according to the book i'm now reading by dorothy ours, about man o war, he was part of the fifth smallest foal crop registered.
but i think ID is too hung up on the size of the foal crop. i just got thru to the end of MOW's two year old season, in which he carried 130 earlier than any horse to date, more than once at that!, winning his races geared down and still either tying, nearing, or breaking records. those he faced also set down fast times. matter of fact, upset beat the record when he beat man o war, and considering that man o war was left at the start--well, you do the math! what he ran that race in is mindboggling--esp considering he was still only two.

First, to the original subject and maidens winning the Derby: Today it'd be all but impossible unless the maiden had a lot of high quality seconds in graded stakes because you need to be in the top 20 in graded stakes earnings to even qualify to run in the Kentucky Derby.

Now, for the real joke of the thread where people actually are performing revisionist history on Man O'War's career and status as the greatest racehorse in history. Sure a case can be made for either Secretariat, Citation, Native Dancer of even Kelso. But to call Man O'War massively overrated or way overrated and any part overrated is just comical at best and incredibily ignorant at worst. He lost one race in his career, set track and world records for speed, beat a Triple Crown winner straight up in a match race, and then turned into perhaps the greatest sire of all time. Any chance that those of you who think that Man O'War is overrated are part of the Babe Ruth is overrated, Bobby Jones is overrated, and Muhammad Ali is overrated fan club?

i think it's only one poster who says he's overrated, first time i've ever seen MOW called that. i've seen him lower than #1 on peoples all time list, but he's always on the list!!

Yes----because turf writers are lazy and massively incompetent.

He was from the 2nd smallest foal crop of the 1900's---not the 5th.

The smallest foal crop of the 1900's featured only 15 fewer horses. The best of that crop was Morvich--who went into the Kentucky Derby with an 11-for-11 record--and won the Kentucky Derby to go 12-for-12.

Morvich was said to be a very ugly looking Cal bred....and he almost certainly wasn't that much horse inspite of his record.

In context to him being rated the #1 horse of the 1900's, of course he's massively overrated, and anyone who can't see that is a complete fool. It's pretty obvious.

how fortunate for you that you're so enlightened...

I know.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time---and I obviously have no reason to bash a horse who was racing when my Grandpa was a year or two old---but, no one else seems to want to point out some pretty key things regarding Man O' War's competition---or lack there of.

this from legend like lightening by dorothy ours-page 15:

...he was one of 1961 thoroughbred foals registered in the united states that year. it would be the fifth-smallest crop of the entire twentieth century.


dorothy ours-from the book jacket--worked for seven years for the national museum of racing and hall of fame in saratoga springs new york, while researching man o war and has been cited for research contributions to several books on thoroughbred racehorses.


sorry, i'll go with her info.

and again, you're too hung up on foal crop size. also, keep in mind that it took years, sometimes decades, and in some cases hasn't happened YET where a horse ran faster than man o war. his travers is a case in point. NO horse has run the first six furlongs as fast as big red did in his travers, and crossed the finish line first.
and then there's the fact that man o war would set or equal track or american records eight times at three. one mile, one and one sixteenth, one and an eighth, one and one quarter, one and three eighths, one and one half, and one and five eighths. he topped triple crown winner sir bartons belmont mark by three seconds, setting an american record for that distance as well.

so, again, when there's no competition-there's the clock. man o war took that on, and won vs it many times. and many times his pps comments were never extended, under restraint, easing late, under a pull, etc.

he was voted best american racehorse of the first half of the 20th century in an ap poll of sports writers in 1950. bloodhorse magazine convened a panel of racing historians to rank the century's top hundred horses, man o war again. ap did a poll in '99, man o war again. lot of fools out there i guess...

i believe that druggie here brings some much needed perspective to considering MOW as the greatest horse ever. Based on some of his points, i'd have to agree that he's unlikely the best ever, but on the other hand, his accomplishments on and off the track would seem to validate his overall greatness.

besides, anyone with a brain knows that indian charlie is the greatest horse ever!

there are several horses that could be called the best ever. but i disagree that man o war is overrated. arguments could be made for quite a few horses out there-but saying man o war is overrated would be like saying secretariat is overrated. but then, i've seen some call native dancer overrated....and i also happen to agree with man o war being placed #1 on the list, so i guess i don't care for being called a fool because of my opinion.

And that would be yet another mistake on your part.

But hey, perhaps she is right and The Jockey Club is wrong...

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=1

Even if you're someone who believes he might possibly have been the best ever from an ability standpoint (I absolutely don't believe that) ...... It is still impossible to make any rational case justifying him as the best horse of the 1900's ...... simply because of the highly questionable quality of horses he was racing against. He only race against two horses in his entire career from outside of his microscopic foal crop--and both times, in match races where he was able to use his superior early speed fully to his advantage. Who's ever fault it was...he also never faced Exterminator.

