Secretariat

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

Do you feel the same about a grand slam in tennis or golf?

 

It's a series of individual events, not a chain.

 

The way those systems are set up, the goal is very much attainable. Now, The Belmont with two fresh track ringers (Tonalist & Comissioner) in the contest it is different. I admit, I was caught up in it, but after witnessing yesterday I never will be again... The Triple Crown in this day and age is simply not attainable.

 

I do hope I am wrong and we see that very special horse beat all odds that will surely be stacked against them. I am not holding my breath though.

[tomato can]

The way those systems are set up, the goal is very much attainable. Now, The Belmont with two fresh track ringers (Tonalist & Comissioner) in the contest it is different. I admit, I was caught up in it, but after witnessing yesterday I never will be again... The Triple Crown in this day and age is simply not attainable.

 

I do hope I am wrong and we see that very special horse beat all odds that will surely be stacked against them. I am not holding my breath though.

 

 

Examining the top 2 finishers. It appears the original goal for Commissioner was to get into the Kentucky Derby, Back in April Commissioner was well beaten in the Arkansas Derby and it appears he did not qualify to make it into the Kentucky Derby. His blood lines suggest that he would handle the distance well. In early May he finsihed a very good second in the Peter Pan Stake at Belmont and appeared to like the track. I am guessing they decided to skip the Preakness and have him fine tuned and ready for the Belmont. He ran a very good race.

 

Tonalists did not race in any of the derby prep races so he definitely did not qualify to get it. He has been very lightly raced. Winning 2 of 3 starts this year. His last win was in the Peter Pan Stake right here at Belmont back in early May. He also appeared to take to the track very well. My guess again was they skipped the Preakness so their horse would also be fine tuned and ready for the Belmont. He won the race.

 

With the triple crown being such an a difficult feat to accomplish the odds suggested Chrome would lose. I guess a good handicapper that did not get caught up in the hype of a triple crown winner could have cashed in on this race.

 

This however is the process enroute to a triple crown. You have to take on all comers regardless. You are right in saying do not hold your breath, the odds are very slim we will see this happen.

Edited June 10, 2014 by tomato can

[Dr. Fong]

I'm no veterinarian, but how do you nearly have internal bleeding. Seems like something you either have or you don't.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Here's an interesting idea... It probably may have been studied or the info has to be somewhere. To tie the discussion back to the OP thread title, I wonder how many "track ringers" (ie: Tonalist/Comissioner types) Secretariat had to go up against when he ran the Belmont? In other words, how many fresh horses did Secretariat run against? Was it Secretariat or the horses? Not taking anything away from Secretariat, it was obviously him for the most part, but how many fresh horses were in that race? Obviously, Sham ran all three. It seems Cali Chrome fell right back to where Sham (great race horse in his own right) did... Chrome was dead heat @ 4th. Sham, 2nd @ the 1973 Derby & Preakness, was 5th @ the 1973 Belmont. We also saw what a normal three a month ride did too... Ride on Curlin was dead last in this past Sunday's running of The Belmont. Medal count who ran 2/3 was right in there @ show.

 

 

 

[bbb]

I was wondering how many of the horses in the 70s were saved up for the Belmont, too. At least by skipping the Preakness.

[BuffaloBillsForever]

I was wondering how many of the horses in the 70s were saved up for the Belmont, too. At least by skipping the Preakness.

 

This is nothing new. The last horse that won the triple crown had two horses that sat out the Preakness. The previous winner of the crown had 3 horses in the field that ran all 3 legs out of the total field of 8. They finished 1st and 3rd.

 

Look at the other triple crown, the one in baseball. There was a span from 1967-2012 where it was not accomplished.

[OGTEleven]

I don't want to come off as a know it all, but I will re-state that all of these arguments are ridiculous. It is not even something I consider an opinion. It is simply a fact. These are three distinct races. Calling them the Triple Crown is very cool. It will be great to see the next winner and there absolutely will be one. If they implement the rules suddenly advocated by this owner, we will see Triple Crown winners very frequently and it will become meaningless. We will also see many more injured horses than we already do as horses scramble to make it to the Derby when they should really wait.

 

Between 1948 and 1973 a lot of people thought we had seen the last Triple Crown winner. And look what happened at the end of this wait. And to say Secretariat would have been in danger if fresh horses were being run is ludicrous beyond compare. His Belmont beat the second best mile and a half race ever run before by 20+ lengths. Not the second best Belmont, not the second best mile and a half race that year, but the second best mile and a half race ever run anywhere in the world ever in hundreds of years of racing. The video at the beginning of this thread says it all.

