winning a stake at age 2 for Derby contenders

[stancaris]

To All: Since 8 of the last 15 Kentucky Derbies were won by horses that never won a stake race at age 2 it seems logical to do away with that criteria for a Derby contender. The Derby winners since 1998 that did NOT win a stake race at age 2 were: Charismatic, Fusaichi Pegasus, Monarchos, War Emblem, Giacomo, Big Brown, Animal Kingdom, and I'll Have Another.

Since more than half the recent Derby winners did not win a stake race at age 2 and 5 of these Derby winners did not even run in a stake race at age 2 handicappers can no longer toss a horse simply because it has not won a stake race at age 2.

The days where the dual qualifier captured the roses year after year from 1972-1987 are long gone and the new wave Derby winner often does not even run in a graded stake race at age 2 (10 of the last 15 winners did not even run in a graded stake race at age 2).

[madelyn]

You're a day late and a dollar short... with the new point system, a horse could start at 3 and still get in the Derby.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/h ... 55591322/1

It is no longer based on earnings, and there is no requirement to run at 2.

[stancaris]

Madelyn: You missed my point. In my post above my main point was that history tells us that horses need not run in a stake race at age 2 to win the Derby and that horses need not win a stake race at age 2 to win the Derby. 8 of the last 15 Derby winners did not win a stake race at age 2 and 5 of the last 15 winners did not even run in a stake race at age 2. My post above has nothing to do with the new point system that was set up for entering the Derby starting gate but rather just shows how trainers and owners are keeping their elite runners away from stake races at age 2 over the last 15 years. That is decidedly a new trend as compared to the previous years when dual qualifiers won the roses year after year.

[TJ]

Madelyn: You missed my point. In my post above my main point was that history tells us that horses need not run in a stake race at age 2 to win the Derby and that horses need not win a stake race at age 2 to win the Derby. 8 of the last 15 Derby winners did not win a stake race at age 2 and 5 of the last 15 winners did not even run in a stake race at age 2. My post above has nothing to do with the new point system that was set up for entering the Derby starting gate but rather just shows how trainers and owners are keeping their elite runners away from stake races at age 2 over the last 15 years. That is decidedly a new trend as compared to the previous years when dual qualifiers won the roses year after year.

Hi Stan,
I've never known that to be a criteria for x'ing out Derby prospects....but what was and still is a very important criteria...is that a Derby contender must have at least one race under his/her belt as a 2YO. Bodemeister was the most recent attempt to buck that criteria....he tried hard....but no cigar. In the history of the Derby, only one horse won the Derby who didn't race as a two year old. That being Apollo in 1882. TJ

[zinn21]

I would like to see one of the major players go old school and start a bunch of them in the summer and shut them down after Saratoga then point for the Derby..

[stancaris]

TJ: 19 of the 20 starters last year had at least one race at age 2
18 of the 19 starters in 2011 had at least one race at age 2
20 of the 20 starters in 2010 had at least one race at age 2.

Statistically there is no advantage in having one or more races at age 2 because based on the data above 96.6% of the Derby starters over the last 3 years qualified on the critieria of at least one race or more at age 2.

[stancaris]

TJ: I might be wrong with this assessment but in my opinion Curlin did NOT lose the Derby in 2007 because he did not race as a 2 year old. He lost the Derby because he had to steady in the first furlong of the race dropped back to 14th position at the six furlong call and was five wide when he made a bold move passing 17 horses and finishing third behind Street Sense and Hard Spun. The 20 horse field caused his defeat; not the lack of experience as a 2 year old.

Although he was beaten in the Derby by around 8 lengths he came back two weeks later to defeat Street Sense in the Preakness in a much smaller field of 9 runners.

Many cappers will say that being unraced at age 2 caused Curlin's defeat in the Derby but I am not in agreement with this view. I believe it was the size of the field and the fact he had to steady early and drop back to 14th position as he passed the six furlong point of the race.

[Barcaldine]

Interesting points, Stan.

When I was growing up in the 60's it was common for most major racetracks to offer very strong stakes programs for two year olds. Hollywood Park, for example, carded at least 10 baby stakes during their May-July meet. Maiden, allowance and claiming races for 2yo's were usually held at least once a day, often times twice or more. Del Mar was equally aggressive in its baby program. The best performed horses from these two meets would often head to Chicago or New York for the big stakes races there, since no major tracks were open in California from Sep thru Christmas.

This same phenomenom was basically mirrored in the Midwest and East. Two year olds were running in stakes races from April through December, mostly at sprint distances.

This trend began to unravel in the 1970's and has continued on a linear slide through today. Hollywood Park, even with a longer meet, offers only three or four baby stakes. Del Mar is down, too. In fact most tracks simply dont push the two year olds anywhere near the levels of 40 years ago, with the exception of Calder.

So why has this happened? Are horses softer nowadays? Do 2yo sales push babies so hard they need to be rehabilitated before racing? Or are owners recognizing that the real money is in distance races, as older horses? Or something else?

[stancaris]

Barcaldine: Those runners from the 60s and 70s were much more durable than the modern thoroughbred of recent times. By way of example a typical Derby winner from the 60s would make his first start as a 2 year old in the spring of the year and even as early on as April. Here are some examples:

Carry Back in 1960 as a 2 year old raced 21 times and had 28 lifetime starts when he entered the Derby starting gate in 1961 and won the roses as the 5-2 favorite. Todays runners make around 4 starts and then compete in the Derby.

Decidedly the 1962 ran 8 times at age 2 and 4 times at age 3 before Derby day. He won the roses after 12 starts

Northern Dancer made 9 starts at 2 and 8 more at age 3 before winning the roses in 1964 after racing 17 times.

