| Join for Free

Ticker

From DRF (The Inside Post): Mylute will not run in Belmont Stakes 2013. Posted 8 hours ago
Eblouissante breezed 4f :49.17 (18/44) at Belmont (dirt Training) on 5-22. Posted 13 hours ago
Giant Finish will make his next start in Belmont Stakes 2013. Posted 17 hours ago
Unlimited Budget is expected to face males in Belmont Stakes 2013. Posted 2 days ago
Verrazano will make his next start in the Pegasus Stakes at Monmouth on 6-16. Posted 2 days ago
Dreaming of Julia will make her next start in the Mother Goose at Belmont on 6-22. Posted 2 days ago
Game On Dude worked 4f in :50.60 (28/36) at Santa Anita on 5-20. Posted 2 days ago
Overanalyze, breezing for Belmont Stakes 2013, went 4f in :47.50 (3/34) at Belmont (dirt training) on 5-19.Posted 3 days ago
2013 Belmont Stakes hopeful Palace Malice breezed 4f in :47.49 (2/34) at Belmont Park (dirt training) on 5-19. Posted 3 days ago
Coffee Clique romps in the Selene Stakes!Posted 3 days ago

Ride
Little Current
against other champions!

Little Current

1971 - Horse
Deceased
1 fan1

0 favorites0

[Edit]

Owner(s):

Darby Dan Farm

Trainer:

Lou Rondinello

Bred:

Kentucky (USA) by John W. Galbreath - [Add Data]

Pedigree:

Sea-Bird - Luiana by My Babu

Rating:

8.22/10

Profile

Pedigree

Progeny

Siblings

Photos

What the Nation is saying about Little Current...

A Kentucky Derby Field with Just 14 Horses?

The new points system has had enough debate. Let’s take a more radical look at the Kentucky Derby and think about what would change if the maximum field were 14. Read More

Show All 72 Comments
BrianZipse · I know so many that are for the reduction of the Derby field, but this is the first reasoning I have seen predicated on quality control ... very convincing, Matt! · 58 days ago ·

like

3

3
CauseForConcern · From a historical standpoint, this is good reasoning. From a handicapper's viewpoint, I consider this the greatest challenge. To successfully handicap the Kentucky Derby is most rewarding when considering the exotics. The size of the field inflates the pari-mutuel payoffs. And, for a full year, you can brag about how you nailed the Derby. Or, better yet, your acquaintances will tell the tale, and you can gloat the whole way!!!!! · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
rafirox · "And, for a full year, you can brag about how you nailed the Derby." I still brag about hitting Barbaro, lol. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
Dressage3295 · Completely agree with a smaller field. Better chance for the best horse to shine instead of the luckiest. · 58 days ago ·

like

3

3
tcglory · You know what they say dont fix what isint broken! I dont think the field or anything with 20 horses is the problem. I think the new point system will make it ahrder to win a triple crown cause your only gonna see classic type horese in the field. And maybe we just havent seen that next great horse and i mean we have seen good horses but maybe just not one so superior to win it. Trainers are trying there hardest and so are breeders to breed the next champion and trainers are saving as much horse as possible to take all 3 vigrious races. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
AmbitiousD · Very nice article, Matt. These are my 2 conclusions based on your points above. #1 is that I am not for reducing the field size to better the chance of a triple crown winner. Sure, half the TC winners did so against Derby fields of less than 14, but the other half... #2 I agree that "win and you're in" from this year's Sunland Derby may not be the best of the Kentucky Derby field, but with a 800k purse, they would have gotten in under the old conditions as well. I think the point system can be improved by either reducing the value of the 50/100 point races, or increasing the point value of the earlier 3 year old races. Very interesting discussion to have :). · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
rafirox · The 20 horse field is has crushed many triple crown hopes. Point Given? Afleet Alex? I would like a 14 horse field. As a handicapper, I enjoy the challenge of 20 horses, but as a fan I don't like anymore than 12 horses in the gate. 14's ok, though. · 58 days ago ·

like

2

2
Dressage3295 · 14= a huge bonus. Its less likely a horse will run into traffic or that he could be possibly injured during the race. 20 babies running full out on a track is a simple recipe for disaster · 58 days ago ·

like

2

2
likin sparks · A true champion will rise above the rest no matter the field size, when we talk about the quality of horses we have to look at the physical specimen and not what races they are entered or biasing a point system. These are not the quality horses compared to those 20, 30 and 40 years ago these are weaker, chemically tainted and poorly bred so regardless limiting the size of the field will have no bearing. · 58 days ago ·

