|
|
 Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
   
| stayceem - 2014-06-07 11:48 PM
jbhoot - 2014-06-07 11:31 PM
stayceem - 2014-06-07 10:47 PM
Dreem_Chazer - 2014-06-07 10:37 PM
I so disagree with you 3 to Go!!! Who are any of us to judge this man for saying something right after a dream is lost!! I have agreed with not letting horses who did not qualify for the Kentucky Derby for years!! I still love Chrome and his owners no matter what!!!!!!
Has the triple crown always been run this way???? Or did you used to have to qualify and use the same 20 horses?
There is really no such race as the Triple Crown. It is a term for three separate races. Each has it's own rules. The term Triple Crown was made up by the press. Until 1950 they did not even have a trophy for it.
But the big dispute about allowing fresh horses into the other races... at some point was that not allowed?? Trying to understand the fuss
Frankly I have no idea why people are complaining other than they think it is a race in it's self which has rules. It is not and does not. The only rule to win the triple crown is to enter all three races and win all three. |
|
| |
|
 Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
|
 |
|
| |
|
Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
| jbhoot - 2014-06-08 12:05 AM
stayceem - 2014-06-07 11:48 PM
jbhoot - 2014-06-07 11:31 PM
stayceem - 2014-06-07 10:47 PM
Dreem_Chazer - 2014-06-07 10:37 PM
I so disagree with you 3 to Go!!! Who are any of us to judge this man for saying something right after a dream is lost!! I have agreed with not letting horses who did not qualify for the Kentucky Derby for years!! I still love Chrome and his owners no matter what!!!!!!
Has the triple crown always been run this way???? Or did you used to have to qualify and use the same 20 horses?
There is really no such race as the Triple Crown. It is a term for three separate races. Each has it's own rules. The term Triple Crown was made up by the press. Until 1950 they did not even have a trophy for it.
But the big dispute about allowing fresh horses into the other races... at some point was that not allowed?? Trying to understand the fuss
Frankly I have no idea why people are complaining other than they think it is a race in it's self which has rules. It is not and does not. The only rule to win the triple crown is to enter all three races and win all three.
My question though... has it changed? |
|
| |
|
 A Somebody to Everybody
Posts: 41354
Location: Under The Big Sky Of Texas |
You said what I was trying to say , and no Jockeys were hurt, they had their Angel's riding along with them. |
|
| |
|
 I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | stayceem - 2014-06-08 12:06 AM jbhoot - 2014-06-08 12:05 AM stayceem - 2014-06-07 11:48 PM jbhoot - 2014-06-07 11:31 PM stayceem - 2014-06-07 10:47 PM Dreem_Chazer - 2014-06-07 10:37 PM I so disagree with you 3 to Go!!! Who are any of us to judge this man for saying something right after a dream is lost!! I have agreed with not letting horses who did not qualify for the Kentucky Derby for years!! I still love Chrome and his owners no matter what!!!!!! Has the triple crown always been run this way???? Or did you used to have to qualify and use the same 20 horses? There is really no such race as the Triple Crown. It is a term for three separate races. Each has it's own rules. The term Triple Crown was made up by the press. Until 1950 they did not even have a trophy for it. But the big dispute about allowing fresh horses into the other races... at some point was that not allowed?? Trying to understand the fuss Frankly I have no idea why people are complaining other than they think it is a race in it's self which has rules. It is not and does not. The only rule to win the triple crown is to enter all three races and win all three. My question though... has it changed?
Edited by Nevertooold 2014-06-08 12:19 AM
|
|
| |
|
10D Crack Champion
| Nevertooold - 2014-06-08 12:15 AM
stayceem - 2014-06-08 12:06 AM jbhoot - 2014-06-08 12:05 AM stayceem - 2014-06-07 11:48 PM jbhoot - 2014-06-07 11:31 PM stayceem - 2014-06-07 10:47 PM Dreem_Chazer - 2014-06-07 10:37 PM I so disagree with you 3 to Go!!! Who are any of us to judge this man for saying something right after a dream is lost!! I have agreed with not letting horses who did not qualify for the Kentucky Derby for years!! I still love Chrome and his owners no matter what!!!!!! Has the triple crown always been run this way???? Or did you used to have to qualify and use the same 20 horses? There is really no such race as the Triple Crown. It is a term for three separate races. Each has it's own rules. The term Triple Crown was made up by the press. Until 1950 they did not even have a trophy for it. But the big dispute about allowing fresh horses into the other races... at some point was that not allowed?? Trying to understand the fuss Frankly I have no idea why people are complaining other than they think it is a race in it's self which has rules. It is not and does not. The only rule to win the triple crown is to enter all three races and win all three. My question though... has it changed?