Secretariat, Spectacular Bid, Native Dancer, and Dr. Fager are four horses whom I believe all have a MUCH stronger claim to that ranking than Man O' War.

And I probably should appologize to you and all the fine turf writers (I'm sure not all of them are "lazy and incompetent")

My flight to Florida, and out of this bitterly cold weather, had to be rescheduled because I wouldn't have made my connecting flight to Atlanta, which was delayed. I also wasn't about to stay in Atlanta over night and catch a connecting flight to Tampa in the morning--like the Delta guy wanted me too. Our rinky dink local airport doesn't fly directly to Tampa.

Another four days in this craphole has me in a foul mood.

That sucks for you... the weather is great down here right now! :p

can't say i blame you about not wanting to overnite in atlanta. never could figure out why my cousin lives there.

hopefully your mood will lighten with the sun. we're enjoying a bit of early spring weather here right now. doubt it will last tho!!

Three of my cousins live there as well and to be honest, while I don't care for Atlanta itself, the suburbs are very nice and I wouldn't mind living there.

I read the Legend like Lightning book about six months ago. It was a pretty good read, and I definitely don't think it was biased towards the horse himself.

As for Man O' War the horse: he set a gang of world, track, and stakes records at a variety of distances - some of which were never broken - and even broke a world record in a race where the place horse finished an estimated 100 lengths in arrears. It's estimated that on that particular day - in a virtual walkover - Man O' War bested the world record by as much as eight lengths. He gave up as much as 33.5 pounds to his competitors, beat the first Triple Crown winner in a match race, and won 20 races by a median of 9.5 lengths.

Secretariat, by contrast, never gave up more than 12 pounds, and won 17 of 21 starts by a median of 3.5 lengths.

Stats can work both ways, eh?

I would not worry. The contrarian probably thinks that Lincoln is overrated as a President. There's one in every crowd.

Lincoln is terribly overrated...

Anyhow, the original pt. by Drugs about foal crop size I think is a valid pt. You can make similar pts. about major league baseball before black players arrived or say Olympic in the days before before many kids even had the chance to compete at track and field instead of having to go to work in Africa or China or Texas or whatever.

But moving on from that pt. the argument DrugS has some serious explaining to do.

1. Track records. In the original post he said something like "...if you really believe that horses ran 20 lengths further today..."

Well dont they? Look at the records in MoW's day and compare them to todays. MoW who is running some of the fastest times of his day is still running some 2 sec. behind records from the 50s and somewhat more than that today.

I mean there is no doubt that horse times were slower back then and it wasnt the horses fault: track surfaces were slower, iron shoes were heavier, and the turns werent banked. There is also another thing that is not mentioned often: these jocks were often fighting each other, recall the famous photo of the '33 derby. This appears to have happened alot, although prolly not much to MoW who was usually clear of the field. (as aside, prolly the reason MoW and Sec were able to set so many records is that they usually were clear of the field and able to cut the turns so sharply, or in MoW case not have to fight through the jocks)

Another thing that really has not been talked about much is that there must have been a lot of time loss on the turns, for the above reason. One could probably study track records on straight courses, and one turn courses vs 2 turn courses, and put together a reasonable guess that these horses are losing up to a sec. or so on the turns alone.

As an aside: MoW could throw a very fast quarter in 23 sec. very comparable to modern horses (this in iron shoes!), this also makes me think again, that much of the time loss in pre-1950 racing has more to do with unbanked turns.

Anyhow, you have not put together any sort of cogent argument that horse times are some sort of delusion in those days. There are reasons the times were slower and they are objective. What you cannot deny is that MoW was setting records nearly every time he went out. SImilar to Swaps 4 yr old campaign, Secretariat's 3 yr old; Spect Bid; and maybe a few others Certainly puts him in good company.

2. Carrying wt. This argument is some sort of bad joke to cite Exterminator for carrying 150# and citing this against MoW is intellectually dishonest. Completely dishonest. Famous hi weight carrying horses includes like Bold Ruler, Dr Fager and Forego. I thnk you will find in their great seasons the most they carried was 136-138#. I dont think BRuler carried more than 136 in 1958 and Fager 138 in 1968, maybe there are a few exceptions, did Forego ever carry 140#?

One thing is clear:

NO ONE CARRIES 150# ANY MORE, NOR DID ANY HORSE CARRY 150# OFTEN!

