Street Sense to skip Belmont - Page 5

The Indomitable DrugS · #81 05-31-2007, 03:14 PM

Hopefully this defection opens the door for Rags To Riches anyway.

Make no mistake though---everyone from the racing fans to the betting public wanted to see Street Sense run.

King Glorious · #82 05-31-2007, 03:23 PM

As a fan, I sure do. But as a realist, I understand what's going on. I may not like it but I know what the trends have become and I understand the reality. While there is never any guarantee of even the next day, I do think that for the long term, this gives Street Sense a better chance of having a summer/fall campaign than if he had ran. I have no doubt that he COULD run in the Belmont AND have a summer/fall campaign. I also believe that more horses SHOULD do that. But that doesn't change the fact that recently, more and more DON'T. To ignore that and keep saying what horses SHOULD be able to do is not recognizing what is going on.

Mortimer · #83 05-31-2007, 03:25 PM

Who is your favorite horsey...if I may so inquire?

King Glorious · #84 05-31-2007, 03:33 PM

Let me get this straight. U are saying Street Sense could have a 2-1 edge over Curlin in head to heads but Curlin would still win the title because he won a race Street Sense wasn't even in?

ARyan · #85 05-31-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I disagree. I happen to feel that the Travers is a more important race than the Belmont. The Belmont is only really important when a horse is going for the TC. Look at the ratings and attendance difference when there is not a TC on the line. The Travers carries the same purse and grade as the Belmont does. And if I'm not mistaken, it's been around even longer. Plus, it's run during a more prestigious meet at a more prestigious track. Back in the older days, the Belmont had more significance because it was 12f. But in those days, there were other 12f races. I believe the Woodward was 12f and the JCGC was 16f. The Belmont served more of a purpose. U got a chance to see which 3yo's were going to be able to step up past 10f to be able to compete with the top older horses in the fall championship races at Belmont. But that's no longer the case. The 12f of the race have made it irrelevant as far as determining which 3yo's are the best. It's more important to know who's the best at distances that they contest the championship events at. These days, it's more important to know who's the best 10f horse, not 12f. Because of that, the Travers is a more important race to me.

The Travers is the oldest race in North America. Good post.

ARyan · #86 05-31-2007, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardus

There is no debate that the 12 furlongs is an archaic distance. It is still a substantial test and is worthy whether a Triple Crown is on the line or not. Though your remark about the drop off in attendance and ratings is correct, those numbers are sizeably better than the Travers' numbers. Seventy thousand people have shown up for a non-Triple Crown contended Belmont Stakes, and the race gets a few percentage points in the Neilsen ratings. What is the Travers' Neilsen? I tried to access NYRA's Media Guide without success, but I suspect that the Travers -- having been there multiple times -- does not routinely draw in the 70s, if at all.

http://www.nyra.com/Belmont/mediagui...orySection.pdf

Page 5

Not what you were looking for, but it does help out a bit.

tector · #87 05-31-2007, 03:59 PM

As someone attending the race, I had hoped he run. But if it allows Rags in, it would be a worthwhile trade-off. I doubt that will happen, however.

ArlJim78 · #88 05-31-2007, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I disagree. I happen to feel that the Travers is a more important race than the Belmont. The Belmont is only really important when a horse is going for the TC. Look at the ratings and attendance difference when there is not a TC on the line. The Travers carries the same purse and grade as the Belmont does. And if I'm not mistaken, it's been around even longer. Plus, it's run during a more prestigious meet at a more prestigious track. Back in the older days, the Belmont had more significance because it was 12f. But in those days, there were other 12f races. I believe the Woodward was 12f and the JCGC was 16f. The Belmont served more of a purpose. U got a chance to see which 3yo's were going to be able to step up past 10f to be able to compete with the top older horses in the fall championship races at Belmont. But that's no longer the case. The 12f of the race have made it irrelevant as far as determining which 3yo's are the best. It's more important to know who's the best at distances that they contest the championship events at. These days, it's more important to know who's the best 10f horse, not 12f. Because of that, the Travers is a more important race to me.

For a change I am actually in agreement with you. You make some good points here.

saratoga guy · #89 05-31-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Let me get this straight. U are saying Street Sense could have a 2-1 edge over Curlin in head to heads but Curlin would still win the title because he won a race Street Sense wasn't even in?

See: Funny Cide/Empire Maker.

Empire Maker, 2-1 edge over Funny Cide.

Funny Cide 2/3 of Triple Crown... and the Eclipse.

King Glorious · #90 05-31-2007, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARyan

http://www.nyra.com/Belmont/mediagui...orySection.pdf

Page 5

Not what you were looking for, but it does help out a bit.

Good stuff. This shows that the Belmont crowd has been over 70k nine times. Eight of those times was when there was a TC on the line. The only non-TC attempt to draw over 70k was Point Given in 2001.

Looks like the crowd hasn't been over 70k once for the Travers. However, I think u do have to take into consideration the sizes of the two facilities. If Saratoga was as big as Belmont, I'm would be willing to bet that some of those Travers days would have gone over the 70k mark.

