5 or 6 months makes the playing field even and better yet stops all the drugging up and mistreatment of the horses you do it.

 

This is a great point. I don't know if it would stop all of that, or even slow it down, but if it would that is the only reason you need to do it.

[Oriole85]

I think the every 2 months is a terrible idea, it's not intended to be an easy feat, quite the contrary.

 

In terms of actual interest, I think for most it's about the actual ~2 minutes it takes for these things, works pretty good for our short attention spans. Most don't care about the pre-race stuff other than filler.

[SBTarheel]

They're not changing the Triple Crown, this has been discussed for years, and will never happen.

 

it's not supposed to be easy.

 

I've been a Horse racing fan my whole life, I follow it very closely, and hope to see a Triple Crown winner one day.

 

Chrome got tired, he clearly didn't have enough down the stretch, and the fresher horses did.

[Oriole85]

They're not changing the Triple Crown, this has been discussed for years, and will never happen.

 

it's not supposed to be easy.

 

I've been a Horse racing fan my whole life, I follow it very closely, and hope to see a Triple Crown winner one day.

 

Chrome got tired, he clearly didn't have enough down the stretch, and the fresher horses did.

Rule #1 never say never. I do think changing the format is a bad idea though. Totally agree with your point about it isn't supposed to be easy. You've seen a TC winner... it will happen again!

[You Play to Win the Game]

When Secretariat and Affirmed won, did they have to fend off fresh horses in the Belmont too? If they did, then I don't want to hear it. The gripe is logical though.

[bnickle]

I don't know how fresh the other horses were. I know the field was smaller.

[SBTarheel]

Alydar ran second to Affirmed in all three races..

 

Again, it's supposed to be hard. Coburn wouldn't have said anything if CC had won. It was an emotional response, I get it, but that's part of the game. Tonalist ran in the Peter Pan Stakes, which was just one week before the Preakness. It's not like he was unraced in 2014 before today..

 

And Coburn can rest easy knowing that in a month, a year, 10 years...etc, people will remember California Chrome, but they won't remember Tonalist.

[SBTarheel]

I don't know how fresh the other horses were. I know the field was smaller.

Three horses ran in all three: Chrome, General A Rod, and Ride on Curlin.

 

Tonalist and Commissioner last ran on May 10, and Medal Count last ran in the Derby, May 3, as did Wicked Strong.

[Oriole85]

When Secretariat and Affirmed won, did they have to fend off fresh horses in the Belmont too? If they did, then I don't want to hear it. The gripe is logical though.

I'm not sure, I'm guessing the answer is no however. I would think the strategy of holding horses out is rather recent. Still you have to beat them as long as the rules are what they are.

 

As BofB noted there were three TCs in the 70s and there haven't been any in over 35 years now. In some ways, I think this is good, when a TC does happen, the novelty won't be there for a while.

 

And the pre-race talk about this horse being "closer" to the TC than other horses who won the previous two is revisionist history. I didn't like the lack of objectivity/picking from the heart from the NBC analysts -- "I'm going to pick Chrome because I want to see a TC winner"... hire me, I could've said that.

[bnickle]

I was responding to the post above about Secratariet and Affirmed. I don't know how fresh the competition was but I know the field was smaller. It was something like 4 horses in the Belmont the year Secratariat won the Belmont. Maybe it was six. I know it was small. Not that it would have mattered.

[bnickle]

Smarty Jones was legit. Probably the best of the horses who won the first two since '78.

Barbaro who knows. Really good horse, undefeated, but broke down too soon to say too much about him. The most impressive Derby I've ever seen though. Ran away from the other horses without the jockey going to the whip. That was insane.

The other really good horse was Afleet Alex. Raced in all three. Won the Preakness and Belmont. Had a bad run in the Derby.


That's actually pretty impressive. Especially, this day and age. He ran all three and won the last two, not the first two. When was the last time a horse won the last two but not the Derby??

[SBTarheel]

Smarty Jones was legit. Probably the best of the horses who won the first two since '78.

Barbaro who knows. Really good horse, undefeated, but broke down too soon to say too much about him. The most impressive Derby I've ever seen though. Ran away from the other horses without the jockey going to the whip. That was insane.

The other really good horse was Afleet Alex. Raced in all three. Won the Preakness and Belmont. Had a bad run in the Derby.


That's actually pretty impressive. Especially, this day and age. He ran all three and won the last two, not the first two. When was the last time a horse won the last two but not the Derby??

GREAT call on Afleet Alex, he moved a tad too soon in the Derby, but was the best horse in that field by a mile..I don't think there's been one of those since 2005.

 

In 2001, Point Given ran a bad derby (the only poor race of his career), and destroyed the field in Baltimore and Belmont, he was the best three year old I've seen in my years as a fan.

 

Smarty Jones was somewhat ganged up on in 2004 in the Belmont by Jerry Bailey on Eddington, and Gary Stevens on Rock Hard Ten. Supposedly, there was no way they were going to allow a journeyman jockey like Stewart Elliott win the Triple Crown...

[DJ MC]

In 1977, two horses ran all three legs along with Seattle Slew: Run Dusty Run and Sir Sir Sir. Sanhedrin ran the Derby and Preakness, and Iron Constitution ran the Preakness and Belmont.

 

In 1978, only Affirmed and Alydar ran all three. Believe It ran the first two, Noon Time Spender ran the latter two, and Darby Creek Road ran the Derby and Belmont. Of course, only five horses ran in the Belmont that year, period.

[SBTarheel]

This was the worst beat ever for a Triple Crown...1998, Real Quiet about a nostril from winning it.

 

[DJ MC]

This was the worst beat ever for a Triple Crown...1998, Real Quiet about a nostril from winning it.

 

 

"History in the waiting..." That's good stuff.

[SBTarheel]

"History in the waiting..." That's good stuff.

Yea, Tom Durkin is the best race caller there is. Real Quiet wasn't the best Horse, but that was by far, the worst Triple Crown beat ever.

 

And yes, Victory Gallop had finished second to him in the Derby and Preakness.

[Mike in STL]

"History in the waiting..." That's good stuff.

Yea, Tom Durkin is the best race caller there is. Real Quiet wasn't the best Horse, but that was by far, the worst Triple Crown beat ever.
 
And yes, Victory Gallop had finished second to him in the Derby and Preakness.

False. Jim McKay was the best in the biz. "And down the stretch they come!" Nothing beats McKay.

[Oriole85]

False. Jim McKay was the best in the biz. "And down the stretch they come!" Nothing beats McKay.

That was Dave Johnson (not the former O's pitcher), but yes, that's one of the better sounds in sports.