like

2

2
Dressage3295 · As much as we'd like to think that the best horse with great quality wins every time- it doesn't always happen. Curlin, Native Dancer, Risen Star, etc. Reducing the size of the field would be a bigger advantage I think for the horses that never had a start their 2 yr old year · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
Dressage3295 · As much as we'd like to think that the best horse with great quality wins every time- it doesn't always happen. Curlin, Native Dancer, Risen Star, etc. Reducing the size of the field would be a bigger advantage I think for the horses that never had a start their 2 yr old year · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
darlene · I wish for a field of 14 for quality and for safety · 58 days ago ·

like

2

2
Southern.Humor · treet Sense was very much the best horse at the time of the derby in his crop. Size of field had nothing to do with curlin loosing. That being said, I think a smaller field might be better for the derby, with so many horses, there is always one good one in the crop that has problems occur. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
Dressage3295 · We can't be sure of that. With a smaller field, Hard Spun or Curlin could have been the ones on top · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
ashley.tamulonis · Bravo! I'm convinced. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · If your reason for limiting the Derby field to 14 is to get a triple crown winner, I think you are missing the whole picture. Yes horses have lost the Derby with large fields and have won the Preakness and Belmont because the fields were smaller. However Native Dancer lost the Derby with 11 in the field. Also a number of horses have won the Derby with a large field or a small one and lost the Preakness and won the Derby. That list includes: Twenty Grand 12 Derby lost Preakness and won Belmont, Johnstown 8 in the Derby lost Preakness with 6 and won Belmont, Shut Out won Derby 15 and lost Preakness with 10 and won Belmont, Capot lost The Derby with starters but won both Preakness and Belmont, Needles won the Derby with 17 lost the Preakness but won the Belmont, Tim Tam won the Derby with 14 won the Preakness but lost the Belmont, Carry Back won the Derby with 15 and The Preakness and lost the Belmont, Kaui King won the Derby with 15 won the Preakness and lost Belmont, Canonero II won the Derby with 22 and the Preakness but lost the Belmont, Bold Forbes won the Derby with 8 and the Belmont but lost the Preakness with 6 in the field, Pleasant Colony had 21 in the Derby won the Preakness but lost the Belmont, Damascus lost the Derby with 14 but won the other two, Spectacular Bid won the Derby with 10 and the Preakness but lost the Belmont. And there are more for this list. My point is that limiting the Derby doesn't help you get a Triple Crown winner because horses have won with large fields but lost one of the other Jewels usually the Preakness. Others have had small Derby fields and lost the Belmont or the Preakness. Basically, it takes a lot more than gerrymandering the Derby field to win the TC. You need a great horse. · 58 days ago ·

like

3

3
Buckpasser · Capot lost the Derby to Ponder with 14 but won the other two. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
Cocoa2 · More than half the TC winners had a one starting gate field? More than half the TC field didn't have an electronic starting gate. I don't approve of making the triple crown easier. Horses rise to the challenge, races do not fall to cater to horses · 58 days ago ·

like

1

1
Buckpasser · Quite true Cocoa, the Electronic gate came into being in 1939 but wasn't used at all tracks until 1940. Prior to that you had starting stalls which were open at both ends. Before that for Sir Barton you had a tape barrier or a walk up start. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
CauseForConcern · If the premise is to better insure a possible Triple Crown winner, why not say that no longer can a "fresh" horse be entered in the Preakness, or, more importantly, the Belmont. If a TC winner has to endure three races in five weeks, going the longest distances they've ever encountered, it seems unfair that any horse that hasn't run in the first two legs be allowed to take away the chance of a potential TC winner(i.e. Da Tara or Sarava). · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
Dressage3295 · Personally, I don't want it for an easier TC win. I want it to ensure a better quality/safer field. · 58 days ago ·