Okay? So Jeezus Christ get off this stupid argument about wt. MoW was obviously carrying nearly as much as the great wt carriers of the late 20th cent. MoW carried up to 138# in his 3 yr old season (as much as Dr Fager and BOld Ruler) and set track/world records, this makes him one of the great wt carriers of history. Jeezus what a stupid freakin argument. Exterminator carried 150# So that means....Dr Fager sucks????

What a dumb argument.

3) Match race vs Exterminator. According to Avalyn Hunter and her pedigree book, p. 77, the reason the race w/ MoW and SIrBarton did not take place was that the connections of SirBarton and Exterminator could not agree on what the distance would be. They felt that Exterminator was better at 10f+ and SB better at <10f. What Mr. Riddle thought is not mentioned, I seriously doubt they thought he was inferior at 10f as the horse won the JCGC and Lawrence Realization by 100 lenghts...

It seems to me that given his destruction of the opposition and the track records he set. MoW 2/3yr old campaigns are something comparable to Secretariats and they both seem to be on a similar plane. If you like Sec for top 5, then you should like MoW. Personally, I like BUckpasser, Dr. Fager and Spect. Bid as much as Sec. and dont really see much between them but this is off pt. a little.

You also have to remember, back then The Derby didn't have some prestige that it holds now. It was still an important race but the Belmont, Preakness and even The Travers were regarding as more important races.
I think it was in the 40's when the Derby started to make it's move as the most important race.
So therefore you would get some "not so great" horses winning the Derby

Great points easy goer.

Remember too that timing was far less accurate in 1920. Are races were timed manually and it's not like they could verify "odd" times with a videotape. Starts were chaotic and a few 1/2 seconds one way or the other make a big difference.
Tracks were not groomed and prepared surfaces as they are today. Drainage was dreadful and the condition "heavy" was common.

Totally forgot about the lack of a starting gate back then. I wish I had some video of that, but having seen a start at a steeplechase, I have to imagine a mass start back in Man O'War's day was completely chaotic.

omg, do you know what you've just done? all i can say is take cover!

Oh yeah, I had forgot about the timing thing. That too is a good pt. I really should have mentioned that. The timing alone probably accounts for a good bit of time loss up till the 1930s when they finally got the starting gates in most places. yeah, lose a lot of time that way for sure.

The banked tracks and the aluminum shoes come in around 1950 I guess.

***

I would have to research more on the prestige value of the Derby although I am not sure that really has much to do with the argument about MoW. It is well known that Mr. Riddle didnt think 3 yr olds should go 10f in May so that is why he did not run.

It is also the reason that he did not carry 150# as a four year old. He thought that was not a good idea. History seems to validate him, as we dont see that much weight here at least no in north america.

***

I dont find too many "bad horses" winning the derby in 20s and 30s although there are always going to be underdogs that win it.

Behave YOurself, 1921 and Brokers Tip 1933 are about the only two I can figure as mediocrities to win it then. Morvich was underdog but he went on a tear right after winning this and so he must have been peaking. CLyde van Dusen and flying Ebony were not much but they won as mudders, so I guess it had to do with an off track on those days.


Prolly someone in the 22nd century is going to pt. to Giacomo in 2005 as some sort of proof that the derby wasnt up to snuff or something. It happens. Most of the time when the good horses didnt make the derby back then it was because of injury, going from memory here.

****

One thing that I notice in terms of trends is the field size of the derby and this has accounted for something of an increase in closers winning it in the last 30 years. THe track certainly plays well to closers in modern times, but looking at the 40s and 50s, I dont think they are doing nearly so well. Most likely this has to do with field size. There is no reason to go 5 wide when the field is only 7 or 8 horses.

For instance Citation would probably have won it as a closer nowadays but in 1948 he stayed about 5 or 6 lengths back of Coaltown in what was essentially a two horse race. No reason to let a horse like that get out in front by a lot, Coaltown could finish. But say nowadays with at least 3 or 4 cheap speed horses, out there, he could probably stay further back and win in true closer fashion.

There were still some great closers that won it in 40s and 50s, Ponder, Whirlaway, Needles, but now we are getting like 1/2 or more of the derbies won by closers.

EG, Your reading comprehension skills lack.

Among other things, I never said Exterminator carried 150lbs, it was Roseben and he did that on multiple occasions.

I only made the Roseben point, because another poster thought MoW deserved his ranking as #1 in the 1900's, because he 'carried a lot of weight, set a lot of records, and horseman thought he was special'

Easy Goer - Great book for history of the sport is "They're Off!!! Horse Racing at Saratoga" by Edward Hotailing.
Not only gives a great account on the history of racing at Saratoga but on the sport it's self and of the times throughout the years. If you are a history buff for the Sport, this is a must read!!!!!!!!

