- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Horse Racing Triple Crown Question/Assumption
Posted on 5/6/13 at 2:18 pm
Posted on 5/6/13 at 2:18 pm
I have a question/assumption for the horse racing guys/girls on the board. It seems as though the triple crown has become significantly harder to achieve due to the Derby winner being the only horse that runs all 3. It's almost like the Derby winner against a new field for legs 2 and 3. Has this historically always been the case or was it mostly the same field for all 3?
3
Posted on 5/6/13 at 2:18 pm to Tiger31
For this year, I know a lot of the same derby horses will be running the Preakness.
Posted on 5/6/13 at 2:31 pm to Tiger31
I don't think there is much of a motivation, besides the Derby winner, to race all three races. Especially when there is only a 2 week break to the Preakness, and 3 weeks then to the Belmont.
And I think to qualify for the other two races isn't as strict as the Derby.
And I think to qualify for the other two races isn't as strict as the Derby.
Posted on 5/6/13 at 2:34 pm to Tiger31
Horse Racing used to be about the purse..and collecting the dough from the races.
In the Triple Crown, you'd often see the same field because the money was in winning.
Now the money is in breeding and you only need the one big win...with the Kentucky Derby being the big payday...so everyone enters that today...which is why you have 20 horse stampedes these days.
And then the rest their horses for fear of injury...skip Preakness and then maybe run the Belmont depending on the horse.
Most don't want to run the Belmont unless circumstances is favorable for their horse because of the distance.
Horses are just more fragile now...and no one wants to ruin their horse for breeding purposes if it has a few wins.
Secratariat ran against only 5 other horses in the Belmont (I think) and Sham was the runner-up...and the same in the Kentucky and Preakness.
In the Triple Crown, you'd often see the same field because the money was in winning.
Now the money is in breeding and you only need the one big win...with the Kentucky Derby being the big payday...so everyone enters that today...which is why you have 20 horse stampedes these days.
And then the rest their horses for fear of injury...skip Preakness and then maybe run the Belmont depending on the horse.
Most don't want to run the Belmont unless circumstances is favorable for their horse because of the distance.
Horses are just more fragile now...and no one wants to ruin their horse for breeding purposes if it has a few wins.
Secratariat ran against only 5 other horses in the Belmont (I think) and Sham was the runner-up...and the same in the Kentucky and Preakness.
Posted on 5/6/13 at 2:51 pm to Zamoro10
It depends on the year honestly, two years ago Mucho Macho Man ran in all three races...and didn't race again until that November because of the toll it took.
1988, Risen Star/Winning Colors/Forty Niner had a good rilvary going in all three races, although I think Forty Niner skipped the Belmont after that ridiculous ride in the Preakness.
Curlin ran in all three races in 2007 despite coming in third in the Derby, as did Point Given in 2001.
Some notable opposites of that...In 2009 Mine that Bird had to face Rachel Alexandra in the Preakness, who'd skipped the Derby in favor of the Oaks.
Rock Hard Ten couldn't get into the Derby in 2004, Smarty Jones had to face him in the Preakness and Belmont.
But honestly, I think it 1) depends on how good the winner of the Derby was. You'll see bigger fields in the Preakness if nobody is really scared of the winner.
The year Barbaro won the Derby, he faced 8 other horses in the Preakness. Mine That Bird and Giacomo faced full fields.
I think you definitely don't see the same fields as much these days, due partly to what Zamaro said...you just need that one big win for a breeding payoff. But, say, Orb having to face a fresh horse like Departing, who skipped the Derby...that's definitely not something new.
1988, Risen Star/Winning Colors/Forty Niner had a good rilvary going in all three races, although I think Forty Niner skipped the Belmont after that ridiculous ride in the Preakness.
Curlin ran in all three races in 2007 despite coming in third in the Derby, as did Point Given in 2001.
Some notable opposites of that...In 2009 Mine that Bird had to face Rachel Alexandra in the Preakness, who'd skipped the Derby in favor of the Oaks.
Rock Hard Ten couldn't get into the Derby in 2004, Smarty Jones had to face him in the Preakness and Belmont.
But honestly, I think it 1) depends on how good the winner of the Derby was. You'll see bigger fields in the Preakness if nobody is really scared of the winner.
The year Barbaro won the Derby, he faced 8 other horses in the Preakness. Mine That Bird and Giacomo faced full fields.
I think you definitely don't see the same fields as much these days, due partly to what Zamaro said...you just need that one big win for a breeding payoff. But, say, Orb having to face a fresh horse like Departing, who skipped the Derby...that's definitely not something new.
Posted on 5/6/13 at 3:20 pm to BayouKat
Thanks for the answers. It was just an interesting thing I thought I noticed but I'n not an expert by any means.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News