I understand and that's why I asked the question. It seems inconceivable and this thread has everything to do with taking a microscopic look at what has happened in the last 140 or so runnings of a race run once a year and why based on the history of this one race the chances of this year's horses hinge on that history.

In 1985 Chiefs Crown had the look of a champion and Spend A Buck had romped through New Jersey unchallenged early on in his races. However the assumption was made that in the Derby he would face a stiffer pace from Eternal Prince and the race was set up for CC to pounce at will. After the race the question most were asking is what happened to Eternal Prince.

Anyway enough about The pace. I'm sure there are other favorite "factoids".

BTW what were the results of the two 48 flat races you found ?

0.00% percent.

He's not that type of horse. Even a horse like Big Drama was far better suited to being a route speed than he is.

Well, last year Shackleford set the pace and ended up an honest fourth. In 1980, pacesetter Rockhill Native faded to fifth in a field of 13. In 1969, Ocean Roar ended up finishing over 20 lengths behind winner Majestic Prince.

Fair enough. I should send you my two bucks.

Bisnath Parboo's career ROI in route races is $1.06 ... he's magic with sprinters -- especially speed-sprinters.

He radically improves the early speed of horses he gets.

Save your stab bet for the next Parboo horse you encouter who moves into his barn for the first time and hasn't quite been able to make a lead and has been fading late. That type of horse will show markedly improved speed in the first quarter and win at a price for you.

If the half is 48, Hansen and Bodemeister will still drown Trinniberg at the quarter pole.

What Kentucky Derby winners won the Derby after their sire died? Secretariat (Bold Ruler); Strike the Gold (Alydar); Fusaichi Pegasus (Mr. Prospector); Super Saver (Maria's Mon). Any others?

Union Rags and Liaison are a couple that could be added to this sort of list. I feel like every so often there were highly regarded horses going in with that trivia as part of their bio, but they failed to win one for the dearly departed old man.

Which was considered a bush league track as well. If it wasn't the east coast, it was a bunch of cowboys.

I heard Sir Barton was rumored to be injured and off form in that race. Can you confirm?

Sir Barton had sore feet and ran on a hard surface at Kenilworth which probably stung. It sounds like he had chronic problems with tender hooves.

That's nonsense.

Here's a Daily Racing Form column from the 1920's.

I'm not saying it was true, but that it was a strong east coast point of view.

In 2012 or 1920?

It is true that in 1920 there was more wealth in New York than any other city. A lot of owners and buyers of top class horses lived there. Chicago was also strong in that regard...and for the period when racing was struggling badly because of anti-gambling reforms -- Cuba was strong.

A lot of good horses in the mid to late 1910's had been bought up by Cuban owners. Racing was going well in Havana. The Cuban Government was also buying up our race horses in a project to breed their army horses during these times when betting reforms helped create a favorable market for buying horses.

That said, Kentucky has always been very prominent in the thoroughbred racing world. Organized racing had been established in Lexington well before the cival war. The Louisville Jockey Club was formed in 1875 (the first year the Kentucky Derby was run) and Latonia was formed in 1883 about ten miles from present day Turfway Park.

From pretty much the existence of these tracks through present day -- they have featured some of the greatest horses, fields, and races in history.

I don't think even the stuffiest of New York City elite would have ever considered it "bush" racing. The vast majority of those owners really wanted to win events like the Kentucky Derby...especially by the 1920's. A few of the very best trainers at Churchill Downs around the turn of the century were blacks. A former slave had trained a Kentucky Derby winner and was the owner-trainer of a Kentucky Oaks winner. He also won a few training titles at Churchill Downs.

In terms of speculating why Man O' War ducked the Kentucky Derby even though he would have been a heavy favorite ... his owner certainly wasn't the most sporting man to say the least and he later ducked other tough spots that season where he could have faced good older competition.

However, his erratic temper may have also had something to do with it.




Man O' War's owner did campaign War Admiral in a far more sporting way. War Admiral did ship for the Kentucky Derby -- and he did eventually bring him back at age 4 where he faced Seabiscuit in a famous match race.

today in history, willie shoemaker becomes the oldest jock to win the derby.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...kentucky-derby

Which prompted me to look for more...

1952 The first coast-to-coast, network-televised Kentucky Derby aired on CBS. Favorite Hill Gail won, giving Eddie Arcaro a record fifth victory in the Derby, and his trainer, Ben A. Jones, the record for most number of wins with six.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo2sleWPOx0

Arcaro's record was matched on this day in 1969 by Bill Hartack aboard Majestic Prince, who was trained by HOF jockey John Longden, the only person to have trained and ridden a Kentucky Derby winner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtBuAcOEWc0

1958 CBS used a split screen for its telecast of the Kentucky Derby, necessitated by the presence of the popular runner Silky Sullivan, who was famous for running far off the pace. Most of the screen was allotted to the main group of runners, with a small corner given over to Silky Sullivan. Although one of the favorites, he failed to deliver his customary winning drive in the stretch and finished 12th, beaten by more than 20 lengths by victorious Tim Tam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo-sgeHWC5g
(newsreel film, can't find a copy of the CBS coverage)