If I remember correctly, Tonalist was recovering from an illness/virus or something I believe which kept him out of the other races. I don't think much of anything has changed either. I know only like 4 horses ran against Secretariat in the Belmont because most knew they couldn't come close to running against Secretariat and Sham. |
|
| |
|
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| stayceem - 2014-06-08 12:06 AM
jbhoot - 2014-06-08 12:05 AM
stayceem - 2014-06-07 11:48 PM
jbhoot - 2014-06-07 11:31 PM
stayceem - 2014-06-07 10:47 PM
Dreem_Chazer - 2014-06-07 10:37 PM
I so disagree with you 3 to Go!!! Who are any of us to judge this man for saying something right after a dream is lost!! I have agreed with not letting horses who did not qualify for the Kentucky Derby for years!! I still love Chrome and his owners no matter what!!!!!!
Has the triple crown always been run this way???? Or did you used to have to qualify and use the same 20 horses?
There is really no such race as the Triple Crown. It is a term for three separate races. Each has it's own rules. The term Triple Crown was made up by the press. Until 1950 they did not even have a trophy for it.
But the big dispute about allowing fresh horses into the other races... at some point was that not allowed?? Trying to understand the fuss
Frankly I have no idea why people are complaining other than they think it is a race in it's self which has rules. It is not and does not. The only rule to win the triple crown is to enter all three races and win all three.
My question though... has it changed?
Not really. The dates of the three races have changed. And some of the rules of each individual race have changed. As far as a fresh horse coming into one of the races and beating the favorite tuff cookies it happens everyday in racing. As I said before the only rule is to enter all three races and win all three. |
|
| |
|
Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
| jbhoot - 2014-06-08 12:37 AM
stayceem - 2014-06-08 12:06 AM
jbhoot - 2014-06-08 12:05 AM
stayceem - 2014-06-07 11:48 PM
jbhoot - 2014-06-07 11:31 PM
stayceem - 2014-06-07 10:47 PM
Dreem_Chazer - 2014-06-07 10:37 PM
I so disagree with you 3 to Go!!! Who are any of us to judge this man for saying something right after a dream is lost!! I have agreed with not letting horses who did not qualify for the Kentucky Derby for years!! I still love Chrome and his owners no matter what!!!!!!
Has the triple crown always been run this way???? Or did you used to have to qualify and use the same 20 horses?
There is really no such race as the Triple Crown. It is a term for three separate races. Each has it's own rules. The term Triple Crown was made up by the press. Until 1950 they did not even have a trophy for it.
But the big dispute about allowing fresh horses into the other races... at some point was that not allowed?? Trying to understand the fuss
Frankly I have no idea why people are complaining other than they think it is a race in it's self which has rules. It is not and does not. The only rule to win the triple crown is to enter all three races and win all three.
My question though... has it changed?
Not really. The dates of the three races have changed. And some of the rules of each individual race have changed. As far as a fresh horse coming into one of the races and beating the favorite tuff cookies it happens everyday in racing. As I said before the only rule is to enter all three races and win all three.
Thank you. Thats what I understood but I have seen people making is sound as if they used to once upon a time not allow the fresh horse in to the 3 race series and thats why there were so many triple crown winners.