 

I don't really care to go back and document how many Preaknesses and Belmonts had new shooter entries. This is because it is nothing new and has been happening forever. There has never been and should never be a prerequisite for entering the Preakness and Belmont of having run in the Derby. I am not aware of any thoroughbred race that has another race as a prerequisite. There is some of this in harness racing with qualifiers and such. We do enough to satisfy the instant gratification crowd already. Do we really need to make up new rules for horse racing too? With these rules, the 2014 Belmont would have contained CC, Ride on Curlin and General A Rod. And the Preakness would have been the same three horses. What an achievement that would have been.

 

The biggest change over the last 30 years or so is really Derby fever. Owners and trainers are doing everything they can to win the Derby. Or maybe just make it to the Derby. This results in some very good horses being injured on the way to Louisville, and many horses being spent after Louisville and before Baltimore. Coburn's solution is to either have these horses stressed even more at an early stage of their 3 year old season or to be ineligible for two important races. And that is because he felt entitled to owning a TC winner. The whole rant is a joke.

 

I could probably list 100 other reasons (how about the fact that there is no singular body governing racing like the MLB or the NFL) why this won't and shouldn't happen.

 

Billy Turner, the trainer of Seattle Slew (1977) was quoted as saying that there is not really any way to train for the TC as a whole. He said he knew Slew could win the Derby and Preakness but had no idea about the Belmont. CC is no Seattle Slew and should not be made to look like one by lessening of the of the obstacles to a Triple Crown.

Edited June 9, 2014 by OGTEleven

[BuffaloBillsForever]

I don't want to come off as a know it all, but I will re-state that all of these arguments are ridiculous. It is not even something I consider an opinion. It is simply a fact. These are three distinct races. Calling them the Triple Crown is very cool. It will be great to see the next winner and there absolutely will be one. If they implement the rules suddenly advocated by this owner, we will see Triple Crown winners very frequently and it will become meaningless. We will also see many more injured horses than we already do as horses scramble to make it to the Derby when they should really wait.

 

Between 1948 and 1973 a lot of people thought we had seen the last Triple Crown winner. And look what happened at the end of this wait. And to say Secretariat would have been in danger if fresh horses were being run is ludicrous beyond compare. His Belmont beat the second best mile and a half race ever run before by 20+ lengths. Not the second best Belmont, not the second best mile and a half race that year, but the second best mile and a half race ever run anywhere in the world ever in hundreds of years of racing. The video at the beginning of this thread says it all.

 

I don't really care to go back and document how many Preaknesses and Belmonts had new shooter entries. This is because it is nothing new and has been happening forever. There has never been and should never be a prerequisite for entering the Preakness and Belmont of having run in the Derby. I am not aware of any thoroughbred race that has another race as a prerequisite. There is some of this in harness racing with qualifiers and such. We do enough to satisfy the instant gratification crowd already. Do we really need to make up new rules for horse racing too? With these rules, the 2014 Belmont would have contained CC, Ride on Curlin and General A Rod. And the Preakness would have been the same three horses. What an achievement that would have been.

 

The biggest change over the last 30 years or so is really Derby fever. Owners and trainers are doing everything they can to win the Derby. Or maybe just make it to the Derby. This results in some very good horses being injured on the way to Louisville, and many horses being spent after Louisville and before Baltimore. Coburn's solution is to either have these horses stressed even more at an early stage of their 3 year old season. And that is because he felt entitled to owning a TC winner. The whole rant is a joke.

 

I could probably list 100 other reasons (how about the fact that there is no singular body governing racing like the MLB or the NFL) why this won't and shouldn't happen.

 

Billy Turner, the trainer of Seattle Slew (1977) was quoted as saying that there is not really any way to train for the TC as a whole. He said he knew Slew could win the Derby and Preakness but had no idea about the Belmont. CC is no Seattle Slew and should not be made to look like one by lessening of the of the obstacles to a Triple Crown.

 

Bravo, Bravo! You are not a know-it-all. You just know your stuff.

 

I also thought coburns comments came across as a sense of entitlement as well. Just because the Triple Crown hasn't been achieved in a while doesn't mean we are entitled to one.

[bbb]

I don't think most people would want Coburn's solution, but just a spreading out of the dates.

[OGTEleven]

I don't think most people would want Coburn's solution, but just a spreading out of the dates.

