California Chrome triple crown?

[Manwiththeplan]

What does, "It's not fair to these horses" even mean? Yea, horses have feelings, but does the horse know what a triple crown is?

 

[DFWJC]

Legit point regarding owners holding their horses out for the Belmont.
But a truly great horse would have stomped the field this year anyway.
Secretariat won the Belmont by 31 links?

 

[Rogah]

Legit point regarding owners holding their horses out for the Belmont.
But a truly great horse would have stomped the field this year anyway.
Secretariat won the Belmont by 31 links?

When you bring up Secretariat, you are literally bringing up the greatest horse of all time. So yes, if you grab the greatest horse of all time and bring him to the present day, you might maybe have a Triple Crown winner.

Also, I checked the 1973 Belmont Stakes and once again, it was a situation where the only fully-rested horse was ranked 3.73..... drastically unlike the present day.

 

[Risen Star]

Excuse me, but my statement is absolutely, 100% factually correct. Here are the runners of the 1978 Belmont Stakes:

Affirmed - 9.31 Rating - Triple Crown Winner
Alydar - 8.90 Rating - Ran KY Derby and Preakness
Darby Creek Road - 6.24 Rating - Ran KY Derby
Judge Advocate - 3.39 Rating - 100% Rested
Noon Time Spender - 3.39 Rating - Ran Preakness

So like I said, the single "well rested" horse was nothing more than an also-ran with a 3.39 rating. But maybe 1978 was a fluke, so let's look at 1977:

Seattle Slew - 9.31 Rating - Triple Crown Winner
Run Dusty Run - 8.01 Rating - Ran KY Derby and Preakness
Sanhedrin - 5.06 Rating - Ran KY Derby
Mr. Red Wing - 3.39 Rating - 100% Rested
Iron Constitution - 6.05 Rating - Ran Preakness
Spirit Level - 3.73 Rating - 100% Rested
Sir Sir - 3.23 Rating - Ran KY Derby and Preakness
Make Amends - 3.73 Rating - 100% Rested

FACT: In the 2 most recent Triple Crown seasons, there is not a single well-rested horse with a rating of 4.0 or higher and there is not a single horse with a rating of 7.0 or higher that skipped the Preakness:

Compare that to yesterday's winners:

Tonalist - 8.31 Rating - 100% Rested
Commissioner - 7.35 Rating -100% Rested

SHORT VERSION: Back in the old days, the good horses ran all 3 legs. Any horses that were well-rested for the Belmont Stakes simply weren't that good. These days, great horses are being held out of the KY Derby and the Preakness to prepare exclusively for the Belmont Stakes. It has been 10 years since a horse than ran in the Preakness ended up winning Belmont Stakes.

Where are you getting these ratings? Why does no one in the horse racing world agree with your highly intelligent stance here?

Are you telling me Commissioner was a top contender? Why wasn't he bet? Did only you know that?

 

[Risen Star]

Legit point regarding owners holding their horses out for the Belmont.
But a truly great horse would have stomped the field this year anyway.
Secretariat won the Belmont by 31 links?

Lengths.

Which is 1.5 links. Roughly.

 

[Risen Star]

This owner is getting killed for his comments from everyone. Fellow owners, trainers, jocks. It was absolutely embarrassing to respond like that and he did it again this morning.

 

[Rogah]

Where are you getting these ratings? Why does no one in the horse racing world agree with your highly intelligent stance here?

Are you telling me Commissioner was a top contender? Why wasn't he bet? Did only you know that?

For someone who claims he knows horse racing, you sure aren't demonstrating terribly much knowledge of the sport.

This owner is getting killed for his comments from everyone. Fellow owners, trainers, jocks. It was absolutely embarrassing to respond like that and he did it again this morning.

Most people are saying exactly what I am saying: He was acting like a sore loser and should have kept his yap shut but, that aside, he has a perfectly legitimate point.

