California Chrome
Should the rules be changed to require horses to run in all three of the triple crown events?
He argues: " 'It says Triple Crown. You nominate your horse for the Triple Crown. That means three," said Coburn. "Even … the Triple Crown trophy has three points on it. … Those 20 horses that start in the Kentucky Derby should be the only 20 allowed to run in the Preakness and the Belmont for the Triple Crown.' "
Tonalist didn't even qualify to run in the Kentucky Derby! So he should not be able to run in the other legs because Churchill Downs says he can't? So fixing it would mean cooperation between all tracks, which would never happen. Also, the system isn't really broken.
What I think they should do is just add one more week between Derby and Preakness and another week between Preakness and Belmont. So it would be 3 weeks between Derby and Preakness and 4 weeks between Preakness and Belmont. Then, more horses would compete in more legs. Chrome didn't deserve to win the race, and the owner is just whining.
Have no idea what the solution is or if any changes are even needed. The change for the KD entry system was to get away from the perceived unfare system that was in place before the points were brought in. Under the earlier old boys club type of system an upstart horse with no breeding like CC might not have even been able to run in the Derby, particularly because he was from California.
Quote: kenarmanThere hasn't been a triple crown winner since the Kentucky Derby went to a point system for entry.
Didn't the 20-horse limit start in 1975? Or is the qualifying system different now than it was then?
Quote: onenickelmiracleThe triple crown is supposed to be a test of the best horse in three races.
No, it's not and it never was. The Triple Crown is the 3 biggest races for 3 year olds. Now, if you've got a horse that's able to win all three races against the best competition in all 3 races (fresh horses included), how big of a badaaasss is he? How about if he just beats the same crappy horses he beat the last 2 races? I think the Dumb Ass Partners were just living up to their name.
On a side note, I'm sure glad I put that show money on Medal Count, he saved my arse.
Quote: JyBrd0403No, it's not and it never was. The Triple Crown is the 3 biggest races for 3 year olds. Now, if you've got a horse that's able to win all three races against the best competition in all 3 races (fresh horses included), how big of a badaaasss is he? How about if he just beats the same crappy horses he beat the last 2 races? I think the Dumb Ass Partners were just living up to their name.
On a side note, I'm sure glad I put that show money on Medal Count, he saved my arse.
Agreed.
Think about the triple crown in baseball. Is it fair that a guy who doesn't try to hit homeruns and instead just gets a lot of infield singles can win the batting average leg of the triple crown?
So it's just statistics not having a winner in four decades or is it the system to blame? The strategy to make the most money seems to not even make an honest attempt to try and motivation is the problem. The triple crown needs financial motivation to be won with less emphasis no individual legs. Break purses in half and fatten the reward for triumph. Make the triple crown the advantage play.Quote: JyBrd0403No, it's not and it never was. The Triple Crown is the 3 biggest races for 3 year olds. Now, if you've got a horse that's able to win all three races against the best competition in all 3 races (fresh horses included), how big of a badaaasss is he? How about if he just beats the same crappy horses he beat the last 2 races? I think the Dumb Ass Partners were just living up to their name.
On a side note, I'm sure glad I put that show money on Medal Count, he saved my arse.
Watchu talkin' about Willis?Quote: HowManyIt's a shame that stupidity isn't painful.
I guess we will never know
Quote: onenickelmiracleSo it's just statistics not having a winner in four decades or is it the system to blame? The strategy to make the most money seems to not even make an honest attempt to try and motivation is the problem. The triple crown needs financial motivation to be won with less emphasis no individual legs. Break purses in half and fatten the reward for triumph. Make the triple crown the advantage play.
Your missing the point, the Triple Crown isn't a 3 race competition, it's an acknowledgement of a great accomplishment.
Like Finsrule pointed out, it's comparible to the triple crown in baseball. Winning the batting average title, is an impressive stand alone title, just like winning the home run and RBI titles. But, to win all 3 is an unbelievable accomplishment, it's the Triple Crown.
Same for the Triple Crown in horse racing. It's not a 3 race competition, it's an acknowledgement of the 3 biggest races in horse racing, that's it.
None of the three really needs the triple crown to happen to be more profitable. The Preakness is the only one that sort of gets screwed, because horses generally skip that leg because it's just two weeks after.
That's why I could see them moving the Preakness to three or four weeks after the Derby. Then NYRA would have to move the Belmont, because they aren't going to run the Belmont the week after the Preakness. That's the most likely scenario.
Limiting the Preakness and Belmont to the horses that ran in the Derby won't happen, and it's not even an idea I like.
Quote: onenickelmiracleNo I suppose I don't understand it all but I understand winning the triple crown isn't worth trying to win.
Winning the triple crown is worth it for the horses stud value. This is why fillies and geldings don't compete as often.
Quote: MrVSo, the owner of California Chrome: is he just whining, or has he a valid point?
Should the rules be changed to require horses to run in all three of the triple crown events?
He argues: " 'It says Triple Crown. You nominate your horse for the Triple Crown. That means three," said Coburn. "Even … the Triple Crown trophy has three points on it. … Those 20 horses that start in the Kentucky Derby should be the only 20 allowed to run in the Preakness and the Belmont for the Triple Crown.' "
Sure, let's also change the races so there is a month in between each and shorten the Belmont to 1 1/8th
Ridiculous - it is so rarely attained because it is so difficult - to change it will tarnish any subsequent winner.
Nobody cares about your political views. Please keep it intelligent and on topic.Quote: HowManyPerhaps Obama can just pick a horse and award that horse the Triple Crown. Hell, we don't even need to run any races. Then we can have a Triple Crown winner every year!
Quote: JyBrd0403Your missing the point, the Triple Crown isn't a 3 race competition, it's an acknowledgement of a great accomplishment.
Who else remembers the Triple Crown Challenge, which was inspired by Spend A Buck winning the Derby and then passing on the Preakness and Belmont to try for (and win) something like a million dollar bonus by winning the Jersey Derby instead? It managed to shoot itself in the foot in its first year when Alysheba lost despite finishing first, first, fourth (Bet Twice finished second, second, first, and in its early days, the point system was 5-3-1-0), and then pretty much shot itself in the chest when Prairie Bayou ended up with the most points but lost on a technicality - presumably to prevent a horse from starting a race just to be eligible for the bonus and then pulling up, the rules required that a horse had to start and finish all three races, and he broke down (which led to him being put down) during the Belmont, so he didn't finish the race?
Quote: onenickelmiracleNobody cares about your political views. Please keep it intelligent and on topic.
Dude- if you want to keep it intelligent, perhaps you should delete everything you posted on this subject.
you're invaluableQuote: HowManyDude- if you want to keep it intelligent, perhaps you should delete everything you posted on this subject.
