Whose was/is the best?

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Buddy Delp was/is a great trainer.

He did a spectacular job with Spectacular Bid. He did a great job training one of the best race horses anyone has ever seen ... but he only looks foolish with that nonsensical safety pin story.

That was purely about that particular decision...please understand I wasn't knocking him as a person or a trainer.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Spectacular Bid also raced at 12f in the 1979 Jockey Club Gold Cup ... another race which he lost. There were no reports of wandering safety pins that day.

In 1979 the Meadowlands was a brand new track ... and new track records were set virtually every night. The 10f record set by Spectacular Bid was at a distance which had only been run once before in the track's history. That's another "oddball" circumstance.

Well, you said he only set one track record in his three year old year and were mistaken so I pointed it out.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Spectacular Bid also raced at 12f in the 1979 Jockey Club Gold Cup ... another race which he lost. There were no reports of wandering safety pins that day.

In 1979 the Meadowlands was a brand new track ... and new track records were set virtually every night. The 10f record set by Spectacular Bid was at a distance which had only been run once before in the track's history. That's another "oddball" circumstance.

He lost in 1979 against the great Affirmed who was an amazing horse and also a four year old at the time. So Spectacular Bid was a three year old racing one of racing's greatest at a time when Affirmed was unbeatable. He won six grade Is that year and never lost again after the jockey switch from Cauthen to Laffit. Spectacular Bid was gallant in defeat in the Jocky Club Gold Cup.

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

He lost in 1979 against the great Affirmed who was an amazing horse and also a four year old at the time. So Spectacular Bid was a three year old racing one of racing's greatest at a time when Affirmed was unbeatable. He won six grade Is that year and never lost again after the jockey switch from Cauthen to Laffit. Spectacular Bid was gallant in defeat in the Jocky Club Gold Cup.

And Affirmed got beat as a 3 year old by Seattle Slew....see why this just runs people in circles? Where's that leave them?

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Well, you said he only set one track record in his three year old year and were mistaken so I pointed it out.

You're correct ... I overlooked it because I've always discounted it.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

He lost in 1979 against the great Affirmed who was an amazing horse and also a four year old at the time. So Spectacular Bid was a three year old racing one of racing's greatest at a time when Affirmed was unbeatable. He won six grade Is that year and never lost again after the jockey switch from Cauthen to Laffit. Spectacular Bid was gallant in defeat in the Jocky Club Gold Cup.

All true ...

... and that only reinforces my point about comparing what Spectacular Bid did as a 4YO ... to what Secretariat did as a 3YO ... which is what another poster is prepared to do ... and then use it to make incorrect inferences.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

All true ...

... and that only reinforces my point about comparing what Spectacular Bid did as a 4YO ... to what Secretariat did as a 3YO ... which is what another poster is prepared to do ... and then use it to make incorrect inferences.

This is exactly right. It is basically impossible to compare the two horses' overall careers because the Bid ran at 4 and Big Red did not. They are both so great that any comparison of their 2 and 3 year old campaigns ends up splitting hairs to some degree (as this thread demonstrates) but I am in 100%agreement with Bold Brooklynite on this one.
In my opinion, along with the points that BB has already made, is the fact that in the three biggest races in the sport, Big Red's performance was better than the Bid's in all three, and Sec was running against Sham who was, in my opinion, better than ANY of the 3yo that the Bid competed against.
Don't get me wrong the Bid was one of the all time bests. I would definitely have him in the top 5 horses of the last 50 years, but he was simply not better than Big Red.
If you want to compare a horse favorably to Secretariat based on their 2yo and 3yo campaigns you would have better luck with Citation than with the Bid.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by miraja2

This is exactly right. It is basically impossible to compare the two horses' overall careers because the Bid ran at 4 and Big Red did not. They are both so great that any comparison of their 2 and 3 year old campaigns ends up splitting hairs to some degree (as this thread demonstrates) but I am in 100%agreement with Bold Brooklynite on this one.
In my opinion, along with the points that BB has already made, is the fact that in the three biggest races in the sport, Big Red's performance was better than the Bid's in all three, and Sec was running against Sham who was, in my opinion, better than ANY of the 3yo that the Bid competed against.
Don't get me wrong the Bid was one of the all time bests. I would definitely have him in the top 5 horses of the last 50 years, but he was simply not better than Big Red.
If you want to compare a horse favorably to Secretariat based on their 2yo and 3yo campaigns you would have better luck with Citation than with the Bid.

I agree, Citation should never be left out of any discussion of top horses, while I rank him 4th, it was pretty much a coin flip between him and Ribot (#3) for me.

Originally Posted by miraja2

Sec was running against Sham who was, in my opinion, better than ANY of the 3yo that the Bid competed against.

If ... God forbid ... there were no Secretariat ...