like

2

2
Buckpasser · Many horses have won the Derby that if we on quality control would not have competed. Exterminator was only entered because Sun Briar had come up lame. When his trainer suggested to Kilmer that Exterminator be entered in his stead, Kilmer laughed and felt Exterminator had no chance. Needless to say he won and began long and illustrious career on the turf. Sir Barton was entered as a pace maker for his stablemate Billy Kelly and according to biographies of Arnold Rothstein because of a bet he had with Commander Ross the owner of Sir Barton and Billy Kelly. Sir Barton of course won and then went on to win the TC. Canonero II was certainly not the first choice to win and probably wouldn't have been there under quality control. There are many other examples of Derby winners who have been surprise winners but have had good careers on the turf. After all Aristedes wasn't expected to win the first Derby as he was the pacemaker for his good stablemate, Chesapeake. Then you have Morvich who was unbeaten coming into the Derby and was the top two yr old and never won another race after the Derby. IMO limiting the field to 14 doesn't insure a better quality field and neither does limiting it to 19 or 20 or any other number. · 58 days ago ·

like

1

1
rafirox · I didn't say I want it so it would be easier, I just said it has ruined many dreams. The fact that the TC is such a difficult task makes it all the more memorable. Only a champion, for modern day, will be able to win three G1 races in five weeks at three different tracks one at a 10 furlong distance on a quirky track with 20 horses, one at 9.5 with sharp turns, and one at a 12 furlong distance on a sandy track. I love the TC being challenging, but overall I think they should make the limit 14 for quality, but mainly safety. Every derby I am very afraid a animal will get hurt, I literallly think about it the entire race. · 58 days ago ·

like

1

1
amino998 · CfC>>A friend and I were at the Del Mar walking ring the year after Sarava’s Belmont. When he arrived from the receiving barn to run in an allowance race, we looked at each other and said, “THAT’S a Belmont winner???” If you can’t beat a Da Tara or a Sarava, sorry, you’re not Triple Crown worthy. As for eliminating the unworthy from the Derby, I found Mine That Bird’s decisive victory over a weak field more satisfying than a head bobbing finish for the win between those immortals Pioneer of the Nile, Musket Man and Papa Clem. How about 19?>>leave the dangerous and nearly impossible 1 hole empty. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · A smaller field should guarantee a safer outcome, but it doesn't. Horses like Tim Tam, Tanks Prospect, Prairie Bayou etc. pulled up lame or broke down in fields under 14 in the Belmont. Sadly breakdowns and other problems occur regardless of the size of the field. · 58 days ago ·

like

2

2
Buckpasser · Rafirox. The Preakness and the Belmont have actually ruined more TC ambitions collectively than has the Derby. And the Preakness and Belmont fields are usually substantially less than the Derby field. · 58 days ago ·

like

2

2
Buckpasser · My quick count of horses that have won the Derby and Preakness but lost the Belmont combined with those who have won the Derby and Belmont but lost the Preakness is about 33. Andy gives the figure 11 for those that lost the Derby but won the other two Jewell's. · 58 days ago ·

like

1

1
travel_vic · over exertion rearing its ugly head after the overwhelming Derby efforts. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · over exertion rearing its ugly head after the overwhelming Derby efforts. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
buds · How about an extra week between the Preakness and the derby, · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
amdaman · I don't see a problem with the field size. Historically, there's nothing to support that safety be a concern. Regarding quality, I say we first see how the new qualifying system works out. Perhaps Sunland will attract better horses in the future. Maybe raising the nomination fees, as well as the entry and starting fees would discourage anyone with enough pocket change to nominate a dud, or at least encourage owners to make a more realistic evaluation of their horses before entering them in the KD. · 58 days ago ·