If you think horse racing and the triple crown is the same today as it was during the Carter administration, you just have no clue what you are talking about. Back then, as I proved, the best horses ran all 3 races. The only "well rested" horses at Belmont were inferior quality. These days, trainers deliberately withhold top rated horses (7.0 or higher) out of the first 2 legs and focus exclusively on the Belmont. It is far more profitable to win 1 race than to place (come second) in all 3.

Please note I am not being one bit critical of the trainers who hold their horses out of the Preakness, nor am I being critical of the system that allows them to do it. I am just saying that we will never again see a Triple Crown winner in our lifetimes under the current format, and I have given specific facts to support my contention. You have given nothing but angry, sarcastic, snide comments.

 

[RS12]

I agree Rogah. Bottom line winning all three races in the triple crown seperates the good horses from the great horses, particularly winning the Belmont. Not all fast horses are bread for distance. Follow the dollars owner was pissed because he saw his pay day get smaller for stud. His horse was good not great.

 

[Rogah]

An article on ABC/ESPN written by Bill Finley saysd it perfectly:

Spectacular Bid, Pleasant Colony, Alysheba, Sunday Silence, Silver Charm, Real Quiet, Charismatic, War Emblem, Funny Cide, Smarty Jones, Big Brown and now California Chrome. The names change, but the story never does. They all look great in the Derby, just as great in the Preakness, and then run in the Belmont like their engine is broken and they can't get out of neutral.

The odds that 12 straight Kentucky Derby-Preakness winners have lost in the Belmont are astronomical, probably about 5,000-1. That's not a coincidence or an incredible run of bad luck but a surefire sign that the modern horse trained the modern way cannot win three very tough races within a five-week span.

 

[Risen Star]

For someone who claims he knows horse racing, you sure aren't demonstrating terribly much knowledge of the sport.

So I'll ask again. Where are you getting these ratings?

Most people are saying exactly what I am saying: He was acting like a sore loser and should have kept his yap shut but, that aside, he has a perfectly legitimate point.

I haven't heard anyone say that. Except you. And while you're super smart, I'll go with the horse racing community and say he embarrassed himself and had no point. Of course the Triple Crown is hard to win. Of course you face disadvantages if you want to achieve it. That's the whole point of it, genius. Quit crying that your Cal bred got exposed.

If you think horse racing and the triple crown is the same today as it was during the Carter administration, you just have no clue what you are talking about. Back then, as I proved, the best horses ran all 3 races. The only "well rested" horses at Belmont were inferior quality. These days, trainers deliberately withhold top rated horses (7.0 or higher) out of the first 2 legs and focus exclusively on the Belmont. It is far more profitable to win 1 race than to place (come second) in all 3.

Please note I am not being one bit critical of the trainers who hold their horses out of the Preakness, nor am I being critical of the system that allows them to do it. I am just saying that we will never again see a Triple Crown winner in our lifetimes under the current format, and I have given specific facts to support my contention. You have given nothing but angry, sarcastic, snide comments.

You haven't proven anything. You've simply posted arbitrary ratings scores to a few races. Without presenting where those infallible ratings come from.

If you're trying to convince me that Commissioner was some stud quality runner entering the Belmont, a horse the quality that others like Citation or Seattle Slew haven't faced before, you're even more clueless than I originally had you pegged.

So...again....how about those ratings?

 

[Risen Star]

More from that same article. Conveniently left out.


Coburn's complaints are baseless and his idea that a horse must race in each Triple Crown race to remain eligible for the next leg is dumber than a box of rocks. It's so dumb, it's not worthy of further debate. His calling the winners cheaters and cowards is as low-class as it gets.

http://espn.go.com/horse-racing/story/_/id/11052899/california-chrome-co-owner-steve-coburn-shut-up

 

[Risen Star]

Once he realizes his horse had to face top legends like Tonalist and Commissioner unlike those frauds Seattle Slew and Secretariat, he's really going to be pissed.

 

[Risen Star]

I do believe there will be more Triple Crown winners. I think it's nonsense to think otherwise. You've had horses that missed by a nose, a length. It'll happen. It's just going to take everything going right to do it.