... Sham wins the Kentucky Derby by eight lengths ... breaking or equaling the track record ... then wins the Preakness by eight lengths ... again breaking or equaling the track record ... and then wins the Belmont Stakes by 18 lengths ... breaking or equaling a third track record ...

... becoming the first Triple Crown winner in 25 years ... and hailed by all as the superhorse of the century.

Poor Sham .. what a bad year he chose to be born.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

If ... God forbid ... there were no Secretariat ...

... Sham wins the Kentucky Derby by eight lengths ... breaking or equaling the track record ... then wins the Preakness by eight lengths ... again breaking or equaling the track record ... and then wins the Belmont Stakes by 18 lengths ... breaking or equaling a third track record ...

... becoming the first Triple Crown winner in 25 years ... and hailed by all as the superhorse of the century.

Poor Sham .. what a bad year he chose to be born.

Are we rewriting history here, Sham finished last in the Belmont. How would he win by 18.? LOL

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Are we rewriting history here, Sham finished last in the Belmont. How would he win by 18.? LOL

I agree totally with BB here...come now Randy, you trip handicap don't you?? Sham was by far the best mere horse in the race, only the god of all horses was better! Sham had run two excellent races, the Derby with a mouthful of blood throughout only to watch Secretariat grow smaller and smaller in front of him, Sham's connections made the only choice they could, they decided to take the race to Big Red in the Belmont. They would send Sham and play "catch me if you can"...unfortunately, the Great Horse decided he felt like showing speed that day, you can't run the first 6 furlongs in 1:09.4 and possibly finish a 12 furlong race!! Unless you are Secretariat of course! Sham ran out of gas, or maybe Secretariat finally simply broke his heart midway on the backstretch and struggled home last...who wouldn't?? Without Secretariat in the race, Sham would have opened up a huge lead while running non-suicidal fractions and had plenty left to the line...this was a great horse in his own right! He simply had the worst timing in thoroughbred history!! I think enough of him to rank him #39...most any other year, he wins the TC!

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Are we rewriting history here, Sham finished last in the Belmont. How would he win by 18.? LOL

Well now we are REALLY speculating, but I think it is fairly reasonable to argue that Sham would have won the Belmont if Big Red had not been there.
Sham would not have been running balls out for the first 6f in a desperate attempt to keep up with Secretariat, and therefore would not have been completely fried at the end of the race. Of course this is IMPOSSIBLE to know for sure, but I think BB's claim that Sham would have won the Belmont is not necessarily wrong just because Sham finished 4th.
The fact remains that he was better than any 3yo that the Bid faced in '79.

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Well, folks who know me know that I maintain a list of "100 Greatest" in history of racing...always fun to post it and listen to folks complain when their personal favorite is ranked lower than they think or...god forbid...not at all! I've done the homework and can defend every ranking but it really is quite arbitrary, the further back in history one goes, the more subjective you become...anyway, my top 20 are:
1. Secretariat/ Kincsem (tie)
3. Ribot
4. Citation
5. Man O War
6. Flying Childers
7. Sea Bird
8. Eclipse
9. Native Dancer
10. Count Fleet
11. Spectacular Bid
12. St Simon
13. Kelso
14. War Admiral
15. Seattle Slew
16. Ruffian
17. Affirmed
18. Colin
19. Dr Fager
20. Exterminator

Somer--I like your list. And everyone can find this and that with the list. Out of curiosity, why do you have Ruffian but not Personal Ensign or Lady's Secret?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

It's also a fact that the connections of Man O War ducked this horse....he was a warrior!

not so somer. the geldings connections were invited to what turned out to be a match race between sir barton and man o war. was originally to be a 'threesome'. i've read about this before, and posted info regarding this topic and the fact that mow has suffered an unwarranted black eye...

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Are we rewriting history here, Sham finished last in the Belmont. How would he win by 18.? LOL

If you have a little patience ... I'll explain it to you.

What actually happened: Pancho Martin was/is one of the greatest trainers ever ... a deserving Hall Of Famer. He knew exactly what he had in Sham ... a really super race horse. The first time the two horses met ... in the Wood Memorial ... Sham finished ahead of Secretariat in a very weird race won by Secretariat's second-tier stablemate Angle Light. Pancho knew Sham hadn't run anywhere near his best that day ... and when Sham trained brilliantly for the Kentucky Derby ... Pancho knew that he had a horse who would run faster than any horse had ever run in that race before. And he was right ... Sham ran faster than any horse had ever run in the Kentucky Derrby prior to 1973 ... finishing eight lengths ahead of Our Native and Forego ... but Secretariat ran even faster ... defeating Sham by 2.5 lengths. Stunned ... Pancho ran Sham back in the Preakness ... and the exact same thing happened. Sham beat Our Native by eight lengths and broke or equalled the existing track record ... but still finished 2.5 lengths behind Secretariat. Pancho was even more stunned ... how could this super horse ... whom he had trained to perfection ... run faster than any horse had ever run a Derby or Preakness before ... and still lose by open lengths? For the Belmont Stakes ... Pancho instructed Laffit Pincay to throw all caution to the wind ... just gun Sham straight from the gate and go as fast and far as he could. Pincay gunned Sham ... and they ran an unheard-of 1:09.4 for the first 6f of the 12f Belmont ... a suicidal pace which no horse could possibly withstand. No horse except one. Sham showed his "humanity" ... and tired badly coming around the turn ... but the other horse ... who had gone nose-to-nose with him at the suicidal pace ... just kept going and going and going ... until he was almost completely out of sight.