like

1

1
LennyGeorge · 14 is not smaller ............ but it would be much much better · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
AndyScoggin · buckpasser--Don't forget that prior to 1931, the Preakness was run before the Derby 11 times. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
DAVIDM9999 · I would prefer an eleite field of 14 rather than a wtaered down field of 20. About half of the horses going in the Derby each year cannot get the distance and are simply ill spotted. One thing a field of 20 does is infalte the odds on the real contenders however I hate to see 7F horses being pushed for 3 additional furlongs. I also think the congestion caused by horses backing up thru the field can be minimized allowing for cleaner trips of the real contenders. A field of 14 won't happen as CD wants the maximum handle and maximum spectacle. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · AndyScoggin. Yes I am well aware of the fact that the Preakness was run before the Derby 11 times. It was also run on the same day at least twice prior to that. I was counting horses after 1931 who actually started in all three races. I started with Twenty Grand who won both Derby and Belmont but finished second to Mate in the Preakness. I threw out horses like Ill have another who didn't start in the Belmont along with 1932 Burgoo King who won the Derby and Preakness but did not start in the Belmont. Also as a small aside merely because the Preakness was held before the Derby doesn't necessarily disqualify it from consideration. It depends on the actual length of time between the two races. Sometimes it was as little as three days sometimes more. Also for the record the Derby was not always run on the first Saturday in May. A couple of renewals, I believe one was Reigh Count's were actually run later in May. I will pull up my program from that Derby and check it out. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · there has not been a Derby field in a very long time with more than about 6 real contenders · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · My entire point in this discussion is that the Derby is unique in its standing in American Turf. Horses that should never have been in there in the first place like Sir Barton, Exterminator, Cananero II have won and have gone on to a great career in many cases. The Derby was a launching pad for that. And in other cases the sure thing has gone down thinking Native Dancer here. Also the top two yr from the year before doesn't always make the grade, thinking of Bold Lad, Successor, Top Knight, Silent Screen etc. etc. to me this the race that keeps thoroughbred ownership alive because everyone can think with that small purchase priced horse, he too could win the Derby. And many of them have. To me it is to paraphrase the movie The Maltese Falcon: "It is the (race) that dreams are made of." Take that illusion away and its just another horse race. Just my opinion. · 57 days ago ·

like

1

1
travel_vic · Canonaro figured and he figured strongly...so did Exterminator...Just because the rank and file did not pick up on quality does not mean they were not up to snuff. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Lisa111 · I agree 100% Buckpasser. The lure and the excitement and everything that goes with 20 horses charging out of that gate is what turns a horse race into a spectacular test of athletisism, skill and will for both the horse and the jockey. The Derby is spectacle, beauty, big hats, My Old Kentucky Home and 20 pumped up horses parading for all to enjoy. Just taking away 6 of them, takes away the magic that is the Derby. And anyone of those six could have excelled that day and taken home the trophy. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
rafirox · Like always, when I debate with Buckpasser, he/she beats me. @Buckpasser, you have changed my opinion 100%, however I still think it might be safer with only 14 horses. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
botsonian · The Road to the Roses fantasy challenge is open only to Americans? WTF?!? · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · Rafirox. Thanks for the compliment. I am a trial lawyer and am used to arguing a position, rightly or wrongly. My point is really that when you try an impose a criterion like "quality" to be able to compete and that somehow limiting a field to 14 or even increasing it to 19 or beyond instills quality, is in my view inaccurate. Because quality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is until the day after the first Saturday in May. Look at the arguments here concerning Shanghai Bobby: can he get a mile and a quarter or not? We will know for sure if he is that gate on that first Saturday in May. Also as to safety, yes less may be better. But Native Dancer was given a horrific ride and · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · There were only 11 in his Derby. You could argue that with a larger field, people are more alert because of potential problems and may be more careful or as careful as they can be. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · TV I agree with you about both Cananero II and Exterminator being up to the mark and people missing that prior to the Derby. After that there wasn't a doubt in the rank and file's mind. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
rafirox · That's accurate. I do agree it is in the eye of the beholder. And perhaps shortening the field won't insure extra quality. I do believe that the trainers and owners might run their horses more often if there was a 14 horse field. The people (jockeys, track crew, gate, etc) are probably much much more careful and aware of potential problems, but the horses? The horses, I am not an expert in animal behavior, are scared, frightened, excited. Just like humans, the Derby's huge for them, and they know it. They know how big a crowd's there, they understand the field size. There, imo, is a logical argument towards both sides. I still would be afraid with safety, but breakdowns can happen in any race. I remember last year Hansen and Prospective clipped heals, and Hansen almost went down. It scared me to death, as with a 20 horse field, that could of caused 3-5 horses to go down. But, again, breakdowns or accident as you said, can happen in any race. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
icyhotboo · I disagree with a lot said here on the basis that limiting a field to twenty, fourteen, eight, or any number isn't the basic problem. From my perspective, that's to far to early to run a 3yo at the 10f distance. I realize the ultimate reasons for running the KD the first Saturday in May is money, as opposed to running it the last Saturday in May. The short summer season is also a big factor. The psychological aspect of having a KD winner can't be overstated. It literally tips the scale of sanity upside down, so as to have both owner and trainer not trying to qualify the horse in their mind on the basis of being ready at that time, but to qualify to run period, regardless of risk to the horse on the basis of maturity. In my mind this early start of the best 3yos, and the scramble to get into the starting gate, is the reason we have so few of these elite, fragile creatures left intact come the fall. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · Icy. Your view is certainly that of Sam Riddle and other owners and trainers who didn't run in the Derby. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
rafirox · I think differently about the reason so many elite, fragile colts and geldings retire too soon, icy. I think half of it is breeding. The fast and early maturing, one and done sires hardly do anything good to the sport. How many old school, 10-12 furlong stallions? How many bring turf excellence? True endurance? Durability? How 'bout all three? Only Dynaformer is what I could think of. We need better breeders. Too many horses are similar. Too much inbreeding. That is why losing Animal Kingdom was a big loss. THIS is why so many are retired early, IMO. Along with training. The training, nowadays, is WORKING to stay fit. Why not run the horses every two weeks and give them a foundation? Oh, they can't because of the breeding. Why must most owners retire their star colt so early? Oh yeah, GREED. It all comes together. We need bigger purses RESTRICTED to older horses. What about a 2 million dollar race for horses only five and up? FORCE trainers and owners to keep their horse around. I think my point is you're saying that injury and the rush to the gate is what is causing all these early retirements, I see differently. I'll Have Another, Union Rags, Creative Cause, etc ALL could have came back for a 4 yo season, but the trainers and owners found the excuse to retire them and make money in the shed. · 57 days ago ·

