Will we ever see another Triple Crown Winner?

[Holland Hacker]

I have been wondering about this for a while now and last night I finally had a chance to summarize some data. Based on some quick information taken from Champions it appears that a Triple Crown winner has faced approximatley 10 horses less than those that have won only two legs of the Triple Crown. For the winners of 2 legs I started with 1981. Please let me know if I left anyone out.

Year Horse Derby Preakness Belmont TOTAL
TRIPLE CROWN WINNERS:
1919 Sir Barton 12 12 3 27
1930 Gallant Fox 15 11 4 30
1935 Omaha 18 8 5 31
1937 War Admiral 20 8 7 35
1941 Whirlaway 11 8 4 23
1943 Count Fleet 10 4 3 17
1946 Assault 17 10 7 34
1948 Citation 6 4 5 15
1973 Secretariat 13 6 5 24
1977 Seattle Slew 15 9 8 32
1978 Affirmed 11 7 5 23
Average 26.45454545

WINNERS OF 2 out of 3:
1981 Pleasant Colony 21 13 11 45
1984 Swale 20 10 11 41
1987 Alysheba 17 9 9 35
1988 Risen Star 17 9 6 32
1989 Sunday Silence 15 8 10 33
1995 Thunder Gulch 19 11 11 41
1997 Silver Charm 13 10 7 30
1998 Real Quiet 15 10 11 36
1999 Chrismatic 19 13 12 44
2001 Point Given 17 11 9 37
2002 War Emblem 18 13 11 42
2003 Funny Cide 16 10 6 32
2004 Smarty Jones 18 10 9 37
2005 Afleet Alex 20 14 9 43
Average 37.71429

Any thoughts

[MLC]

Your 2 out of 3 list doesn't include many other horses: Nashua, Tim Tam, Carry Back, Kauai King, Native Dancer, Northern Dancer, Majestic Prince, Little Current, others.

[MLC]

Sorry, my bad.

[cakes44]

Citation faced the least # of horses. He stunk.

[Cajungator26]

I don't think that horses like Alex should count...

IMO, only the horses that won the Derby and the Preakness should be listed. In reality, those were the only ones that had a shot at the Triple Crown to begin with.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by cakes44

Citation faced the least # of horses. He stunk.

Yeah he did stink. He couldn't even win 17 races in a row. Sure he won 16 in a row, but if he had actually been good he would have won at least 17. Plus he only raced 45 times in his life but he still managed to finish off the board in one of those starts. What a mule.

As for the question, competing against more horses and larger fields does make it more difficult. But if another truly special horse comes along....it still could happen.
Look at War Admiral. He faced a number of horses that certainly compares to what the horses today run against....but he managed to do it, because he was simply a better horse than the Funny Cides and Real Quiets of the world.

[todko]

Some of that difference may be due to the Triple Crown winners scaring off horses in the later legs. The Derby also -- who knows how many trainers kept their horse home instead of running against Slew in the 1977 Derby? Trainers probably weren't exactly looking forward to running against Secretariat at Pimlico or Belmont after he demolished the Derby field in record time.

Plus, trainers of today may be more willing to run horses in races where they don't have a chance anyway. Look at some of DWL's Derby entrants over the last couple of years. All the major trainers lately have slung some real bombs at the Derby.

In terms of since 1981, you left out Tabasco Cat who won the second and third legs in 1994. I think that's right, lots of people forget him. I know I had to look this up at least once...

Also left off Hansel, 1991.

Originally Posted by Cardus

Lukas aside, the increased number of poorly placed horses in Triple Crown events is more attributable to the increased say owners have in determining their horses' races. Old-time trainers -- like Nerud, who told his owners that if they wanted to stable with him, it was his way or no way -- wouldn't indulge owners who merely want to have a box on a big day.

I dont know if this is as certain as you are making it to be.


For instance if Nerud was having this discussion in the first place, doesnt it mean that some owners at least thought they had enuf pull to insist on it? IF it was such a foregone conclusion then why would Nerud have to tell this to his owner?


Or take the case of Majestic Prince in the Belmont that was pure owner driven. That was 1969 probably the same approx. time as they Nerud story. Need to do some more research on this before it looks like a viable theory.

