OT: Rooting for California Chrome!!

[Alydar]

Just a silly idea from a bad loser. AP Indy was the best horse of his generation and one of the greatest sires of all-time. His TC campaign was the same as Tonalist. He wasn't fit in time for the Derby. Instead he won the Belmont after prepping in the Peter Pan. And he went on to win the BC Classic. He souldn't have been allowed in to the Belmont? He can stick that cowboy hat up his bucket.

Could say the same for Conquistador Cielo who got a late start but won the Belmont after beating older horses in the Met Mile 2 weeks before the Belmont.

 

[Husky25]

How about the rotation of the running order of the three Triple Crown race?. Employ a three year cycle - KD, Preakness, Belmont...next year Preakness, Belmont, KD...next year Belmont, KD, Preakness. Give each of them the chance to be the first leg. Now that would be interesting - especially the years when the Belmont would be first..the longest race first.

It will never happen, I know. The TC is one of those events so steeped in tradition you don't dare mess with it.

Lets not and say we did.

 

[Waquoit]

He was making this argument long before today, and inho he is exactly right.

I like how Andy Beyer put it - "No such idea has occurred to anybody else in the history of horse racing."

 

[Zorro]

I was referring only to the idea of increasing the time between the races to three weeks, to which I still see no drastic problem and some advantages. Obviously his post-race comments, which I did not see, were much more radical.

 

[Geno-ista]

Plus, I just can't see either Pimlico or Belmont agreeing to this: the introduction of different horses, different characters in the drama, adds to the appeal of the latter races. How'd you like to be Belmont, seeing a reduced version of the Preakness, in itself a reduced version of the Derby. It'd be part deja' vu, part dance marathon, with no "new blood", no new plot lines or possibilities. As it is, there are years when the fields in the Preakness n' Belmont are notably smaller than the Derby - if memory serves, there have been years when the Belmont didn't have 10 horses go to the post, under the current system.

I think there were only approx 5 horses in the field with Secretariat in the Belmont!

 

[Waquoit]

I think there were only approx 5 horses in the field with Secretariat in the Belmont!

And if you are upfront, does it really matter if you have 4 or 10 others behind you. The jockey choked.

 

[mhshuskies]

Sadly, no. He couldn't get it done.

Coburn, one of the owners, makes a good point - though the timing and the tone indicates a somewhat bitter taste of sour grapes - understandable, but not a classy way to present yourself or your argument.

His point - We probably will never see another triple crown winner in his lifetime. For one horse to win the triple crown, they have to win three races in 5 weeks. But any horse can run in the Preakness and Belmont which, from what was said during the broadcast, can be an advantage to the horses that didn't run the first two races because they are fresher.

His thoughts are if you don't have enough points to run in the Kentucky Derby, your horse shouldn't be able to run in the Preakness or Belmont either. I see his point, but I am not sure I agree with that. Maybe a better alternative is to spaces each of the triple crown races out a bit more to allow more recovery time for the Derby and Preakness horses to recover. Level the track, so to speak.

Sour grapes? Sure was, he sounded like a crybaby. Now the state that was known for some fine wines will be known for that. A California (Chrome) Winer!

 

[mhshuskies]

I don't think so. A triple crown winner should be convincing if not dominant. He squeaked out the first two over mediocre competition, I was rooting for him, but only if he could bury the others.

Would Geno complain that another team was more rested? To be the best, you have to beat all comers.

 

[meyers7]

Wouldn't have Chrome winning have been special?

eh, he didn't seem that special of a horse to me. More like not a lot of competition.

 

[meyers7]

Would Geno complain that another team was more rested? To be the best, you have to beat all comers.

Exactly, that's what's special about winning the Triple Crown. Not just beating the same horses. Beating every horse that mounts a challenge.

 

[Waquoit]

Sonny, I would add to your admiration for Alydar, a tip of the hat to Sham. For a long time - could still be the case, I don't know - the second-fastest time ever run in the Derby was his runner-up effort to Secretariat.

