Spectacular Bid VS Seattle Slew

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by smartbid09

Everybody says that Affirmed was tailing after a hard campaign but Seattle Slew was coming back after battling colitis x. I think they were both exhausted no?

I believe the battling colitis X wasn't until the winter late in his 3yo season or early in his 4yo season. Long after his freshening started.

Slew had a couple nice ALW wins to start his 4yo season - was defeated as a 1/9 favorite by Dr. Patches in his stakes debut as an older horse in the Grade 3 Patterson Handicap at the Meadowlands. After that he ran four great races - winning the Malboro, Woodward, and Grade 3 Stuyvesant at AQU under 134lbs - his only defeat a great 2nd place finish in the JCGC.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I believe the battling colitis X wasn't until the winter late in his 3yo season or early in his 4yo season. Long after his freshening started.

Slew had a couple nice ALW wins to start his 4yo season - was defeated as a 1/9 favorite by Dr. Patches in his stakes debut as an older horse in the Grade 3 Patterson Handicap at the Meadowlands. After that he ran four great races - winning the Malboro, Woodward, and Grade 3 Stuyvesant at AQU under 134lbs - his only defeat a great 2nd place finish in the JCGC.

You do realize that Dr. Patches was a VERY talented horse? He had previously won an allowance at Saratoga ( as did Slew ) that got a very similar, if not better, fig. Plus. Patches had something Slew was about to get, Angel Cordero.

Seattle Slew, until the Marlboro Cup, was ridden by Jean Cruget. Now, Ron Franklin did Bid no favors, but Cruget was one of the worst ever. Winning the TC, much less nine or ten straight races, with Cruget is akin to walking across the Grand Canyon on a tightrope with PG1985 on your shoulders.

By the way, using the Swaps as any kind of example of Slew's talents ( and you're right, he was relatively " slow " as a 3YO ) is wildly unfair....and you know that. At least base your argument on relevent races.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You do realize that Dr. Patches was a VERY talented horse? He had previously won an allowance at Saratoga ( as did Slew ) that got a very similar, if not better, fig. Plus. Patches had something Slew was about to get, Angel Cordero.

Seattle Slew, until the Marlboro Cup, was ridden by Jean Cruget. Now, Ron Franklin did Bid no favors, but Cruget was one of the worst ever. Winning the TC, much less nine or ten straight races, with Cruget is akin to walking across the Grand Canyon on a tightrope with PG1985 on your shoulders.

By the way, using the Swaps as any kind of example of Slew's talents ( and you're right, he was relatively " slow " as a 3YO ) is wildly unfair....and you know that. At least base your argument on relevent races.

I thought so too; 3 weeks after the TC and the horse was rightly exhausted. Nice move there by the Taylors.

As to the Indy/Slew ?, Slew would have eaten AP Indy for lunch at any time.

Why is it bad for a front-runner to be one-dimensional (esp. when his one dimension was spectacular) and a closer not to be? I watch his Derby on replay and it's still incredibly impressive - and his GC was a real display of courage.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Betsy

Why is it bad for a front-runner to be one-dimensional (esp. when his one dimension was spectacular) and a closer not to be?

Spectacular Bid wasn't a one-dimensional closer - on 7 different occasions he won Graded Stakes races in wire-to-wire fashion. On 5 different occasions he won Graded Stakes from 5 lengths back or further after a half mile. But ideally - he was a presser.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Spectacular Bid wasn't a one-dimensional closer - on 7 different occasions he won Graded Stakes races in wire-to-wire fashion. On 5 different occasions he won Graded Stakes from 5 lengths back or further after a half mile. But ideally - he was a presser.

I wasn't referring to Bid, I was just referring to your calling Slew one-dimensional. That may be true, but it was one hell of a dimension .We see front-runners call that all the time, and it's got a negative connotation..........but closers are also one-dimensional and they don't get called on it. In any case, I'm not sure what's wrong with being a front-runner especially if that horse is Slew and he has the heart of a lion.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Betsy

I wasn't referring to Bid, I was just referring to your calling Slew one-dimensional. That may be true, but it was one hell of a dimension .We see front-runners call that all the time, and it's got a negative connotation..........but closers are also one-dimensional and they don't get called on it.

Of course closers get called on for being one-dimensional.

I agree there is no shame in being one-dimensional... especially as a speed horse - Ruffian was, Man O' War was a lot of horses with great ability were. A horse mentioned earlier in this thread Bold Forbes certainly was as well.

Still - the preferred running style is always one that can set a pace if it needs to or take back if it needs to. Horses like this have an advantage. A rabbit can cost a one-dimensional speed horse its best race. A slow pace - or just simple seperation from an honest pace can cost a one-dimensional closer its best race.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Of course closers get called on for being one-dimensional.

