Talk:Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing

message: I'm new to horse racing all together (as of today) and there is something I don't understand. I saw in the news today that the Preakness has announced odds and is taking bets on the 2006 race. Neither the Kentucky Derby nor the Belmont Stakes seem to yet be open to betting. All 3 of the websites: Kentucky Derby, Preakness, and Belmont Stakes prominently display information that seems to be from before the 2005 races. The question is, when does betting generally open for the three races? (This information may be more suitable to the individual races' pages, but I thought the question should go here.) -- Pojo 22:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Betting Schedule (USA) 

message: What are the events of the "Canadian Triple Crown" of horse racing? What horses won them?  Trekphiler 21:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Triplets

message: In 2008 Avnet has the chance to win the "Triple crown of Connectors".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.9.138.11 (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triple Crown of Connectors 

message: Seattle Slew won the Triple Crown in 1977 but appears to have been ommitted in the American Triple Crown winners grid. He is the only undefeated Triple Crown winner. Seattle Slew was foaled at Ben Castleman's White Horse Acres Farm near Lexington, Kentucky. Owned by Mickey and Karen Taylor. Trainer was Billy Turner. Jockey was Jean Cruguet.Jopirro (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omitted Triple Crown winner 

message: The respective articles show that the Preakness is the shortest of these three races at a mile and three sixteenths, and the Belmont the longest at a mile and a half.  Thirty-five years ago, when Secretariat brought the subject vividly to attention, I read that in the early twentieth century the races were run from shortest to longest, but then it got screwed up, and has remained so ever since.  Does anyone have the date and possibly even the reason for the change? J S Ayer (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They've been the same since 1931. Prior to that, the Triple Crown wasn't actually a "thing". (Which makes Sir Barton's feat all the more impressive - he won the Preakness on 3 days rest...if you consider travel from Kentucky to Maryland rest). In 1917 and 1920, they were run on the same day. There were 11 Preaknesses before the Derby. In 1890, the Belmont and the Preakness were run on the same card as the same track. Gallant Fox actually won the Preakness before the Derby. The actual Triple Crown wasn't really formally a "thing" until around 1935. --SmashvilleBONK! 07:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lengths of the Races 

message: The also ran section is very Big Brown heavy. Considering he's the umpteenth horse to win the first two and not the third, several other horses also had a chance to win it undefeated and didn't, and actually was the least close of any horse going for it, I don't get why there is so much emphasis on him other than recentism. --SmashvilleBONK! 13:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recentism 

message: How on Earth can there be an Australian Triple Crown without the Melbourne Cup in it? I'd like to see a source for this. Comes.amanuensis (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Triple Crown races are set weight races for 2 or 3 year old horses. The Cup is an open handicap for qualifying horses.Cgoodwin (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Triple Crown 

message: There's a lot of unreferenced stuff in here, especially with regard to South and Central America. I'm going to delete it all unless we get some sources.  Tigerboy1966  18:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: refed Uruguay (easy thanks to Invasor), Dominican Rep (source is not strictly independent, but...), Macau and Argentina.  Tigerboy1966  10:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to swing the axe

message: Quoting the article:
"Thus far, only eight fillies have won the original New York Triple Tiara"
- "Thus far" suggests there may be more winners in future.  But the original configuration is no longer in effect making it very unlikely there will be more winners of the original.  "Thus far" is inappropriate IMO.
- "only" suggests that eight is not very many.  But it is a lot more than won the other triple crowns that have been mentioned above, in the same time period. "Only" is also inappropriate.
How about this?
"Eight fillies won the original New York Triple Tiara."
Wanderer57 (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds absolutely fine to me.  Tigerboy1966  13:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thus phar? 

message: Removed this "Winning a Triple Crown has become a very rare achievement, as most horses nowadays specialize in a limited range of distances; it has only been achieved three times since 1948 (and none since 1978)." from lede. It should say "Winning the United States Triple Crown...": the facts are already there in that section.  Tigerboy1966  10:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede

message: Do we have a general agreement here that to count as a "failed" Triple Crown bid, a horse has to actually run and be beaten in a third leg race? I'll Have Another's non-run in the 2012 has been listed again - surely you can't all a non-appearance a failure? If you could you'd potentially allow nonsensical situations like Sea The Stars having a "failed" bid by not being entered in the St. Leger! I'd say we admit only those instances where a Triple Crown aspirant has started in the third leg. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to include them it's ok, but they should be in a separate list: something like "In addition, the following horses won the first two legs of the Triple Crown but did not run in the third:". Tigerboy1966  08:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just fine. ~ DyNama (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed Triple Crown bids 

message: Due to the fact that almost every country with horse racing has some version of a Triple Crown and each currently gets its own section, the page has become somewhat cumbersome. Additionally, there is a great amount of variability in how each section is written and organized. I propose condensing certain sections and standardizing the sections. Part 1 countries would probably be best served in having their own sections as is, but less important countries could become sub-headings under a different section (perhaps organized by region; e.g. 'Other European Triple Crowns', 'Other Latin American Triple Crowns', etc.). The last few sections regarding undefeated winners, jockey records, etc. could also be condensed into sub-headings under a 'Records' or 'Notable Achievements' section. There is a good argument to be made for the UK and US Triple Crowns to have unique formatting with additional information due to both the importance and history of their individual Triple Crowns as well as the importance of those countries on the international level, but for the rest, some sort of standardized way of listing races, winners, and additional information would produce a more polished page. Almost every section has its own formatting, including variation on info about the races (distance, surface, location, translation/equivalency, etc.), presence of wikilinks, denotation of filly winners of open races, locations of citations, and info about winners (connections, pedigree, table or list format, presence of country codes, etc.).
Personally, as regards formatting, I think it would advantageous to list distance, surface, and racetrack for races as those are fairly basic encyclopedic facts, and that wikilinks to races that are not internationally recognized as blacktype are extraneous as the pages are unlikely to be made and considered of sufficient notability, with the same going for winners of those races. TabbyLadrona (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization and Standardization