like

1

1
rafirox · In order to change the sport, we need a fantastic horseman. We have Sheriffs, Mott, and some others. But, we need a breeder like Bradley. An owner like Phipps. A trainer like Jones. THAT'S what we need to change the sport, NOT moving the Derby date. I think, if bred and trained properly, colts and geldings should be able to go 10 furlongs in May. It's been that way for 138 years, why must it be changed now? JMO. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Mike in SB · One result of the 20 horse Derby fields is that the race is no longer the determining race for the 3 year old championship. Most of the Eclipse winning 3 year olds in the last two decades or so since 20 horse fields have become the norm have won the Preakness. The 14 horse Preakness has become the most important 3 year old race to determine champions, even if it is much less popular with the owners and fans than the Derby. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
buds · TV- That was a terrible comment “there has not been a Derby field in a very long time with more than about 6 real contenders.” Let me think…What about last year! There were 12 Graded stakes winner of distances longer than 8.5 furlongs and 11 of those 12 were multiple stakes winners. These horses all had legit chances at winning the derby. Now I didn’t like all 12 horses but they certainly deserved a shot, and 12 is way more than 6! I listed them for you cuz people like to check up on facts on this site so here they are. Ill Have Another 3-G1 wins (2nd G2), Bodemiester 1- G1 win (2nd G1,G1,G2), Dullihan 3-G1 wins (2nd G3), Creative Cause 1-G1 and 2 G2 wins (2nd G1, G1), Union Rags 2-G1 and 2 G2 wins (2nd G1), Hansen 1-G1 win and 2 G3 wins (2nd G1 ,G3), Daddy Nose Best - G3 wins, Optimizer 3-G3 wins (2nd G2,G2), Daddy Long Legs 2-G2 wins, Take Charge Indy 1-G1 win (2nd G1,G3), Gemolgist G1 and G2 wins, and Alpha G1 and G2 wins (2nd G1,G1). · 57 days ago ·

like

3

3
icyhotboo · "It's been that way for 138 years, why must it be changed now?" It should be changed now because in actuality prior to 1931 when the term "Triple Crown" was first used the Kentucky Derby was run in mid may, not the first Saturday in May. The change was so that a specific order could be established. It seems to me it's an error that needs to be corrected for the reason's stated prior. How about the preakness being run in mid May at 9 furlongs, followed by the KD on the first Saturday in June, followed by the Bemont 3 weeks later.I don't believe this time change and the loss of 1/16 of a mile will dull the lustre of any future triple crown winner. If so add the extra 1/16 on the the Belmont which will be held the end of June when most are more mature. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
buds · The field size will not change; I hear a lot of people talking about quality of horses. The quality has nothing to do with it, it’s all about money. This is why some races have more points than others. I bet if it benefited Churchill downs, we would see the Illinois Derby be worth a few points. It’s not a coincidence that the wild card races are at the tracks that they are. Its all about money. If sports were about quality, we would have an NFL with only 20 teams cuz we only have 20 good quarter backs! I’m still surprised that horses are not filled with ads like NASCAR as they run around the track! (UPS woulda been all over Big Brown)LOL · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
icyhotboo · buds, I agree with you. When talking about quality that hasn't changed either. Since 1950 the median time for he KD is 2:02.0, and the percentage of injuries is close to the same as back in the 60, and 70s. · 57 days ago ·