Forego was also in that Derby. He ended up being a multiple champion.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Sonny, I would add to your admiration for Alydar, a tip of the hat to Sham. For a long time - could still be the case, I don't know - the second-fastest time ever run in the Derby was his runner-up effort to Secretariat. He also ran second to Big Red in the Preakness, and stayed with Secretariat for the first half of the Belmont - when that Belmont strategy proved foolhardy, Pincay eased Sham, so as not to do harm to the horse. Not second in all 3, like Alydar, but a gallant effort.

The Triple Crown is special. The rules have been the same forever. Changing them would just water down everything like we always seam to want to do. After the owner showed his true colors in a classless disgraceful display- I am glad he didn't win also. And the coverage should have focused sooner and more on Robert/Shell Evans the winning owner. My brother managed his breeding farms for years. Class act. Long time participant in the sport. Showed class by making no comment to the other comments made. The current rules are what make the triple crown so special. It would do a disservice to prior winners by making changes. The Breed reached it's absolute peak with Secretariat- that is the undisputed truth. Many other magnificent animals have raced. But there will probably never be another Secretariat.

The value of the Triple Crown lies in its difficulty. Offering the horse racing equivalent of grade inflation won't bring the Crown respect.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

I think there were only approx 5 horses in the field with Secretariat in the Belmont!

And the entire history of the Belmont, all the horses that raced, all of them, were still racing at least a full two seconds after Secretariat finished.

 

[Husky25]

Coburn is understandably upset (but is still a sore loser). He just lost $1/4 Mil per stud once California Chrome retires. What he doesn't understand is that attempting to artificially inflate the rate of Triple Crown winners dilutes the sport. 100,000 people won't show up at Belmont Park, they won't bet $150 Million in one day, or spend even more on concessions because the Triple Crown races won't mean as much.

When a horse comes in 3rd in the Wood Memorial (for example), 5th in the Derby without a significant reason why (Only that he got beat), and has a similar result in the Preakness, it doesn't make sense to enter the horse in the Belmont. The purpose is to make money on the horse and that doesn't happen if they are not consistently in the money.

I liked the fact that 11 horses were in the Belmont. There are more betting options. But it is the exception, not the rule. There are typically as few as 6 horses in that particular race because many horses just can't handle the distance. Any fewer than 6 and the Trifecta is taken off the board. FYI, not one favorite from Race 5 through the Belmont won. Race 12 (the one immediately after the Belmont) was the first odds-on-favorite at Post Time to win while I was there (missed the first 4 races due to traffic and the last).

 

[EricLA]

Count me among the folks who understand the disappointment that Chrome's owner feels, but doesn't get the cry-baby attitude. The thing is, it happens all the time in sports. Baseball has a specialized pitcher to close, and another one to "set up" the closer. Football will bring in many different players for one play only. The list is endless. In almost every sport, you have players who specialize and therefore only play in specific situations.

So the Belmont is the longest. The other horses who raced probably were more distance horses, and not sprinters, hence the different entries. As several said (or alluded to), "boo hoo". That's what makes winning the triple crown so special - you have to beat EVERYONE...

 

[Waquoit]

FWIW, the owner came out with a complete and heartfelt apology today for his comments. Good job by him.

 

[Husky25]

FWIW, the owner came out with a complete and heartfelt apology today for his comments. Good job by him.

He apologized to his wife about 6 times. It wasn't heartfelt at all, in my opinion. He embarrassed his wife and was compelled. If it were heartfelt he would have done it yesterday, instead of doubling down with the basketball with a paraplegic comment.

It was an, "I'm sorry I got caught," or "I'm sorry you feel that way," type of apology. Hollow.

 

[Waquoit]

Tough crowd. He ate a ton of crow. He said "I needed to do this because I was wrong". That's hollow?

 

[Husky25]

Tough crowd. He ate a ton of crow. He said "I needed to do this because I was wrong". That's hollow?