 

Although I understand this, I still disagree with it. Part of my disagreement is based on tradition and keeping that tradition fully intact. The other part goes to the fact that there is no practical way of even getting it done. The three race are governed by three different entities. If Kentucky wanted to move the Derby to the first Saturday in April, they could. Same goes for Pimlico and NYRA (Belmont). All of this would impact the prep seasons at Gulfstream, Aqueduct, Santa Anita, Keeneland, Lousiana, Arkansas and other places. It is very impractical. I suspect that the biggest change of all would be the gradual disintegration of the TC. There would be competitors to the races popping up if the races spread out. A big purse at a race in California may lure horses away because the timing was better for the money available. That in itself would be ok; it has happened before (see Spend a Buck) but the frequency would increase. Racing in general has seen some tough times for a while now. New York and Kentucky are doing ok but I think spreading these race out might just be the nail in Pimlico's coffin.

 

I remember in the 80s D. Wayne Lukas (who has improved with age, but was a real self centered guy back then) suggested changing the distances to a 1 1/8 Derby, maintaining the 1 3/16 Preakness and 1 1/4 Belmont. This was dumb. Only 10% as dumb as Coburn but still dumb. Lukas' horses had a general reputation of not being get a distance. His suggestion was also self serving.

 

The game is the game. It is tough. That is part of what makes it great and why true greatness can show itself in the Triple Crown.

[bbb]

Regarding tradition, I read that the current format started in 1969. Not sure what the timing was before that.

[NoSaint]

Between 1948 and 1973 a lot of people thought we had seen the last Triple Crown winner. And look what happened at the end of this wait. And to say Secretariat would have been in danger if fresh horses were being run is ludicrous beyond compare. His Belmont beat the second best mile and a half race ever run before by 20+ lengths. Not the second best Belmont, not the second best mile and a half race that year, but the second best mile and a half race ever run anywhere in the world ever in hundreds of years of racing.

 

it really is AMAZING when put into perspective like that. the earlier references to having a 94 yard field goal or 700 foot home run, while slightly exaggerated are closer to truth than many of us can probably wrap our heads around.

[tomato can]

Here's an interesting idea... It probably may have been studied or the info has to be somewhere. To tie the discussion back to the OP thread title, I wonder how many "track ringers" (ie: Tonalist/Comissioner types) Secretariat had to go up against when he ran the Belmont? In other words, how many fresh horses did Secretariat run against? Was it Secretariat or the horses? Not taking anything away from Secretariat, it was obviously him for the most part, but how many fresh horses were in that race? Obviously, Sham ran all three. It seems Cali Chrome fell right back to where Sham (great race horse in his own right) did... Chrome was dead heat @ 4th. Sham, 2nd @ the 1973 Derby & Preakness, was 5th @ the 1973 Belmont. We also saw what a normal three a month ride did too... Ride on Curlin was dead last in this past Sunday's running of The Belmont. Medal count who ran 2/3 was right in there @ show.

 

 

Since Affirmed's triple crown win in 1978, 12 horses have entered the Belmont with a chance to win the Triple Crown. None of those 12 horses have won. The 12 horses that played spoiler and won the Belmont with the Triple Crown on the line 9 have either skipped the Kentucky Derby and Preakness or skipped one of the first two races. The last six Triple Crown attempts the horses that won the Belmont did not run in the Preakness, the race that precedes the Belmont. When Spectacular Bid lost his Triple Crown attempt in 1979 he was beaten by Coastal at the Belmont. Coastal didn't run in the Kentucky Derby or Preakness,that was 35 years ago. Fast forward to today and Tonalist pulled off the same feat.

[tomato can]

I don't want to come off as a know it all, but I will re-state that all of these arguments are ridiculous. It is not even something I consider an opinion. It is simply a fact. These are three distinct races. Calling them the Triple Crown is very cool. It will be great to see the next winner and there absolutely will be one. If they implement the rules suddenly advocated by this owner, we will see Triple Crown winners very frequently and it will become meaningless. We will also see many more injured horses than we already do as horses scramble to make it to the Derby when they should really wait.

 

Between 1948 and 1973 a lot of people thought we had seen the last Triple Crown winner. And look what happened at the end of this wait. And to say Secretariat would have been in danger if fresh horses were being run is ludicrous beyond compare. His Belmont beat the second best mile and a half race ever run before by 20+ lengths. Not the second best Belmont, not the second best mile and a half race that year, but the second best mile and a half race ever run anywhere in the world ever in hundreds of years of racing. The video at the beginning of this thread says it all.

 

I don't really care to go back and document how many Preaknesses and Belmonts had new shooter entries. This is because it is nothing new and has been happening forever. There has never been and should never be a prerequisite for entering the Preakness and Belmont of having run in the Derby. I am not aware of any thoroughbred race that has another race as a prerequisite. There is some of this in harness racing with qualifiers and such. We do enough to satisfy the instant gratification crowd already. Do we really need to make up new rules for horse racing too? With these rules, the 2014 Belmont would have contained CC, Ride on Curlin and General A Rod. And the Preakness would have been the same three horses. What an achievement that would have been.