Left Bank · #91 05-31-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I disagree. I happen to feel that the Travers is a more important race than the Belmont. The Belmont is only really important when a horse is going for the TC. Look at the ratings and attendance difference when there is not a TC on the line. The Travers carries the same purse and grade as the Belmont does. And if I'm not mistaken, it's been around even longer. Plus, it's run during a more prestigious meet at a more prestigious track. Back in the older days, the Belmont had more significance because it was 12f. But in those days, there were other 12f races. I believe the Woodward was 12f and the JCGC was 16f. The Belmont served more of a purpose. U got a chance to see which 3yo's were going to be able to step up past 10f to be able to compete with the top older horses in the fall championship races at Belmont. But that's no longer the case. The 12f of the race have made it irrelevant as far as determining which 3yo's are the best. It's more important to know who's the best at distances that they contest the championship events at. These days, it's more important to know who's the best 10f horse, not 12f. Because of that, the Travers is a more important race to me.

I think all his owner is thinking is the more grade one's on the resume,the higher the sale price/stud fee.That is all I gather from this defection.I would be shocked if this horse runs as a four year old.

King Glorious · #92 05-31-2007, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

See: Funny Cide/Empire Maker.

Empire Maker, 2-1 edge over Funny Cide.

Funny Cide 2/3 of Triple Crown... and the Eclipse.

The difference here is that Funny Cide won the biggest of the races. Curlin doesn't have that same advantage. If Curlin had won the Derby and Street Sense had won the Preakness.......then Curlin comes back to win the Belmont (minus SS) and SS beats Curlin in the Travers for a 2-1 edge, I think Curlin would get it. But in the scenario I first gave, not only would SS hold the 2-1 egge head to head but he would also have won the biggest of the races. That's what makes it different than FC/Empire Maker although that was a close example.

Danzig · #93 05-31-2007, 04:36 PM

so, since no tc is on the line, should they just cancel? how ridiculous that it only makes sense to run if the tc is on the line. why would anyone other than the derby winner run in the preakness or belmont? just have two walkovers and put the pretender in the record books. whoopie, tc winner #12.

and good question about why they worked him! i don't think this was done in the best interest of the horse, but in the best interests of the horses next career. they didn't see enough to think he could handle 12f and the competition, so sit out...

wow, a seven race career at four. makes bernardini look like old school in comparison.
where's mineshaft when you need him? or medaglia d'oro?!

someone wrote that street sense was all out in the preakness (think in another thread) and that he may need a break--he was not all out, and would have won the thing had he not decided to loaf at the end..

King Glorious · #94 05-31-2007, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardus

Since the Belmont Stakes is not as important as the Travers Stakes -- except when there is an attempt to win the Triple Crown -- then why are Curlin's owners and trainer running him? In light of what you posted earlier, aren't they being foolish to run in the Belmont Stakes and risk the second half of the year?

With less foundation than Street Sense, it would seem that a greater risk is to run Curlin than it is to run Street Sense.

I wonder this myself. I think it's even more of a risk running Curlin than SS.

The thing I want to be clear about is this. I don't think that running in the Belmont means that it necessarily increases a horse's chances of getting hurt afterwards. That's why I've said that I know it's not always for physical reasons why so many horses get knocked out later. I understand that horses like Point Given and Empire Maker were retired as much for economical reasons as physical, if not more. But what happens is that once a horse wins one of these TC races, and especially if they win two, they become so much more valuable that more precaution is taken with things that otherwise would have been seen as minor (thanks Sniper for helping me articulate this better). It's sort of like in other sports. A guy that u are paying $200k to, u might treat him and send him right back out. But if u are looking at someone u've invested $20 million into, u treat him different.

Mortimer · #95 05-31-2007, 04:42 PM

Those tight turns at Pimlico did him in.

He liked the surface at Churchill.

Don't ya just hate that?

Mortimer · #96 05-31-2007, 04:54 PM

someone wrote that street sense was all out in the preakness (think in another thread) and that he may need a break--he was not all out, and would have won the thing had he not decided to loaf at the end..
----------

Oh phooey.

Mortimer · #97 05-31-2007, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mortimerdexterfoxworthy

Those tight turns at Pimlico did him in.

He liked the surface at Churchill.

Don't ya just hate that?

Boy you said it Morty!

OOOOOOOOOO

Your friend,
DaHoss

boswd · #98 05-31-2007, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Danzig, you know you're one of my favorites but I think you are way off here. You are acting as if the horse just retired healthy. He's planning a summer/fall campaign, with a start in the BC. Horses are different, Nafzger is an old school guy and thought it was in his best interest to sit it out and wait for a prep for the Travers. I don't see the big deal.

And these old schoolers remember the days prior to BC when the Travers was almost as and just as prestigous of a race to win.

The Breeders Cup has changed and IMHO ruining the sport.

Cajungator26 · #99 05-31-2007, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justindew

I think the REALLY sad thing is that modern horses aren't tough enough to run in all thre Triple Crown races, take two months off, and then begin a new campaign. By skipping the Belmont, Nafzger is essentially saying, "My horse can't run in the Belmont and still be compeititve two and a half months later in the Travers." That's what is sad.

Has the thought ever occured to you guys that perhaps the horse isn't sound as a dollar and they'd rather not run the risk of permanently injuring him? There's a reason he trains and races in wraps.

The Indomitable DrugS · #**100** 05-31-2007, 05:33 PM

Nafzger ruled out the Belmont in a quote that came from him right after the Preakness was run---I guess he opened the door up a little bit later on---but, the fact the he seemed to make his decision right after the results had been posted kind of makes it harder to buy into any speculation that this horse is only skipping the Belmont because he's not sound.