Just wanted to make sure I wasnt misinformed. |
|
| |
|
 Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | Nevertooold - 2014-06-08 12:15 AM
stayceem - 2014-06-08 12:06 AM jbhoot - 2014-06-08 12:05 AM stayceem - 2014-06-07 11:48 PM jbhoot - 2014-06-07 11:31 PM stayceem - 2014-06-07 10:47 PM Dreem_Chazer - 2014-06-07 10:37 PM I so disagree with you 3 to Go!!! Who are any of us to judge this man for saying something right after a dream is lost!! I have agreed with not letting horses who did not qualify for the Kentucky Derby for years!! I still love Chrome and his owners no matter what!!!!!! Has the triple crown always been run this way???? Or did you used to have to qualify and use the same 20 horses? There is really no such race as the Triple Crown. It is a term for three separate races. Each has it's own rules. The term Triple Crown was made up by the press. Until 1950 they did not even have a trophy for it. But the big dispute about allowing fresh horses into the other races... at some point was that not allowed?? Trying to understand the fuss Frankly I have no idea why people are complaining other than they think it is a race in it's self which has rules. It is not and does not. The only rule to win the triple crown is to enter all three races and win all three. My question though... has it changed?
LOL!!!! I can't imagine a horse maturing enough in the 5 week spread between these 3 races to warrant that explanation.. Especially since the Belmont is 1/4 longer than the Derby..
I don't think the rules should be changed... It would be unfair to the memory of the 11 horses that have won the TC in the last 138 years and it would bring about enough winners to make a TC winner an everyday thing.....
Edited by komet. 2014-06-08 1:02 AM
|
|
| |
|
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| komet. - 2014-06-08 1:00 AM
Nevertooold - 2014-06-08 12:15 AM
stayceem - 2014-06-08 12:06 AM jbhoot - 2014-06-08 12:05 AM stayceem - 2014-06-07 11:48 PM jbhoot - 2014-06-07 11:31 PM stayceem - 2014-06-07 10:47 PM Dreem_Chazer - 2014-06-07 10:37 PM I so disagree with you 3 to Go!!! Who are any of us to judge this man for saying something right after a dream is lost!! I have agreed with not letting horses who did not qualify for the Kentucky Derby for years!! I still love Chrome and his owners no matter what!!!!!! Has the triple crown always been run this way???? Or did you used to have to qualify and use the same 20 horses? There is really no such race as the Triple Crown. It is a term for three separate races. Each has it's own rules. The term Triple Crown was made up by the press. Until 1950 they did not even have a trophy for it. But the big dispute about allowing fresh horses into the other races... at some point was that not allowed?? Trying to understand the fuss Frankly I have no idea why people are complaining other than they think it is a race in it's self which has rules. It is not and does not. The only rule to win the triple crown is to enter all three races and win all three. My question though... has it changed?
LOL!!!! I can't imagine a horse maturing enough in the 5 week spread between these 3 races to warrant that explanation.. Especially since the Belmont is 1/4 longer than the Derby..
I don't think the rules should be changed... It would be unfair to the memory of the 11 horses that have won the TC in the last 138 years and it would bring about enough winners to make a TC winner an everyday thing.....
Sir Barton the first Triple crown winner in 1919 only had four days between the first two races. The dates used to be a lot closer in the past. |
|
| |
|
 Transplant Okie
Posts: 1206
Location: Always on call..... | Tonalist was going to be pointed to the Derby, but because of missing most of the prep races with a foot injury and an illness he didn't have the points to qualify.
The Derby field is the top 20 three year olds in points. It used to be graded earnings, but that changed a couple of years ago so that now you earn points based on how the horse finishes in the prep races leading up to the Derby.
There are not any restrictions on the Preakness or Belmont as far as points or earnings. If the owners pay the entry fee they can run their horse. It has always been that way, nothing has changed in that sense. The derby didn't even have to limit its field until it became such a popular race.
The timing and the order of the TC races has changed over time. The Preakness used to be run one week after the Derby. For some reason the year Gallant Fox won, in 1930, the Preakness was moved and was actually ran before the Derby. Then it went back to being just one week after the Derby again. In either 1941 or 1942 the Preakness was moved again to be two weeks after the Derby (Whirlaway in 1941 won it one week after the Derby and then Count Fleet in 1943 won it two weeks after the Derby). So the TC has not been the same since 1919.