To make changes to make the feat easier is basically destroying it altogether. It's a horrible idea.

 

[burmafrd]

If you are going to truly challenge for the Triple Crown then you have to start training your horse as a two year old with that in mind. I bet NONE of the current trainers do that.

 

[Roadtrip635]

The Coburn was just angry and behaved childishly when his horse didn't win. The Triple Crown is not a single event, it's not like NFL playoffs and the other horses skipped the playoffs to compete in the Super Bowl. Each leg of the Triple Crown is it's own race and each track presents it's own challenges. Horses are required to accumulate a certain amount of points to compete in Graded races, but they are never required to compete in a specific race to gain entry. Horse owners and trainers look at potential races and try to put their horse in position to succeed. Why spend the money and time to put your horse in the Derby or Preakness, if you don't feel your horse will be successful? By Coburn's logic why not require ALL horses that entered the Derby be required to enter the Belmont. There are health concerns as well, a horse may not have been ready for either of the first two legs for health or training concerns. Some have pulled their horse from the Preakness for health concerns. Putting the horses health first is not a "coward's way out". What happens if a horse breaks down mid race and later is learned that there may have been warning signs of health issues beforehand? The Belmont is especially unique because it's run at a distance these young horses have never run before and may never run again in their careers. It takes a very rare horse to be able to excel in these varied distances. In America at least, 1.5 mile dirt races are fairly rare and the horses that run them are usually bred for distance. Most American thoroughbreds are bred to run 1.25 miles or less, mostly less. It would be nice to have a triple crown winner, the horse has to earn it. Changing the rules to make it easier cheapens the feat.

 

[jimmy40]

I'm glad I was around to see Affirmed/Alydar, it was freaking awesome.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I do believe there will be more Triple Crown winners. I think it's nonsense to think otherwise. You've had horses that missed by a nose, a length. It'll happen. It's just going to take everything going right to do it.

To make changes to make the feat easier is basically destroying it altogether. It's a horrible idea.

Agreed.

It was weird... Horse came out with no "umph"... Just looked like he was cruising, no urgency in that run.

He should gave come out like a shot and let then catch him.

 

[Rogah]

I haven't heard anyone say that. Except you. And while you're super smart, I'll go with the horse racing community and say he embarrassed himself and had no point. Of course the Triple Crown is hard to win. Of course you face disadvantages if you want to achieve it. That's the whole point of it, genius. Quit crying that your Cal bred got exposed.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I made money betting against California Chrome. I'm the last person crying over what happened. I know that winning the Triple Crown is an impossibility in this day and age, and I made a lot of money off the people who got whipped up in the excitement.

You haven't proven anything.

Actually, I have proven 1 thing beyond any reasonable doubt: That you don't know or understand **** about horse racing.

You've simply posted arbitrary ratings scores to a few races. Without presenting where those infallible ratings come from.

There's nothing "arbitrary" about a horse's rating. Just because you don't have have the first clue about horse racing doesn't mean that those who do understand it have "arbitrary" criteria.

If you're trying to convince me that Commissioner was some stud quality runner entering the Belmont, a horse the quality that others like Citation or Seattle Slew haven't faced before, you're even more clueless than I originally had you pegged.

I guess you're not capable of discussing this like a mature adult, so you have to resort to personal insults. My database does not go back to the 40's, but I can say without a doubt that Seattle Slew did not face a well-rested horse in the Belmont Stakes of the same quality as Tonalist or Commissioner.

All your whining and personal insults do nothing to change this UNDISPUTED FACT:

When Secretariat ran Belmont in 1973, the highest rated well-rested horse was rated 3.73
When Seattle Slew ran Belmont in 1977, the highest rated well-rested horse was rated 3.73
When Affirmed ran Belmont in 1978, the highest rated well-rested horse was rated 3.39

In 2014, there was a well-rested horse with an 8.45 rating (Tonalist) and there was a well-rested horse with a 7.65 rating (Commissioner). By an amazing coincidence, those horses took 1st and 2nd (respectively).

I guess it's just the world's biggest coincidence, huh?