That is dazzling misinformation right there.

Morvich went into the Kentucky Derby with a perfect 11-for-11 record. And won it.

He was an ugly looking Cal bred of modest ability, who thoroughly dominated the smallest foal crop of the 1900's. 15 fewer horses in his crop than Man O' War's.

Yes, Zev '23, the next one after Morvich '22 is the one I that I meant, I was flipping through Hunter's book too fast I guess. Zev was apparently a big underdog but went wire to wire, he then won the WIthers, Belmont and QUeens Cty Hdcp and then a couple others before the match race w/ Papyrus. So maybe he was in top form, just no one knew it.

By the way can you explain what this is supposed to mean:

"I guess I'm supposed to consider him the #1 horse of the century because he once ran a 1 1/4 in 2:01 4/5ths? ... Oh yeah, we also have to assume the tracks were 20 lengths slower back than"

What exactly is the pt? You've basically explained the fallacy in your reasoning in the same passage, or maybe not..?

i glanced over part of the book dealing with the derby, and mow not going there.
i know riddle thought about it-and also mentions that he thought about regret, the first filly to win it, and that she was off til august after doing so. riddle wanted to enjoy the horse and racing all year, and of course back then travelling to ky wasn't quite so easy as now. it also mentions about horses sickening, or even dying, due to shipping. riddle preferred keeping man o war right there on the east coast within hours of many different tracks.

So in essence MOW won the three most important races for 3 yr olds back then. And since there really wasn't a Triple Crown as we now it, in an odd way MOW did win it. With The Preakness, the Belmont and the Travers being the most important races back in 1920.

interesting, I think there is only one horse to win both the derby and the Travers, or is it TC + Travers? Hmmm, is The Bid? What am I thinking of?

There have been a lot of horses to win both the Derby and Travers...and Spectacular Bid wasn't one of them...he didn't start in the Travers.

Affirmed and Whirlaway are the only two triple crown winners to cross the wire first in the Travers---and Affirmed was DQ'ed.

i finished the book today, interesting that one of MOW's records stayed on the book for years, until the legend known as kelso finally broke it. and for those who bring up him 'ducking' exterminator-ex wasn't even considered the top older horse, sir barton was....ex was considered the best stayer-and he had a couple shots at man o war, and bypassed them. and of course man o war met with the mighty sir barton, the rest as they say is history...i recommend that book to anyone who might be interested. it was pretty good, well-researched, and not a 'drool fest'. i had read several books on big red previously, and found stuff in here that i hadn't known about--especially about 'hopped horses'. seems way back when, they used to run some of their horses on cocaine!!

Sir Barton never won again after the match race loss to Man O' War.

He was 3rd as an odds-on favorite at LRL in his next start. Than was 3rd in a $3,600 stake at Pimlico at 2/5 odds. He finished his career, fittingly running 2nd to stablemate Billy Kelly in a stake at Pimlico.

I say fittingly, because Billy Kelly beat Sir Barton nine times in his career.

Can you explain wha the DQ reasoning on Affirmed was? I like studying the history of these fellas and finding out about these DQs sometimes adds to their legend or not...

What about the Secretariat/ANgle Light fiasco? Book I was reading said Turcotte said it was shameful but have heard other things.

The Dr Fager one seemed ridiculous, Ive seen the footage on that, it happens on the back stretch, seemed ridiculous. I count that in his column.

Or Genuine Risk/ COdex was it? Was that a bad one?

There is probably footage of the Travers race w/ Affirmed & Alydar on You-tube, but Pincay dropped Affirmed right in front of Alydar as the latter was making his charge on the turn.

My memory was that it was on the backstretch well before the turn. Alydar was flying up along the rail and Pincay, riding Affirmed for the first time I believe, moved over in front of Alydar, causing Alydar to clip heels. I watched the race on a TV at Harrah's casino in Reno. (one of those 'you remember where you were' moments, horseracing version)

At any rate, the DQ was a no-brainer IMO. (although I was admittedly an Alydar fan, and had been looking forward to the rematch ever since the Belmont.)

--Dunbar

What book was it that you read? I love the old history books on horse racing. I mentioned this earlier in the thread but in case you missed it. read "They're Off!!!! Horse racing at Saratoga." Fantastic book about the history of the sport not only for The Spa but all over from Churhill Down, the Belmont to Santa Anita and all those old tracks down in Queens, and Long Island. Also all the sports greats. Wonderful book and a must for any horse racing fan.

I don't think Morvich ever won again.

you know, I do remember that Affirmed Alydar Pincay thing, at least I remember them showing it on the television back when there were only three networks and no 24 hour sports news. What about those other DQs has anyone ever seen those..?