Not that mine matters, but in my opinion, yes. The apology is certainly a start, but there is no reason to believe the apology any more than what was said 28-40 hours ago on national tv. Apologies don't mean much anymore, but are necessary to begin repairing Coburn's public image. I truly hopes he is able to breed another elite thoroughbred because I want to see his reaction next time.

 

[Alydar]

Forego was also in that Derby. He ended up being a multiple champion.

My favorite champion. And my pick as TGOAT (of those I saw).

 

[BearJWS]

eh, he didn't seem that special of a horse to me. More like not a lot of competition.

So blowouts wins are key to making a Triple Crown special? I'm just trying to follow & another poster...

Would that be like critics downgrading UConn's basketball recent National Championships?
The men, they never seemed to blow any one out & squeaked some wins out. The National Championship game was a #7 seed against a #8 seed (Preseason #1). I guess that's not a lot competition either. I don't believe that their Championship wasn't special. (Note the double negative. ) Far from it... it was still special to me.

The women, people can argue they competed against a weak AAC and the only threat they played in the NCAA tournament was ND in the Finals without a key player? If the woman had squeaked out a Championship against ND, I guess that's not special either? Plus there's always the "they're only women" excuse. Again, I don't think their Championship wasn't special either. It was special to me.

Maybe that explains my point... Special happens in many different ways.

Has anyone done an analysis, if the competition was actually weaker this year than normal for the Triple Crown (Kentucky Derby, Preakness, Belmont)? I guess that would entail history tracking the overall times in each race, conditions, etc from over the years to make it legit... I'll admit I have not, nor am I going to... but I'm sticking by my original statement, that a Triple Crown would have been impressive regardless. 36 years has been a long time to wait & we're still waiting. I would have enjoyed to see it happen.

PS - This has nothing to do with the Owner's comments. There is a time & place for them. That was not the time, but he does have some points. I'm not looking for changes either.

 

[Sonny44]

So blowouts wins are key to making a Triple Crown special? I'm just trying to follow & another poster...

Would that be like critics downgrading UConn's basketball recent National Championships?
The men, they never seemed to blow any one out & squeaked some wins out. The National Championship game was a #7 seed against a #8 seed (Preseason #1). I guess that's not a lot competition either. I don't believe that their Championship wasn't special. (Note the double negative. ) Far from it... it was still special to me.

The women, people can argue they competed against a weak AAC and the only threat they played in the NCAA tournament was ND in the Finals without a key player? If the woman had squeaked out a Championship against ND, I guess that's not special either? Plus there's always the "they're only women" excuse. Again, I don't think their Championship wasn't special either. It was special to me.

Maybe that explains my point... Special happens in many different ways.

Has anyone done an analysis, if the competition was actually weaker this year than normal for the Triple Crown (Kentucky Derby, Preakness, Belmont)? I guess that would entail history tracking the overall times in each race, conditions, etc from over the years to make it legit... I'll admit I have not, nor am I going to... but I'm sticking by my original statement, that a Triple Crown would have been impressive regardless. 36 years has been a long time to wait & we're still waiting. I would have enjoyed to see it happen.

PS - This has nothing to do with the Owner's comments. There is a time & place for them. That was not the time, but he does have some points. I'm not looking for changes either.

Well you seem to have migrated from "special" to "impressive". I'll try to live with that. I think the vast majority of were rooting for CC.

But your arguments about the UCONN championships are correct. People could argue those things. The men's especially. beating a middle seed starting five freshmen. But it was special to us because this is a Husky board and KO's first year.
The women not so easy though because they beat an undefeated, albeit wounded team. Not as special as beating the Vols a few years back, but again special to us because we are a Husky board.

 

[BearJWS]

Well you seem to have migrated from "special" to "impressive". I'll try to live with that. I think the vast majority of were rooting for CC.

But your arguments about the UCONN championships are correct. People could argue those things. The men's especially. beating a middle seed starting five freshmen. But it was special to us because this is a Husky board and KO's first year.
The women not so easy though because they beat an undefeated, albeit wounded team. Not as special as beating the Vols a few years back, but again special to us because we are a Husky board.