[miraja2]

The bottom line is that 10 out of the last 13 years a horse has won two out of three. One of these years - either because of a particularly talented colt, or a good colt in a particularly weak crop - it will happen.

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I don't think that horses like Alex should count...

IMO, only the horses that won the Derby and the Preakness should be listed. In reality, those were the only ones that had a shot at the Triple Crown to begin with.

I think that's a good pt. so at that pt. we would be down to simply comparing the Belmont fields of those who won TC vs Belmont fields of those who had 2 but failed at Bel. I guess.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by easy goer

I think that's a good pt. so at that pt. we would be down to simply comparing the Belmont fields of those who won TC vs Belmont fields of those who had 2 but failed at Bel. I guess.

That doesn't seem like a good point to me at all.
A full field of 20 in the Derby COULD certainly prevent a horse from winning the Derby compared to say the average field size for the Derby in the 1940s. It doesn't really matter which leg they lose, because a large field COULD be responsible for them losing any of the three races. Horses that win the Derby and Preakness were not actually any closer to the TC than horses that win two of the other races. It may seem that way because they were live going into the final leg, but that doesn't mean they were actually closer.

[randallscott35]

You'll see one in the next 3 years.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by miraja2

That doesn't seem like a good point to me at all.
A full field of 20 in the Derby COULD certainly prevent a horse from winning the Derby compared to say the average field size for the Derby in the 1940s. It doesn't really matter which leg they lose, because a large field COULD be responsible for them losing any of the three races. Horses that win the Derby and Preakness were not actually any closer to the TC than horses that win two of the other races. It may seem that way because they were live going into the final leg, but that doesn't mean they were actually closer.

How does this make any sense? If a horse wins the Kentucky Derby, then he automatically has a chance to go on for the chance to win the Triple Crown. If he loses the Derby (like Alex did), then he has no chance to win the Triple Crown.

I see what you're saying about 2 legs being 2 legs, but a horse has to be live out of the Derby for them to even have a chance at winning the whole thing. That's not the case if they only win the Preakness and Belmont.

[theiman]

Originally Posted by Holland Hacker

I have been wondering about this for a while Any thoughts

NO

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

but a horse has to be live out of the Derby for them to even have a chance at winning the whole thing.

Oh but if they lose the Preakness, that is okay?
Thay have to win all 3 races. The original poster's question is about how the number of horses competing in ALL 3 races affects any individual horse's chances of winning the TC. It doesn't matter which race it is. Just because the Derby is first does not make it ANY more important in the TC series. Each race is 33.3333333333% of the whole thing.
Facing a large field in the Derby could prevent a horse from winning the TC for exactly the same reasons that it could in either of the other races.
Afleet Alex was just as close to winning the TC as Funny Cide was. The race he lost came first.....but that is completely meaningless.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Oh but if they lose the Preakness, that is okay?
Thay have to win all 3 races. The original poster's question is about how the number of horses competing in ALL 3 races affects any individual horse's chances of winning the TC. It doesn't matter which race it is. Just because the Derby is first does not make it ANY more important in the TC series. Each race is 33.3333333333% of the whole thing.
Facing a large field in the Derby could prevent a horse from winning the TC for exactly the same reasons that it could in either of the other races.
Afleet Alex was just as close to winning the TC as Funny Cide was. The race he lost came first.....but that is completely meaningless.

I'm not arguing about which 2 of the 3 were most important or that the percentages are distributed any differently than what you are saying. Funny Cide was in contention for it BECAUSE he won the first leg (as well as the 2nd.) Afleet Alex was not. If the Preakness or Belmont was 1st, I'd say the same thing.

As for facing a large field, I agree completely with you. I think it's much more difficult nowadays to win the Derby with a 20 horse field than it was when they were facing smaller fields.

[miraja2]

Yes but since the question was about winning the entire TC it only makes sense mathematically to treat all 3 races equally. Your suggestion that ONLY horses that won the Derby and Preakness should be considered makes no sense mathematically since the large fields in THOSE races are just as likely to prevent a horse from winning the TC as a large field in the Belmont.