I agree there is no shame in being one-dimensional... especially as a speed horse - Ruffian was, Man O' War was a lot of horses with great ability were. A horse mentioned earlier in this thread Bold Forbes certainly was as well.

Still - the preferred running style is always one that can set a pace if it needs to or take back if it needs to. Horses like this have an advantage. A rabbit can cost a one-dimensional speed horse its best race. A slow pace - or just simple seperation from an honest pace can cost a one-dimensional closer its best race.

Well I agree that being a one or the other has it's disadvantages. I've always loved the idea of a horse just wanting to run so badly that you couldn't quite keep him down - Slew was like that. MOW was like that as well - but he was another who's one dimension was so great as to render it meaningless.

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You do realize that Dr. Patches was a VERY talented horse? He had previously won an allowance at Saratoga ( as did Slew ) that got a very similar, if not better, fig. Plus. Patches had something Slew was about to get, Angel Cordero.

Seattle Slew, until the Marlboro Cup, was ridden by Jean Cruget. Now, Ron Franklin did Bid no favors, but Cruget was one of the worst ever. Winning the TC, much less nine or ten straight races, with Cruget is akin to walking across the Grand Canyon on a tightrope with PG1985 on your shoulders.

By the way, using the Swaps as any kind of example of Slew's talents ( and you're right, he was relatively " slow " as a 3YO ) is wildly unfair....and you know that. At least base your argument on relevent races.

.....some of your finest work

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You do realize that Dr. Patches was a VERY talented horse? He had previously won an allowance at Saratoga ( as did Slew ) that got a very similar, if not better, fig. Plus. Patches had something Slew was about to get, Angel Cordero.

Seattle Slew, until the Marlboro Cup, was ridden by Jean Cruget. Now, Ron Franklin did Bid no favors, but Cruget was one of the worst ever. Winning the TC, much less nine or ten straight races, with Cruget is akin to walking across the Grand Canyon on a tightrope with PG1985 on your shoulders.

By the way, using the Swaps as any kind of example of Slew's talents ( and you're right, he was relatively " slow " as a 3YO ) is wildly unfair....and you know that. At least base your argument on relevent races.

I know Dr. Patches was very good. You don't run down a loose on the lead Seattle Slew as a 4-year-old if you're anything short of being very good.

The Swaps was the one and only time in Seattle Slew's career where he was rated off of the lead ... perhaps it doesn't point to him being a one-dimensional speed horse... and maybe he would have put in the same non-effort had he not been rated.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I know Dr. Patches was very good. You don't run down a loose on the lead Seattle Slew as a 4-year-old if you're anything short of being very good.

The Swaps was the one and only time in Seattle Slew's career where he was rated off of the lead ... perhaps it doesn't point to him being a one-dimensional speed horse... and maybe he would have put in the same non-effort had he not been rated.

I get what you're saying about him, theoretically, failing badly the one time he didn't have the early lead, but you have to take a lot of other factors into account, and that race ( the Swaps ) simply can't be used as a fair barometer.

The thing is, he's not your run-of-the-mill speed horse that needs everything his own way. He showed pretty definitively in the Jockey Club Gold Cup that he is fast enough to outrun pretty much anyone while also being able to carry that speed a very long way. You just don't see horses like that. Hell, as great as Dr. Fager was, and there is no doubt he is on the very short list of greatest horses ever, he got trounced at 1 1/4 when severely pressured by a rabbit. Slew dusted off two, at 1 1/2 miles, when one of them was also a Triple Crown winner, and stilled missed by a slim nose to a damn good horse in Exceller. He was not your ordinary need the lead type and shouldn't be suggested as such.

[smartbid09]

Don't know which horse was better but know which horse I would have rather owned....... SEATTLE SLEW!

[blackthroatedwind]

Another poster on my ever growing ignore list. I feel like The Fat Man.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by smartbid09

Don't know which horse was better but know which horse I would have rather owned....... SEATTLE SLEW!

Obviously.

[smartbid09]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Obviously.

lol

Just kidding around

[Linny]

To use what is clearly the worst race (by far) of a great horse's life as representative is pointless. The Swaps was a circus and the trainer knew it. The Taylors wanted to make Slew a petting zoo animal and tour the county with him etc. He was barely trained for the Swaps and was exhausted.
No less than Bill Shoemaker (a man with a clock in his head) was simply mystified by what Slew did in the Gold Cup. Turning for home Shoe knew how fast Slew was going and figured he'd win on Exceller by the largest margin ever in the Gold Cup. That he had to work to get Slew and barely did was testament to an amazing horse.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I get what you're saying about him, theoretically, failing badly the one time he didn't have the early lead, but you have to take a lot of other factors into account, and that race ( the Swaps ) simply can't be used as a fair barometer.