Each race was created on its own. After Sir Barton and Gallant Fox both won all three races in the same year the press started calling the feat "The Triple Crown", because England had a three race series that was called the Triple Crown. Even then, the concept of the TC took another couple decades to really become a big deal. Often times winners of the Derby and Preakness would skip the Belmont to run in races with larger purses.
It is a heartbreaker about CC's loss today. I hope to actually see a TC winner in my life, but horses are not bred or trained to race like that anymore. Horses used to race much more frequently so that even if a horse skipped the Derby and Preakness to run in the Belmont that horse would likely have raced somewhere in the preceding 5 weeks. Horses didn't go months between races, so there wasn't such a disparity in how rested they were.
I see Mr. Coburn's point about horses should only run in the Belmont if they have ran in the others, but I wish he wouldn't have been so bitter about it. The TC campaign is very hard on a three year old horse and if you follow racing closely you'd know that not many horses who run in all three go on to ever have much of a racing career after. If you had a valuable and talented horse that didn't do well in the Derby why would you risk its career to continue running it in the TC?? You wouldn't. So then the Belmont field would be tiny every year and there would be TC winners every few years. That's not what you want either.
Maybe a middle ground of having to be in the top 30-40 in points to be eligible, or something like that. Where at least there were still some restrictions on who could run in the other two races. So those races aren't totally open to any horse.
Edited by Dr. J 2014-06-08 1:44 AM
|
|
| |
|
Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
| Dr. J - 2014-06-08 1:42 AM Tonalist was going to be pointed to the Derby, but because of missing most of the prep races with a foot injury and an illness he didn't have the points to qualify.
The Derby field is the top 20 three year olds in points. It used to be graded earnings, but that changed a couple of years ago so that now you earn points based on how the horse finishes in the prep races leading up to the Derby.
There are not any restrictions on the Preakness or Belmont as far as points or earnings. If the owners pay the entry fee they can run their horse. It has always been that way, nothing has changed in that sense. The derby didn't even have to limit its field until it became such a popular race.
The timing and the order of the TC races has changed over time. The Preakness used to be run one week after the Derby. For some reason the year Gallant Fox won, in 1930, the Preakness was moved and was actually ran before the Derby. Then it went back to being just one week after the Derby again. In either 1941 or 1942 the Preakness was moved again to be two weeks after the Derby (Whirlaway in 1941 won it one week after the Derby and then Count Fleet in 1943 won it two weeks after the Derby). So the TC has not been the same since 1919.
Each race was created on its own. After Sir Barton and Gallant Fox both won all three races in the same year the press started calling the feat "The Triple Crown", because England had a three race series that was called the Triple Crown. Even then, the concept of the TC took another couple decades to really become a big deal. Often times winners of the Derby and Preakness would skip the Belmont to run in races with larger purses.
It is a heartbreaker about CC's loss today. I hope to actually see a TC winner in my life, but horses are not bred or trained to race like that anymore. Horses used to race much more frequently so that even if a horse skipped the Derby and Preakness to run in the Belmont that horse would likely have raced somewhere in the preceding 5 weeks. Horses didn't go months between races, so there wasn't such a disparity in how rested they were.
I see Mr. Coburn's point about horses should only run in the Belmont if they have ran in the others, but I wish he wouldn't have been so bitter about it. The TC campaign is very hard on a three year old horse and if you follow racing closely you'd know that not many horses who run in all three go on to ever have much of a racing career after. If you had a valuable and talented horse that didn't do well in the Derby why would you risk its career to continue running it in the TC?? You wouldn't. So then the Belmont field would be tiny every year and there would be TC winners every few years. That's not what you want either.
Maybe a middle ground of having to be in the top 30-40 in points to be eligible, or something like that. Where at least there were still some restrictions on who could run in the other two races. So those races aren't totally open to any horse.
Yes I agree that if your horse doesnt win the derby I cant forsee them entering in both the belmont and preakness...
You said
After Sir Barton and Gallant Fox both won all three races in the same year the press started calling the feat "The Triple Crown",
How did they both win it the same year? Am i reading this wrong? |
|
| |
|
10D Crack Champion
| stayceem - 2014-06-08 2:00 AM
Dr. J - 2014-06-08 1:42 AM Tonalist was going to be pointed to the Derby, but because of missing most of the prep races with a foot injury and an illness he didn't have the points to qualify.