 

The biggest change over the last 30 years or so is really Derby fever. Owners and trainers are doing everything they can to win the Derby. Or maybe just make it to the Derby. This results in some very good horses being injured on the way to Louisville, and many horses being spent after Louisville and before Baltimore. Coburn's solution is to either have these horses stressed even more at an early stage of their 3 year old season or to be ineligible for two important races. And that is because he felt entitled to owning a TC winner. The whole rant is a joke.

 

I could probably list 100 other reasons (how about the fact that there is no singular body governing racing like the MLB or the NFL) why this won't and shouldn't happen.

 

Billy Turner, the trainer of Seattle Slew (1977) was quoted as saying that there is not really any way to train for the TC as a whole. He said he knew Slew could win the Derby and Preakness but had no idea about the Belmont. CC is no Seattle Slew and should not be made to look like one by lessening of the of the obstacles to a Triple Crown.

 

Remember Secretariat's Belmont win was a 5 horse field because it wasn't like it is today, trainers/owners looking for 1 win instead of 3, so they can sell rights to their horse as a triple crown race winner. Some want change because they feel greed is hurting horse racing. Racing in general has seen some tough times, with that being said if the Triple Crown is regularly spoiled by a horse that doesn't run in the previous race or in any of the previous legs of the Triple Crown its going to continue to see tough times. Running for the Triple Crown shouldn't be easy which explains the current format of these 3 races in a span of 5 weeks but a rested nobody can beat the tired somebodys. Look at the finish and you can see the horses ahead of California Chrome were ahead by about what you'd expect a rested horse vs a tired horse to be. There's something to be said about one horse being asked to race three huge races in just over a month and other horses are resting and then enter the next race as a challenger.

Edited June 10, 2014 by tomato can

[tomato can]

Although I understand this, I still disagree with it. Part of my disagreement is based on tradition and keeping that tradition fully intact. The other part goes to the fact that there is no practical way of even getting it done. The three race are governed by three different entities. If Kentucky wanted to move the Derby to the first Saturday in April, they could. Same goes for Pimlico and NYRA (Belmont). All of this would impact the prep seasons at Gulfstream, Aqueduct, Santa Anita, Keeneland, Lousiana, Arkansas and other places. It is very impractical. I suspect that the biggest change of all would be the gradual disintegration of the TC. There would be competitors to the races popping up if the races spread out. A big purse at a race in California may lure horses away because the timing was better for the money available. That in itself would be ok; it has happened before (see Spend a Buck) but the frequency would increase. Racing in general has seen some tough times for a while now. New York and Kentucky are doing ok but I think spreading these race out might just be the nail in Pimlico's coffin.

 

I remember in the 80s D. Wayne Lukas (who has improved with age, but was a real self centered guy back then) suggested changing the distances to a 1 1/8 Derby, maintaining the 1 3/16 Preakness and 1 1/4 Belmont. This was dumb. Only 10% as dumb as Coburn but still dumb. Lukas' horses had a general reputation of not being get a distance. His suggestion was also self serving.

 

The game is the game. It is tough. That is part of what makes it great and why true greatness can show itself in the Triple Crown.

 

Speaking of tradition,in the old days the same horses ran and the fields got smaller. In the Kentucky Derby they would run like 12 horses. In the Preakness about 7, in the Belmont about 5 or 6 horses. All of them the same horses. Now every single race there are fresh horses. In Secretariat's Triple Crown run he had to beat just 5 horses in the Preakness and 4 at Belmont. The last Triple Crown winner Affirmed in 1978 had to beat 6 horses at the Preakness and only 4 at the Belmont. California Chrome who beat more challengers in the Kentucky Derby (18) than Citation faced in his entire Triple Crown campaign (15) back in 1948. California Chrome faced 10 in Saturday's Belmont. Of the 11 horses who have won the Triple Crown none ran against more than seven horses at the Belmont.

Edited June 10, 2014 by tomato can

[tomato can]

One last point, horses simply aren’t asked to run 1 1/2 miles anymore,except at the Belmont. It is the only Grade 1 stakes race in America which goes that long.There would be no way that these three long races would get crammed into a five-week period if the Triple Crown were being created today. Today’s horses almost always get four weeks of rest between races, and most races are a mile with a few here and there that go 1 1/8 miles. In the Triple Crown series, the distances are 1 1/4 miles at the Derby, 1 3/16 miles at the Preakness and 1 1/2 miles at the Belmont. Coburn's correct is saying there is room for improvement in the rules for qualification but the format of these 3 races in a span of 5 weeks should remain the same in my humble opinion.

