Anachronism or necessity?

The 1 1/2-mile Belmont Stakes stands alone as a test of stamina in American dirt racing

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 winners of the Kentucky Derby, Preakness, and Belmont (excluding geldings, fillies, and horses that never went to stud, such as deceased Swale) whose youngest foals are at least five years old. The data in Table 1 are most startling for their similarity. The basic markers of sire success, percentage of starters, percentage of winners, and number of stakes winners are almost identical for winners of the three races.

Comparative figures for the two most important measures of quality of progeny show a surprising disparity, however. The last ten winners of the Belmont with sufficiently mature foals to judge their careers have sired a marginally higher percentage of stakes winners and a significantly higher percentage of graded winners than winners of the Derby and Preakness that meet the same criteria.

Tables 2-4 present the data on the individual horses that make up the data summarized in Table 1. Belmont winners Go and Go (Ire), Bet Twice, Danzig Connection, Risen Star, and Colonial Affair can be clearly marked as failures. A.P. Indy, Easy Goer, Caveat, Conquistador Cielo, and Hansel, just as clearly cannot be termed failures, according to the statistics in Table 4.

Of those five, only A.P. Indy can be considered a real commercial success, with Conquistador Cielo and the short-lived Easy Goer marginally successful in that sphere. Caveat stood in Maryland and made no commercial impact despite his quality, while Hansel was quickly judged a commercial failure and abandoned by the breeding industry despite statistical success.

Of the Belmont winners who were failures as stallions, only Go and Go could truly be said never to have won another significant race, but neither Risen Star nor Colonial Affair was precocious enough to qualify as a commercially attractive prospect. Bet Twice and Danzig Connection were both precocious juveniles who also won other important races and still failed at stud.

The miler myth

Instead of Belmont winners or even Kentucky Derby winners, the racehorse of choice for stud masters for the last 15 years or so has been the brilliant miler. The race chosen by commercial breeders as the prototypical race they would like to see their stud prospect win is the Metropolitan Handicap, the most prestigious mile race on dirt in the U.S.

As shown in Table 5, the last ten winners of the Met Mile, chosen by the same criteria as for the Triple Crown races, have produced statistics about in the middle of the range covered by winners of the Derby, Preakness, and Belmont.

Overall averages (which do not include 1993 winner Ibero [Arg] because he stood his entire career in Argentina) are almost identical to those produced by Preakness winners and slightly below those of Belmont winners. It is notable that only one of the ten Met winners, dual winner Gulch, is an unqualified commercial success, with the jury still out on Holy Bull.

Facts, of course, seldom get in the way of the hype-driven commercial breeding industry. The fact that Belmont winners still do as well as or better than Kentucky Derby winners or Met Mile winners at stud is unlikely to sway commercial breeders to send more mares to winners of America's longest classic.

"The only importance that I can see for a true distance race to the breeding industry," Waldman said, "is that if a horse has demonstrated all the racing tools to be an attractive prospect-precocity, speed, two-year-old form and ability to carry on at three-then this further punctuates his versatility, if he can win the Derby and then the Belmont.

"The one stallion that has seemed so prototypical to me is Seattle Slew. He possessed all those racing tools. It's rare that that happens. It's rare that a horse demonstrates the precocity and brilliance and then can be dominant in the Triple Crown races.

"Someone's going to win the Belmont and it may be that prototypical speedy, precocious horse," Waldman said. "But is anyone going to decimate his field impressively like Secretariat did? I don't see it happening, but I can't wait for it to happen."

"Some say even the Derby is too long for that time of year. Both those races need to remain where they are. The worst that could happen to the breed would be to shorten the distances in keeping with the commercial trend. We've done too much of that already."