like

1

1
Mary Z. · I say don't mess with The Derby. If there's a lack of class, meaning the owners, not just the horses, maybe a street sweeper to clear the junk would help. · 57 days ago ·

like

1

1
Buckpasser · Just for the record, the Derby prior to 1931 was run 13 or 15 times on the first Saturday in May ( I included Paul Jones and Regret's Derby because of possible leap year issue since they ran May 8th respectively). There was also one time in 1901 when His Eminence won and the race was held on April 29th. Also it should be noted that the Derby was run initially at 1 1/2 miles to emulate the Ascot Derby. The present distance came about in 1896 I believe. All of this information came from the Derby Media Guide. · 57 days ago ·

like

1

1
Buckpasser · One final point, many times when the Derby was run later in May had more to do with the opening of the meet at Churchill Downs. This came from the Derby media Guide and also was stated in Matt Winn's autobiography Down the Stretch. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
cocoa2 · 1896 was also the year the first roses were draped over the winner · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · Cocoa2. Thanks for info. Didn't know that. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · just because a three year old wins some extended sprint at graded stakes does NOT mean it has the maturity distance and weight carrying potential of 10 furlong the first week in May of its three year old season. THIS SEASON two, I'll bet there will not be more than 6 real contenders. · 57 days ago ·

like

2

2
cocoa2 · travel_vic's absolute comments beginning to fall apart, as par usual · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
illhaveanothertriplecrown · i like the 20 horse race. more exciting · 57 days ago ·

like

1

1
Lisa111 · I agree with Mary Z. Don't mess with The Derby. Would 12 horses at four year olds be a solution to all that is wrong with a coveted race that has been an American Tradition for well over a century??!! All of the horses that make the gate are contenders and they got there by winning Graded Stakes against EACH OTHER. It is the single race of the year where the "common folk" tune in to see this sport because of this tradition. Mess with it and it falls. · 57 days ago ·

like

4

4
yoshi.haiwa · I could live with 16, but anymore than that is too problematic. I watch the Derby every year but I'm not dumb enough to bet on that big a field. The winning horse is more likely to be just plain lucky, unless he/she is a superhorse, not the best in the field. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · With these huge fields, I have, quite frankly, been ready to see a horrible accident as that thunderous mass runs by the stands the first time. So many colts get pinched back (with it being all over for them early) right at the start never to recover. Lookin at Lucky is one of many that readily comes to mind.......Give the field some room. and I agree and have always said, this race is 50% talent and 50% luck to negotiate to the wire in front. · 56 days ago ·

like

1

1
teuflesburg · The Kentucky Derby should be the best of the best. Horses should have to win several races against other quality horses to have the opportunity to make it to the big dance. Maybe horses should have to earn their way into each leg of a Derby prep race? For example: The horses who make the Florida Derby have to have won or placed in a lower level Derby prep. Then the top two from each of the seven 100 point races make it to the Derby. · 56 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · As long as money and influence trade hands, there will be also rans in the field · 56 days ago ·

like

1

1
ismalli · It is without any doubt The Kentucky Derby Fiekl is too large; yet, as with other sports, we could go 2 Race Format three weeks prior, and the top 14 Race May4th · 56 days ago ·

like

0

0
Zenyatta-Perfection Personified · Absolutely. The BC has only 14 horse races, as do the other TC races. The 20 horse field doesn't allow a real horse race to take place, with so many horses taken out of contention by the big field. · 56 days ago ·

like

1

1
AndyScoggin · I want to thank everyone for the great comments and discussion. I really do believe that the Derby field should be 14! · 56 days ago ·

like

1

1
icyhotboo · "He doesn't necessarily have to win Saturday to go to the (Kentucky) Derby, but he has to run the right kind of race. If he doesn't, we won't go. I want the horse to take me there." McGaughey/ If more owner trainers let the horse guide them, they wouldn't have to set a 20 horse limit, because about half of them in a 20 horse field aren't ready or are strictly sprinters that clog up the field at some point and foul it up for others when they rapidly fall back. · 56 days ago ·

like

1

1
icyhotboo · I know this is said almost every year, but this year there does seem to be many quality horses. · 56 days ago ·

like

0

0