The thing is, he's not your run-of-the-mill speed horse that needs everything his own way. He showed pretty definitively in the Jockey Club Gold Cup that he is fast enough to outrun pretty much anyone while also being able to carry that speed a very long way. You just don't see horses like that. Hell, as great as Dr. Fager was, and there is no doubt he is on the very short list of greatest horses ever, he got trounced at 1 1/4 when severely pressured by a rabbit. Slew dusted off two, at 1 1/2 miles, when one of them was also a Triple Crown winner, and stilled missed by a slim nose to a damn good horse in Exceller. He was not your ordinary need the lead type and shouldn't be suggested as such.

Do you know if the trainer change - Going from Turner to Peterson - was viewed as a big-time positive trainer switch?

I thought Cruget rode miserable races in the Ky Derby and Swaps - however, there's only so much a rider can do to get in the way of a natural speed horse. The Billy Turner I remember was a guy who could be easily moved up on - but that's 20+ years later.

Had Seattle Slew been born a year earlier into the Bold Forbes-Honest Pleasure crop instead of the dog biscuit parade - I think he would have found two other 3yo's who would have made things miserable for him. Bold Forbes appears to be clear-cut faster than Seattle Slew at age 3 all the way around - both on pace and final time .. and he had to deal with good speed horses like Honest Pleasure.



I think if you put Seattle Slew in '76 and Bold Forbes in '77 ... obviously Bold Forbes win the triple crown almost effortlessly ... and good luck to a lightly raced Seattle Slew/Jean Cruget/Billy Turner in dealing with Honest Pleasure.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Do you know if the trainer change - Going from Turner to Peterson - was viewed as a big-time positive trainer switch?

I thought Cruget rode miserable races in the Ky Derby and Swaps - however, there's only so much a rider can do to get in the way of a natural speed horse. The Billy Turner I remember was a guy who could be easily moved up on - but that's 20+ years later.

Had Seattle Slew been born a year earlier into the Bold Forbes-Honest Pleasure crop instead of the dog biscuit parade - I think he would have found two other 3yo's who would have made things miserable for him. Bold Forbes appears to be clear-cut faster than Seattle Slew at age 3 all the way around - both on pace and final time .. and he had to deal with good speed horses like Honest Pleasure.



I think if you put Seattle Slew in '76 and Bold Forbes in '77 ... obviously Bold Forbes win the triple crown almost effortlessly ... and good luck to a lightly raced Seattle Slew/Jean Cruget/Billy Turner in dealing with Honest Pleasure.

I don't have an opinion on Peterson, but have a very high one ( still ) about Billy Turner. He did a pretty good job with Czaravich and Big John Taylor around the time Slew was running.

Slew's crop was woeful ( though Silver Series, who Slew didn't face, was a solid second to Forego in the Woodward ), no doubt, and Honest Pleasure was a monster, but his TC races were major disappointments, especially as they relate to his Florida races, which were dazzling. Obviously he ran pretty well in the Travers ( though he was lone speed on a gold rail day ) and the Marlboro ( but, don't forget, Father Hogan was only about a length behind him that day ).

Bold Forbes is probably a bigger discussion, and I'm not having it here, but I will say that I was at Aqueduct when he won the Wood Memorial.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I was kind of bummed that I've never seen the video of the '76 Preakness.

From what I've read - some felt Bold Forbes stole the Derby (by running the first quarter of 10f race in 22.40?) and they critisized Baeza for letting him go.

So, in the Preakness, Baeza supposedly guns Honest Pleasure from the gate and they duel head-to-head for a quarter or more - before Bold Forbes gets a little seperation. The first 6f of the Preakness went in 1:09 flat - which was faster than the 6f track record at the time - and both horses get fried. Honest Pleasure more-so.

I believe Ragozin called Bold Forbes the fastest 2yo sprinter ever in his book - pretty amazing that such a precocious speed ball could come from Purto Rico and have enough stamina to win the Derby and Belmont. It would have been fun to see him and Slew hook up in a duel. The numbers (3yo VS 3yo) give Slew virtually no chance of winning that.

[robfla]

for those that don't have Slew's PPs

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I believe the battling colitis X wasn't until the winter late in his 3yo season or early in his 4yo season. Long after his freshening started.Slew had a couple nice ALW wins to start his 4yo season - was defeated as a 1/9 favorite by Dr. Patches in his stakes debut as an older horse in the Grade 3 Patterson Handicap at the Meadowlands. After that he ran four great races - winning the Malboro, Woodward, and Grade 3 Stuyvesant at AQU under 134lbs - his only defeat a great 2nd place finish in the JCGC.

that is correct.