Now ... let's try to figure out what might have happened in the Belmont Stakes ... if there were no Secretariat to get Pancho so frustrated. (Stay with this because there are some calculations involved.)

What might have happened: The Kentucky Derby and Preakness results were amazingly identical ... in both races Secretariat defeated Sham by 2.5 lengths and Sham defeated Our Native by 8 lengths ... and the final time broke the previous track record by 3/5 of a second ... with Sham either slightly beating or equaling the previous track record. Our Native wasn't in the Belmont ... but My Gallant was. Our Native and My Gallant were practically clones ... they finished along side each other three times in their careers. So it's pretty safe to use My Gallant as a proxy for Our Native. So ... in both the Derby and Preakness ... Secretariat defeated Sham by 2.5 lengths and Our Native by 10.5 lengths. Thus Sham was 24% of the distance between Secretariat and Our Native (2.5 divided by 10.5) in both races. In the Belmont Stakes ... My Gallant finished 31 lengths behind Secretariat. If Sham had run his normal race ... he would theoretically have been 24% of that behind where Secretariat would have been ... or 7.5 lengths (24% of 31). However ... becaue the Belmont is 2f longer than the Derby or Preakness ... and Secretariat had the most stamina of any horse who ever lived ... I believe the margin would have been 5 to 6 lengths greater than just 7.5 lengths ... which would put Sham about 13 lengths behind where Secretariat would have been ... and 18 lengths ahead of My Gallant. This also works out well from a time standpoint ... because if Sham finished 13 lengths slower than Secretariat ... he would have shaded or equalled the previous track record ... just as he had in both the Derby and Preakness.

So ... Sham wins the Derby by 8 ... the Preakness by 8 ... and the Belmont by 13 ... possibly breaking ... but definitely equaling ... all three track records.

Superhorse? I think yes.

[Downthestretch55]

What a wonderful attempt to rewrite history.
YES! REWRITE HISTORY!!!

Sham was that, a SHAM.
Same as you Bold Fraud.
Nice try!

[TheSpyder]

I meant I was impressed with the horse...not you

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Well ... at least you're making some distinctions ... instead of trying to evaluate every single thoroughbred who has ever been registered ... and even some who raced before there was a registry.

But you still haven't told us your evaluation method. For instance ... why is Hyperion on the list ... while Bahram isn't ... when every knowledgable British authority of the 1930's rated Bahram as being much better?

And ... how did you compare Flying Childers ... a British foal of 1715 who competed in only three competitive races at ages 6 and 7 ... facing a total of four opponents ... with, say, Forego ... an American foal of 1970 ... who competed 57 times from 3 to 8 ... and faced hundreds of opponents ... and conclude that Flying Childers was the better race horse?

And how did you compare Henry Of Navarre with Lammtarra ... and which did you conclude was better?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

What a wonderful attempt to rewrite history.
YES! REWRITE HISTORY!!!

Sham was that, a SHAM.
Same as you Bold Fraud.
Nice try!

OK, enough of the petty name-calling! I know you have issues with BB and I could give a s-hit but don't call a great horse names just to show your petty nature!! Sham was a great horse with terrible timing...he wins the TC most years, including at least 2/3 of those years it was actually won...lay off the horse!!!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

not so somer. the geldings connections were invited to what turned out to be a match race between sir barton and man o war. was originally to be a 'threesome'. i've read about this before, and posted info regarding this topic and the fact that mow has suffered an unwarranted black eye...

Well, consider this then:
http://www.thoroughbredchampions.com...terminator.htm

I've read more detailed discussions elsewhere but this is a good summation!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Somer--I like your list. And everyone can find this and that with the list. Out of curiosity, why do you have Ruffian but not Personal Ensign or Lady's Secret?

To me, the greatest mares of all time are :
1. Kincsem (co-1)
2. Ruffian (16)
3. Personal Ensign (25)
4. Lady's Secret (41)
5. Miss Woodford (54)
6. Imp (55)
7. Fashion (64)
8. Firenze (68)
9. Pretty Polly (69)
10. Regret (77)
11. Miesque (82)
12. Busher (92)
13. Pan Zareta (95)
14. Ruthless (98)
These at least are the ones I included in my top 100 (noted position).