Special or impressive... both have similar enough meaning to me. Is there that much of a difference? I would have been excited to see it & pay more attention if it's realistic. I don't care if races were close or laughers, so that was my point. Would have been nice to have seen it (I don't remember the earlier Triple Crowns since I was still young enough). My grandfather came from Kentucky to CT as a horseman in the late 1920's, so horses have been apart of the family (show, not racing)... so I always tend to pay attention, though I don't ride (or haven't since a kid).

People can argue none of the Women's Championships are impressive any more, since they've won so many! I think it just get's more special/impressive!

 

[Geno-ista]

Coburn is understandably upset (but is still a sore loser). He just lost $1/4 Mil per stud once California Chrome retires. What he doesn't understand is that attempting to artificially inflate the rate of Triple Crown winners dilutes the sport. 100,000 people won't show up at Belmont Park, they won't bet $150 Million in one day, or spend even more on concessions because the Triple Crown races won't mean as much.

When a horse comes in 3rd in the Wood Memorial (for example), 5th in the Derby without a significant reason why (Only that he got beat), and has a similar result in the Preakness, it doesn't make sense to enter the horse in the Belmont. The purpose is to make money on the horse and that doesn't happen if they are not consistently in the money.

I liked the fact that 11 horses were in the Belmont. There are more betting options. But it is the exception, not the rule. There are typically as few as 6 horses in that particular race because many horses just can't handle the distance. Any fewer than 6 and the Trifecta is taken off the board. FYI, not one favorite from Race 5 through the Belmont won. Race 12 (the one immediately after the Belmont) was the first odds-on-favorite at Post Time to win while I was there (missed the first 4 races due to traffic and the last).

So blowouts wins are key to making a Triple Crown special? I'm just trying to follow & another poster...

Would that be like critics downgrading UConn's basketball recent National Championships?
The men, they never seemed to blow any one out & squeaked some wins out. The National Championship game was a #7 seed against a #8 seed (Preseason #1). I guess that's not a lot competition either. I don't believe that their Championship wasn't special. (Note the double negative. ) Far from it... it was still special to me.

The women, people can argue they competed against a weak AAC and the only threat they played in the NCAA tournament was ND in the Finals without a key player? If the woman had squeaked out a Championship against ND, I guess that's not special either? Plus there's always the "they're only women" excuse. Again, I don't think their Championship wasn't special either. It was special to me.

Maybe that explains my point... Special happens in many different ways.

Has anyone done an analysis, if the competition was actually weaker this year than normal for the Triple Crown (Kentucky Derby, Preakness, Belmont)? I guess that would entail history tracking the overall times in each race, conditions, etc from over the years to make it legit... I'll admit I have not, nor am I going to... but I'm sticking by my original statement, that a Triple Crown would have been impressive regardless. 36 years has been a long time to wait & we're still waiting. I would have enjoyed to see it happen.

PS - This has nothing to do with the Owner's comments. There is a time & place for them. That was not the time, but he does have some points. I'm not looking for changes either.

husky25- I think Meyers was basically correct. It was a very week field this year- times were terrible in those races. But it's relative and it's hard to win one- never mind two! Or three! It would still have to be considered awesome because approximately 38,000 thorobreds were born 3 yrs ago that they competed with to get on that track each race!

 

[meyers7]

So blowouts wins are key to making a Triple Crown special? I'm just trying to follow & another poster...

The women, people can argue they competed against a weak AAC and the only threat they played in the NCAA tournament was ND in the Finals without a key player? If the woman had squeaked out a Championship against ND, I guess that's not special either? Plus there's always the "they're only women" excuse. Again, I don't think their Championship wasn't special either. It was special to me.

No, they certainly don't have to be blow outs (see Affirmed and Allydar). However if blowouts are a key for you, then the women this last year certainly qualify.

I'm sure it was special to you, but just MO, having Chrome win wouldn't have seemed very special to me. Just didn't really care for the horse. It's ok for people to not like the same things. (except of course liking TN, that's just wrong )