I dont think the answer to this is as simple as all that and/or I dont think we are looking at it the right way.

At first, I was going to agree w/ Miraja, on the basis that if say there was a short field in the derby, say 4 horses, well wouldnt that make it easier to have won say both the derby and Belmont? (W-x-W) And shouldnt we factor that short field in?

But then Im thinking, well doesnt that same logic apply if a horse won only one leg of the TC? Didnt the short field help him win the derby?? A horse that went W-x-x. Isnt that data pt relevant to the question as well?

Perhaps a better way to look at it is this:

Start with a horse that wins the derby, obviously someone has to win the derby. So that doesnt eliminate any horses, we've got the entire set of Ky derby winners to start with. Second step: did this horse win the second leg? Okay so we've got say 25 horses win the second leg and 50 did not. And then we look at average field size. Third step: Take the horses that won two legs and did they win the 3rd leg? again what percentage and what field size...YOu are going to get two numbers from this process but so be it...

This way you would still be factoring those horse from the "Miraja set" i.e. those that won the first and third (Win-x-Win)...Only we would have factored them in when we did step two (the question of did they win the second leg?).

RIght? SO what is then the objection Miraja? SUrely you wont argue that we used equally horses that went W-x-x (Won-didnt-didnt) as those that went W-x-W (Win didnt Win)

You would be arguing that the data pt. of horses that won derby/Bel is more important then the horse that merely won the derby only (Won-x-x). Are you going to argue that the data set of horses that won the derby only does not matter to the question?

See? Thats the fallacy in your reasoning; you are assuming that the data set of W-x-W is more important then the data set of W-x-x. But it is not.

Why not? Because those horses that Won the derby but lost Preakness were also possible TC winners. The fact that they did not win at Belmont does not alter the fact that at one pt. they were possible TC winners.

Take Fu Peg. He won derby, lost PReakness, did not compete at BElmont. Are you saying he does not count as a data pt? WHy not? HE could have won the TC. What if the field for Preakness was only 3 horses? And say Fu Peg won? Obviously the field size of Preakness affected Fu PEg's chances.

ANd it follows, therefore that the field size of Preakness affected the TC chance of every horse that won the derby.

The entire fallacy in the reasoning is not that W-x-W is not a valid data set, it is relevant, the fallacy is in assuming that winning two races is more relevant that winning the derby only. It is not.

THe original post started with the assumption that he would only count those horses that won 2 legs of the TC. What was the reason? The poster does not say, presumably he doesnt want to deal with all the data pts. Then most of us assumed that that made sense as 2 legs are better than one.... But it's really a bad assumption.

To ask the question: HOw does field size affect TC chances? One has to look at those horses won only the derby..I.e. those that only one the first leg. Obviously field size in Preakness affects their chanes for the TC How can you argue that?

Side note: YOu will have to toss out the 1985 series as Spend a BUck did not compete in the second or third legs of the TC.

[miraja2]

In fact, I believe the way to do this that makes the most sense is simply to examine the average field size of all three races for every single year. Then you could identify trends between "TC decades" like the 1940s and the 1970s, and compare them to the last 25 years and see if the data is important.
Here is why: Field size COULD be responsible for preventing a horse from winning the TC even if that horse didn't win the Derby AND didn't compete in all 3 races.
For example, in recent years horses such as Empire Maker and Birdstone did not win the Derby, skipped the Preakness, and then won the Belmont. It is pretty safe to assume however that if those horses had won the Derby, they wouldn't have skipped the Preakness. I am not saying that either of those two lost specifically because of field size, BUT the field size of the Derby in these years is just as important as the field size in the Belmonts from those years that "prevented" Funny Cide and Smarty Jones from winning.
My response to Cajungator26 was based solely on her argument that we should NOT consider horses that won two of the other legs but not the Derby. My argument there was that IF we were limiting the discussion to horses that won 2 out of 3 legs, then it only made sense to consider horses that won any of the 2 legs. If, however, we are not limiting it in that way (which, as easy goer correctly points out, makes the most sense) then I think it only makes sense to always examine the field size of all three races for every year.
I have now officially spent WAY too much time on this thread.