Posted:
#1
Crickets
Where's the people who say change triple crown format???
...
Views: 904
Posts: 10
Posted:
#4
Quote Originally Posted by Kurshka:
Dude its been 37 years. Yes it needs to be changed. These horse are three years old. I actually think it would be harder to win the triple crown with more rest.
Dude its been 37 years. Yes it needs to be changed. These horse are three years old. I actually think it would be harder to win the triple crown with more rest.
YOU DON'T CHANGE TRADITION!! Bottom line , it takes a true champion to pull of one of the hardest things to do in sports.
Posted:
#6
Triple crown in baseball didnt happen since 1969 and no one ever says a thing. No one has ever won the golf grand slam in one year. There are things that are supposed to be tough. We dont want a triple crown winner every year and get horses that are just or below that just happen to win the Derby and Preakness (California Chrome) win the triple crown, that just diminishes the greatness of the happening. Leave the triple crown alone and make it the same it has been and let the great horses win the triple crown.
Posted:
#7
"those people" are still out there, myself included.
I'm no extremist, asking for all kinds of changes, but I can understand the EMOTIONAL frustration that a guy like Steve Coburn went through last year. It's true, it sucks that new-comers can enter at will, and kill the hype of such an elusive feat. Especially when they have said that they were there to specifically end a horses' chances, and/or try for a bigger payday.
But no one likes to debate it, rather just make fun of a guy like Coburn and say he's crying. He had a point: you must EARN enough points to be ELIGIBLE to run in the Kentucky Derby. So why not have that caliber of horses form the pool of contenders?!? If the Derby is limited to 20 starters, but 40 or so have "points"...then why not make up the Preakness/Belmont with those runners. After all, THEY were the ones running in all the prestigious qualifying races! Instead, you have a horse like Tale of Verve (a literal Maiden winner) enter a million-dollar race. Credit due, he got second; but that was a sty on the racing form compared to the likes of the favorites. But there was no way he was triple crown worthy.
Oh, you have to have larger fields to justify a 'true' Triple Crown??? Is it AP's fault that two horses dropped out? One of which was the 2nd or 3rd choice to win the Derby. Races go off every day with junk fields and some circuits even complain about a lack of horses, massively shortening the field(s). I remember a few years back the Hawthorne Gold Cup only had 4 horses run...no scratches either! A half-million dollar race, with a trophy made of solid gold...and that's all they could muster for the betting public. (you don't want to know what the superfecta paid either, HA).
Don't change the schedule, don't change the point system...but demand a higher level of competition for these multi-million dollar races. And give bonuses to horses that elect to run in more than 1 of the 3 (obviously aside from the Derby winner).
Bollox also makes good points that it's nowhere near what is was when TC winner's were winning it often. Diet, Breeding, Air/Track quality, and even Financial considerations are all topics of discussion.
Posted:
#8
You don't have the same criteria for each race just like the you don't have to play or be eligible for the Masters in golf to be able to play in the British Open. It is a different tournament just like it is a different race. And Colburn has no point what so ever. He knew he had a horse that had no chance in winning the Belmont and he wanted an excuse from the start. The only owners and trainers that want the change are those that are not good enough to have a horse that has the possibility to win the Triple Crown. It is the ultimate prize for the horse racing community and it should be tough and the hardest thing ever to do and just like California Chrome, average or in his case, below average, horses will not win the triple crown and shouldn't.
Hot Forum Topics