The Derby field is the top 20 three year olds in points. It used to be graded earnings, but that changed a couple of years ago so that now you earn points based on how the horse finishes in the prep races leading up to the Derby.
There are not any restrictions on the Preakness or Belmont as far as points or earnings. If the owners pay the entry fee they can run their horse. It has always been that way, nothing has changed in that sense. The derby didn't even have to limit its field until it became such a popular race.
The timing and the order of the TC races has changed over time. The Preakness used to be run one week after the Derby. For some reason the year Gallant Fox won, in 1930, the Preakness was moved and was actually ran before the Derby. Then it went back to being just one week after the Derby again. In either 1941 or 1942 the Preakness was moved again to be two weeks after the Derby (Whirlaway in 1941 won it one week after the Derby and then Count Fleet in 1943 won it two weeks after the Derby). So the TC has not been the same since 1919.
Each race was created on its own. After Sir Barton and Gallant Fox both won all three races in the same year the press started calling the feat "The Triple Crown", because England had a three race series that was called the Triple Crown. Even then, the concept of the TC took another couple decades to really become a big deal. Often times winners of the Derby and Preakness would skip the Belmont to run in races with larger purses.
It is a heartbreaker about CC's loss today. I hope to actually see a TC winner in my life, but horses are not bred or trained to race like that anymore. Horses used to race much more frequently so that even if a horse skipped the Derby and Preakness to run in the Belmont that horse would likely have raced somewhere in the preceding 5 weeks. Horses didn't go months between races, so there wasn't such a disparity in how rested they were.
I see Mr. Coburn's point about horses should only run in the Belmont if they have ran in the others, but I wish he wouldn't have been so bitter about it. The TC campaign is very hard on a three year old horse and if you follow racing closely you'd know that not many horses who run in all three go on to ever have much of a racing career after. If you had a valuable and talented horse that didn't do well in the Derby why would you risk its career to continue running it in the TC?? You wouldn't. So then the Belmont field would be tiny every year and there would be TC winners every few years. That's not what you want either.
Maybe a middle ground of having to be in the top 30-40 in points to be eligible, or something like that. Where at least there were still some restrictions on who could run in the other two races. So those races aren't totally open to any horse.
Yes I agree that if your horse doesnt win the derby I cant forsee them entering in both the belmont and preakness... You said After Sir Barton and Gallant Fox both won all three races in the same year the press started calling the feat "The Triple Crown",How did they both win it the same year? Am i reading this wrong?
Sir Barton won all 3 races in 1919 or something like that. Gallant Fox won all 3 races in 1930 or so. That is what she means by won all 3 in one year....not the same years of course. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 4652
| I agree with the owner If you enter the KY Derby then you run in the final two if you want to win . But 2 out of three wins competing for the tripple crown ain't bad |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 591
| I just wonder if people would be reacting the same or so sympathetic if say, Bob Baffert made the same comments? Somehow I don't think as many people would be on his side... And he's lost the Belmont 3 times after winning the Derby and Preakness. The Triple Crown isn't a race. It's a title (do they give an award?) for the horse that enters and wins all 3 races. There are no other stipulations. The press makes a big deal out of it which is why our focus gets drawn to that rather than the individuality of the races. Don't all 3 races have their own rules within themselves depending on the State? Not like they are getting together and saying let's make all the races "fair". It would be up to the Preakness and Belmont to limit their entries to Derby entries and that doesn't look like it's happening. |
|
| |
|
  Angel in a Sorrel Coat
Posts: 16030
Location: In a happy place |
Amen Kathie. My heart dropped to my stomach when I saw CC stepped on at the start of the race. It could have been bad bad bad. I understand how disappointed the owners, trainer and jockey were but they need to just be thankful. I for one don't want to see anything changed with what it takes to win the Triple Crown. How it runs out is what makes it so special. It should not be made easier to win. Thank you God that all horses and jockeys finished this race safe. I still love CC and his connections. |
|
| |
|
Cold hands and Warm Heart
Location: oklahoma | 3 To Go - 2014-06-07 10:01 PM It's not like they didn't know the rules when they entered. If they were so concerned about it they shouldn't have entered. Had they won they wouldn't have cared. Just excuses and frustration for not winning. That's horse racing. It just wasn't meant to be. There are lots of races(horse races, barrel races, etc) that you think a favorite should win and they don't. Doesn't really mean anything except they didn't have it on that day and doesn't mean they won't win the next one. Just because you're "an underdog" doesn't give you a free pass to be unclassy. There's nothing worse than a sore loser.