Dancers Image had 22 starts before running in the Derby of 1968. He won but was later disqualified for being under the influence of Bute.

Riva Ridge made 12 starts before Derby day and won the roses in 1972

Sec made 9 starts at age 2 and then 3 more at age 3 before starting on his Triple Crown of excellence.

Derby winners Foolish Pleasure had 11 starts and Bold Forbes 13 starts before winning the roses at age 3.

Triple Crown winner Affirmed had 9 starts at age 2 and 4 at age 3 before winning the roses after runnning 17 times.

Spectacular Bid ran 14 times before Derby day.

By comparison look at the last 5 Derby winners:

I'll Have Another a total of 5 starts before winning the roses
Animal Kingdom a total of 4 starts before winning the roses
Super Saver a total of 6 starts before winning the roses
Mine That Bird a total of 8 starts before winning the roses
Big Brown a rousing total of 3 races before winning the roses

Thoroughbreds of today are less durable than their ancestors of 40 years ago or They are being babied and pampered a lot more with hopes of wearing the roses and insuring a big stud fee at the age of 3.

Maybe todays colts are more fragile than their ancestors of the 60s

Back in the 60s approximately 85% of all horses were Nonphalaris/ Nonphalaris types. Maybe that has something to do with it. Today approximately 85% of all runners are Phalaris/Phalaris. The transition from Nonphalaris types to the Northern Dancer, Turn To, Nasrullah and Raise A Native lines (all of which carry the Phalaris sire line) could be responsible to some degree for a weakening of the breed or at least making the breed less capable of running a substantial number of times. Interestingly, Nasrullah is a Brilliant chef, Raise A Native is a Brilliant chef, Northern Dancer is a B/C chef and Turn To was a Brilliant chef if I remember correctly. These stallions are all transmitters of speed if they even carry the B/C designation and they all go back to Phalaris.

Dr. Fager did NOT even have one strain of Phalaris in his pedigree and he was a horse of great speed and stamina. He tied the 10 furlong track record in New York under 132 pounds in the Suburban Handicap and was one tick away from the record while carrying 135 pounds while losing to Damascus who had 130 pounds in the Brooklyn Handicap. He still owns the 1 mile track record in 132 1/5 seconds over a dirt track at Arlington Park. BUT NOT A SINGLE LINE TO PHALARIS IN HIS PEDIGREE. OH! FOR THE GOOD OLD DAYS When Kelso, Forego, Native Dancer, Dr. Fager, Damascus, Affirmed and Secretariat made racing a golden era.

[bayrabicano]

Wow. I think this is the best post ever. You're so right, those were the days!

Dr. Fager did NOT even have one strain of Phalaris in his pedigree and he was a horse of great speed and stamina. He tied the 10 furlong track record in New York under 132 pounds in the Suburban Handicap and was one tick away from the record while carrying 135 pounds while losing to Damascus who had 130 pounds in the Brooklyn Handicap. He still owns the 1 mile track record in 132 1/5 seconds over a dirt track at Arlington Park. BUT NOT A SINGLE LINE TO PHALARIS IN HIS PEDIGREE. OH! FOR THE GOOD OLD DAYS When Kelso, Forego, Native Dancer, Dr. Fager, Damascus, Affirmed and Secretariat made racing a golden era.

And, his half sister Ta Wee won the interborough handicap in 1970 with 142 pounds against the boys.

Then, had four stakes winners, one being Great Above.

[kimberley mine]

This same phenomenom was basically mirrored in the Midwest and East. Two year olds were running in stakes races from April through December, mostly at sprint distances.

This trend began to unravel in the 1970's and has continued on a linear slide through today. Hollywood Park, even with a longer meet, offers only three or four baby stakes. Del Mar is down, too. In fact most tracks simply dont push the two year olds anywhere near the levels of 40 years ago, with the exception of Calder.

So why has this happened? Are horses softer nowadays? Do 2yo sales push babies so hard they need to be rehabilitated before racing? Or are owners recognizing that the real money is in distance races, as older horses? Or something else?

There was a change in training mindset, that racing babies often was to their detriment. We now have peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary: that running babies starting in 2f races and moving up, as well as training at 2 with things like the maryland shin program, leads to sounder racehorses with longer careers in aggregate.

With a change of training mindset, and a change in the economics and demographic of racing (aka there are no races for stayers because there are no races for stayers), there was a change of training methods. We have plenty of evidence that horses with the same genetics, same parents, and sometimes even born in the US and exported to Australia, Chile, Argentina, or Puerto Rico, run as often as horses in the 1970s did. For that matter, if you look at smaller tracks, look for the trainers who own their horses, and for whom those horses are how they eat and sleep indoors. You'll typically find that they run every 2-3 weeks or so, at a level where they make money.

I personally think that 2yo breezeup sales have been adapted to fill the same niche as the 2f baby races, only without the actual race experience, and that is to the horses' detriment.

[stancaris]

Kimberly: I agree with you that some horses with the same genetics can run often in other countries but by and large the majority of todays population of runners in America do NOT make nearly the same number of starts that runners in the 1960s and 1970s did. There is evidence supporting this claim from statistics compiled by the Daily Racing Form and Blood Horse Magazine. The average number of starts for horses in the 1960s was much higher than the average for the breed in 2012.

[Barcaldine]

Kimberly,

The 2yo sales companies would like you to believe that early racing for babies is a good thing. But tell me this---when was the last time you saw ANY horse which had started as an early two year old still running at age four? You can't. They dont exist. Today's horses are too fragile, their trainers too speed crazy, and their bloodlines too unsound to allow them to continue racing after competing in these early speedfests.

Two year old racing should be reserved for the last three months of the year. We would have a much sounder horse population.