The Belmont Stakes (G1), third jewel of America's Triple Crown, has always been something of an anomaly in American racing-at least since the invention of the Futurity Stakes in 1888 changed the character of the sport in the United States. Proctor Knott earned $40,900 for defeating the brilliant Salvator in that first Futurity, almost 12 times the amount champion Sir Dixon won for defeating his lone rival Prince Royal in that year's Belmont.

The Futurity remained the most valuable race in America for many years, and its value-and the value of many other copycat races for two-year-olds-shifted the emphasis of American racing toward more precocious, speedy animals with little hope of winning over the traditional classic distance of 1 1/2 miles. Not until 1956 when Needles won the Belmont did the value of the classic surpass that of the juvenile sprint.

Still, the Belmont remained "the test of champions" throughout most of the 20th century, its honor roll including many of the all-time greats of American racing such as Man o' War, Gallant Fox, War Admiral, Count Fleet, Citation, Native Dancer, Nashua, Damascus, Secretariat, Seattle Slew, and Affirmed. The almost uniform success at stud of those great racehorses also made the Belmont the race many breeders most wanted to win.

Since the Jockey Club Gold Cup (G1) was reduced in distance from two miles to 1 1/2 miles in 1976 and then was shortened again to 1 1/4 miles in 1990, the Belmont has been left out on its own as North America's only Grade 1 dirt race at 1 1/2 miles or more for males on dirt. Only the similarly anomalous Coaching Club American Oaks (G1) for three-year-old fillies was run at that distance on dirt in 2000.

Such isolation tends to be viewed either as splendid or anachronistic, depending on one's mindset. Even Claiborne Farm President Seth Hancock, an avowed traditionalist whose family has bred four Belmont winners and has stood 12 of them at Claiborne, acknowledged the race's changed status at a Kentucky Thoroughbred Farm Managers' Club meeting on March 6.

"The physical type of horses that are only equipped to win the Belmont Stakes kind of got left in the dust," Hancock said.

At the same meeting, Overbrook Farm adviser Ric Waldman pinpointed the real cause of the Belmont's declining prestige. "We as a group-breeders-are poor custodians of the breed," Waldman said. "We have been suckered by brilliant, unsound horses and have embraced these horses enthusiastically. Their unsoundness in bone and wind has been proven to be passed on to subsequent generations. But we're so dictated to by the commercial market. We can't lose sight of that. This is a balance-sheet business."

Second thoughts

Neither Hancock nor Waldman is particularly happy about the situation but cannot avoid the conclusions forced by the marketplace.

"It's inevitable. I don't particularly like it, but it's inevitable," Hancock said. "Since it became less of a sport and more of a business, people may talk about supporting distance races. But when it comes time to put their money where their mouth is, they breed to sons of Forty Niner or Storm Cat that are going to get them the flashy yearling or the horse that can work an eighth in ten (seconds) at a two-year-old(s-in-training) sale.

"Belmont winners aren't as likely to do that for you. From breeders to trainers, right on down the line, that's not the easy way (breeding or training distance horses), and, anymore, that's all people want to do, the easy way. It's not as much fun as it used to be."

"It's hard to say whether it's good or bad," Waldman said. "It's not ideal. I'd rather it be back to where it was 30 to 40 years ago. But the situation is what it is. It hasn't happened by accident. We've embraced the brilliant, speedy, sometimes unsound stallions and ceased importing outcross stamina influences.

"If you look at the European influences on our breed over the last half-century, *Ribot, *Nasrullah, and *Princequillo stand out. *Ribot was thrown into our breed in the early 1960s, and what have we had since then that was like anything as important? By the '70s, we were exporting rather than importing.

"If I owned the breed, certainly I would do some of that, importing sound, stamina-filled European blood, but from a market perspective, it would be suicidal for any one individual to take on that task."

Differing opinions

Other industry insiders have varying views of the Belmont's place in the modern context.

"The Belmont should stay where it is (in distance) because it's the last true classic we've got," said Plum Lane Farm owner Henry White, who helped raise Belmont winners Quadrangle (1964) and Arts and Letters (1969) for the late Paul Mellon. "We've had a few absolute plodders win it, but we've also had a lot of speed horses win it. We've gotten rid of so many other things-horses don't carry weight any more. We should leave the Belmont alone."

Younger horsemen such as Florida-based agent J. B. McKathan are more grounded in the current commercial reality. "Nobody breeds a horse to go 1 1/2 miles anymore," McKathan said. "It would be foolish to do it because there are no opportunities and no market. It's a dangerous operation to try to breed a horse to go that far because you could end up with just a really slow horse, a steeplechase horse. Speed rules the game these days.

"To me personally, those marathon races have never been that interesting as a fan, because of the lack of brilliance of those horses. But I love the (Kentucky) Derby (G1) distance, because it separates horses. That last eighth of a mile really separates that true classic horse. It's only an eighth, but it might as well be two miles.

"When you add another quarter-mile, I don't think that really separates horses any further. The 1 1/4-mile race now, the way the breed is, separates horses more, lets you know who the elite horses are. The horse that's tough at 1 1/4 miles is going to be hard to beat at 1 1/2 miles as well. The really elite horse is going to be hard to beat at any distance, regardless whether it's five furlongs or two miles."

McKathan and his brother, Kevin, in concert with trainer Bob Baffert, have bought two Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes (G1) winners, Silver Charm and Real Quiet, for clients, but both were beaten in the Belmont, a race McKathan called elusive.

"The commercial market has had as much to do with shortening up the breed as anything," he said. "You have to get two-year-old winners to make your sire popular. You have to have speed mares to make your sire get two-year-old winners. It's kind of a vicious circle. For us (as buying agents), we have to deal with what the market presents. We're not out to change the world.

"I think the Derby will keep it legit, because it's still the ultimate prize. That's why the Derby is so important. It's important that people keep trying to breed that horse."

Reality

Another reason the Belmont has lost cachet over the last two decades is the firmly held belief in the commercial breeding industry that Belmont winners do not make good sires. With the relentless emphasis on precocious speed, Belmont winners are generally seen as plodders-particularly if, as Hancock pointed out, that was the only race of significance they won.

Winners of either the Kentucky Derby or Preakness, important mile races such as the Metropolitan Handicap (G1), or precocious Grade 1-winning juveniles-regardless of later accomplishments or lack thereof-are almost universally perceived as better prospects. As a result, such shorter-running-and shorter-bred-horses inevitably receive far better opportunities at stud than Belmont winners.

Given that context, the figures in Table 1 may come as a considerable surprise to those in the commercial breeding industry. Table 1 summarizes the sire careers of the last ten winner