Agreed. Anything can happen in sports, just wasn't their day. I'm as disappointed as the next person but.... Congratulating the winner should be done. Always. They enter their horses where they think they'll win and even though he's everyone's hero, as he should be, he couldn't do it yesterday. I think his owners rant and lack of class took away from this great horse's accomplishment and it's a shame. When you play to win, no matter how badly you want it, just doesn't happen sometimes. |
|
| |
|
Common Sense and then some
Location: So. California | I was hoping CC would win too, unfortunately, that didn't happen. However, I do feel a bit sorry for the connections of Tonalist. The track sure went quiet when he won and it should have been cause for celebration. It reminded me of when Blame beat Zenyatta in the Breeders Cup. The sentimental favorite doesn't win and it doesn't bode well with the masses...
There may or may not be another TC in my lifetime, I can only hope to see another.
1919 - Sir Barton
1930 - Gallent Fox
1935 - Omaha
1937 - War Admiral
1941 - Whirlaway
1943 - Count Fleet
1946 - Assault
1948 - Citation
1973 - Secretariat
1977 - Seattle Slew
1978 - Affirmed
It may be, as some have stated, that racing strategy has changed over the years or breeding decisions are different. IDK - Maybe, we just haven't seen that exceptional extraordinary brilliant "once in a lifetime" superstar colt lately... He has to be the 'one in a million', the one that against all odds, runs and wins.  |
|
| |
|
 Balance Beam and more...
Posts: 11493
Location: 31 lengths farms | It seemed a fade kind if started when Smarty Jones was making his run for the TC, of owners and trainers gunning for them, not only to simply win the Belmont themselves but to keep another horse from winning. A "if I can't win it, neither will he" approach if you will. I'm just glad CC is okay, he was going to
Have to have a Secretariat type day to win it anyway with no other horses to help him tactically. It's the one time coming from a small stable hurt him. |
|
| |
|
 Lady Di
Posts: 21556
Location: Oklahoma | Anniemae - 2014-06-08 12:45 PM
I was hoping CC would win too, unfortunately, that didn't happen. However, I do feel a bit sorry for the connections of Tonalist. The track sure went quiet when he won and it should have been cause for celebration. It reminded me of when Blame beat Zenyatta in the Breeders Cup. The sentimental favorite doesn't win and it doesn't bode well with the masses...
There may or may not be another TC in my lifetime, I can only hope to see another.
1919 - Sir Barton
1930 - Gallent Fox
1935 - Omaha
1937 - War Admiral
1941 - Whirlaway
1943 - Count Fleet
1946 - Assault
1948 - Citation
1973 - Secretariat
1977 - Seattle Slew
1978 - Affirmed
It may be, as some have stated, that racing strategy has changed over the years or breeding decisions are different. IDK - Maybe, we just haven't seen that exceptional extraordinary brilliant "once in a lifetime" superstar colt lately... He has to be the 'one in a million', the one that against all odds, runs and wins.
I think something that most people are not considering is that steroids were not illegal in the 70's. I'm not saying that the TC winners would or would not have won with or without drugs or that any of them were on steroids, but I'm saying that could very well make a difference in how horses in that decade handled 3 close races as compared to now. Look at how Big Brown's speed changed when he was pulled off Equipoise. Everyone is saying that the quality of horses has declined. I don't think that's so. I just don't think that racing is the same as it was in 70's, and I think that there's just so many quality horses and they have to run to run totally on their heart w/no medicinal help....I'm not saying that the former TC winners were on anything, but I do know that it was widely used in racing back then. |
|
| |
Folks on-line