[bbb]

What is the reason that the Triple Crown in only for 3 year olds?

[thebandit27]

Remember Secretariat's Belmont win was a 5 horse field because it wasn't like it is today, trainers/owners looking for 1 win instead of 3, so they can sell rights to their horse as a triple crown race winner. Some want change because they feel greed is hurting horse racing. Racing in general has seen some tough times, with that being said if the Triple Crown is regularly spoiled by a horse that doesn't run in the previous race or in any of the previous legs of the Triple Crown its going to continue to see tough times. Running for the Triple Crown shouldn't be easy which explains the current format of these 3 races in a span of 5 weeks but a rested nobody can beat the tired somebodys. Look at the finish and you can see the horses ahead of California Chrome were ahead by about what you'd expect a rested horse vs a tired horse to be. There's something to be said about one horse being asked to race three huge races in just over a month and other horses are resting and then enter the next race as a challenger.

 

I know this is nitpicky, but it's actually 6 weeks

 

Week 1 Derby

Week 2 rest

Week 3 Preakness

Week 4 rest

Week 5 rest

Week 6 Belmont

[OGTEleven]

Speaking of tradition,in the old days the same horses ran and the fields got smaller. In the Kentucky Derby they would run like 12 horses. In the Preakness about 7, in the Belmont about 5 or 6 horses. All of them the same horses. Now every single race there are fresh horses. In Secretariat's Triple Crown run he had to beat just 5 horses in the Preakness and 4 at Belmont. The last Triple Crown winner Affirmed in 1978 had to beat 6 horses at the Preakness and only 4 at the Belmont. California Chrome who beat more challengers in the Kentucky Derby (18) than Citation faced in his entire Triple Crown campaign (15) back in 1948. California Chrome faced 10 in Saturday's Belmont. Of the 11 horses who have won the Triple Crown none ran against more than seven horses at the Belmont.

 

I have no desire to go back through 40 years of fields with 3 races each year and build some kind of chart for 120 races including new shooters and horses who ran all 3. I've watched these races for over thirty years and I know how things have gone. Secretariat had to beat fewer horses because he scared off the rest. His Belmont validated that fear. It was 20 lengths bettter than any race ever run at a mile and a half in history. It would not have mattered if there were nine fresh horses in that race that day. If anyone can't see that I don't know what more to say.

 

There is no graded stakes of any sort which requires a horse had run in a prescribed previous race. The grading process looks at race history to determine its 1, 2, 3 or ungraded status. These grades are changed on a regular basis. With fields of 6 in the Preakness and 3 in the Belmont there would be no justification for these races remaining Grade 1 for long. The entire aura of the TC would disintegrate. I want to repeat that this is the stupidest idea I have ever heard. There are many, many reasons beyond the ones I have already mentioned.

 

I remember a horse that would be considered a fresh horse by the standards laid oout in this thread and by Coburn. I have linked the Youtube of his Belmont.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDuajNdfTek

 

He had not run in the Derby or the Preakness. So he was fresh, right? WRONG (that is a little throwback for some of the old timers). The Belmont was run on a Saturday. On Monday of that same week, Cielo had beaten older horses at one mile in the Grade 1 Met Mile. He was a 3 year old beating older horses and then running the Belmont 5 days later. This set up Conquistador Cielo as one of the most intriguing stallion prospects in history and paid the owner handsomely (FWIW he turned out to be just an above average sire). By Coburn's ridiculous new set of standards, he would have been inelgible for the Belmont because he would have been considered fresh and the owner would have forfeited his hadsome ROI.

 

That was actually a pretty interesting year. The Derby winner, Gato Del Sol sat out the Preakness because there was a heavy favorite by the name of Linkage. Linkage was defeated in the Preakness by a horse name Aloma's Ruler. Later in the year I attended the Travers which featured all 3 of the TC race winners. Guess who won? None of them. Races are individual and need to stay that way. The Triple Crown links these three races in an unoffical manner only. It comes off as one event due to the history and the hype. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it as much as the next guy, but officially making it one event would be a huge mistake.

Edited June 10, 2014 by OGTEleven

[Jauronimo]

I will say this agian. For anyone betting tomorrow, go to Sabre space Derby 2014 thread and look for Ghost of Dwight Drane breakdowns and betting strategies for the card tomorrow.

 

Man has a truly special talent for picking winners with a price on the turf.

The man is a modern day Nostradamus.

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/144429-the-dwight-drane-hot-sauce-prediction-board-from-2008/