Obviously.

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.

lol

Just kidding around:)

Getting back to the point of this post - I would say that spectacular bid was a better horse. Let's face it. He was. Slew was very talented and I love him to death. I probably care for slew more than the bid but at the end of the day The Bid at 4 would not lose to the great Seattle Slew.

JMO

Nice to read about truly great horses. Much more interesting then reading about horses that have manicured campaigns so they dont chip a nail.

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.

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.

Bold Forbes ran an amazing race that day to finish third, I think it's safe to say the second finisher, Johnny Campo's Play the Red, was inferior as a racehorse ( by a quarter mile or so ). Elocutionist got an amazing trip but he was pretty good.

And Bold Forbes won the Belmont three weeks later. Absolutely amazing.

looking at the swaps race......1:33 and change, 1:58 and 3. that is HUGE.

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.

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.

That - and race horses were like almost extinct when he raced.

I have my doubts Man O' War even deserved my own #15 overall rating I gave him yesterday - Discovery, a horse fairly close to his time peroid, is a far more impressive horse to me.

The problem is that you look at lists like the one Bloodhorse did and see Man O' War #1 VS Discovery #37 ... and, in general, Man O' War seemed to have the greater reputation of people in the press at that time who saw them both.

I happen to be one who supports MOW at #1 (granted he's my all-time favorite horse), so I don't have any problem with his reputation among racing people. If people want to diminish him because of the foal crops, that's fine - I can't argue with them - but it's not an argument I find favor and, in truth, it's nothing that can be proved or disproved.

that is correct.

Bold Forbes was truly an underrated colt. His Bay Shore in 1:20 3/5 and Wood Memorial in which he won eased up (A stakes record for 12 years and 2/5 off Riva Ridge's track record) were spectacular. His Kentucky Derby at the time was the fastest wire to wire until Spend A Buck won it on a highway and fifth fastest of all time. His Preakness may have been even better in defeat. He tore off 3/4 of his foot leaving the gate and still pan fried Honest Pleasure in 1:09 and was only beaten 4 lengths. To come back and win the Belmont after all the work they did on him was, as Andy said, amazing.

He was a nervous little horse who could really run. While Cordero thought Seattle Slew was the better horse, he said there were none braver than Bold Forbes. To me he was the forgotten horse of the 70's.

The Easy Goer-Sunday Silence crop was over 30.5 times larger than Man O' War's crop.

It's like comparing the human population of New York City to the 30.5 times smaller human population of Henderson Nevada.

Other than Sir Barton (who never won again) Man O' War competed against 3yo competition I felt was extremely suspect.

I think everyone is so in awe of his many "never asked" wins with large winning margins in fast raw final times. A lot of those wins in match races where his opponent is being used up than eased up behind him. From looking at charts - he was a little faster horse than I thought he'd be .. but his races were nowhere near as fast as a race like Discovery's Brooklyn Handicap win - which was probably in the low 130's.

In Discovery's next race - he showed how match race form can flatter a horse. He beat a proper top older male who had just won the ultra rich Big Cap - by 30 lengths in a match race. Not some bum who was running in case Man O' War's rider fell off. Basically - once a horse is used up and beat in a match race - a smart rider is just going to pull him up. Easier to pull up a used up loser than a razor sharp champion who isn't getting pressured and wants to run.

i read that the man o war travers is still the fastest six furlong time for the winning horse. a lot of man o war stuff is suspect, all we have is what's left us in books. i doubt anyone is still alive who saw him run. but you'd have to think there's something to a horse that would cause people to still use him as a measuring stick decades (and soon enough, a century) later.
all you can go by is time, weights, starts in an abbreviated season (i believe man's first start was the preakness-his starts were close together to get 21 races in two years, and start that late)....the fact that the 'capper was going to put more weight on MOW than had been put on a horse before, causing his retirement.

That's how I look at it - the handicapper, by the way, was Walter Vosburgh.

We still have a lot of charts, past performances, and columns from respected writers of the day - the only thing missing is film of his actual races.

Man O' War's connections ducked Exterminator all the time. Man O' War was weighted at 114lbs for the Suburban - getting a 15lbs break from the high weight at 129lbs. They ducked facing older comeptition - even with the scales in their favor - for attempts at setting speed records or winning important 3yo races all year.

Racing against a stop-watch over tracks that often played much faster than par the day he ran - that doesn't impress me anyway.

Here is a cut of a column from Jan of his 4yo season - famous turf writer John Hervey calls the match-race with Sir Barton a "circus"



In terms of setting track records and world recorlds - Man O' War was Babe Ruth .. I'm not even sure Swaps, Dr. Fager, Secretariat, and Spectacular Bid can quite compare with him in that regard. However, to rate as the greatest horse of all-time, you should have to prove a lot against the best possible competition. Winning a silly match race and owning a crop of just 1,680 total horses isn't impressive at all to say the least.

I just found this thread while searching for some other information and I feel compelled to defend Slew as a 3YO. I was a serious fan and handicapper at the time. I saw Slew, Bid, Affirmed etc... and am familiar with many of the details of their campaigns.

1. As others have said, IMO, it's a mistake to look a Slew's race in CA as an indication of either his ability at 3 or his flaws as a race horse.

It's not unusual for top horses to throw in a clinker at the end of a series of tough races, off a ship to the west coast, or especially during/after something as demanding as the Triple Crown. Slew was doing all 3. Even in those days, horses were routinely freshened after the Triple Crown. In addition, Turner has repeatedly stated he was dead set against the trip and had issues and problems with the horse leading up to the race. It's just "fishing to make a case against Slew" to use that race. It flies in the face of his entire record and everything known about the conditions leading up to it. He got outrun and beat because he was a tired horse and way less than 100% at the time. It wasn't because he was rated or one dimensional. Granted, the winner was very good that day, but that was not Slew.

2. While Slew's speed figures at 3 were not particularly fast, early in the year he wasn't winning ridden out or in hand. He was winning eased up because he was so dominant and they were trying to save some horse for the Triple Crown. He was also probably not 100% cranked yet because Turner has said the objective was to get to the Belmont with a fresh horse. But in any case, had he been asked down in Florida, his figures would have been much faster. That's undeniable.

3. In his Derby and Preakness (especially the Derby), he had very tough trips. I'd be hard pressed to think of many 3yos I have ever seen that could be left at the start, bull their way through a huge field, rush up sharply, set a very fast pace under pressure, and continue running at 10F. So whatever figure he earned there, the performance itself was monstrously better. It could even be argued he had something left in reserve at the finish even though he was slowing down. The Preakness trip was not as tough, but he again dueled in fast fractions. So whatever speed figure he earned, the performance was much better. The Belmont was basically a jog in the park.

4. Very few of his critics at 3 thought he was a mediocre 2YO or that his Champagne wasn't any good. In fact, if you look at Slew's trip in each of his first 2 starts at 2, you'll see had he trouble at the start, rushed up (once against a totally dead rail) and won extremely impressively. That's why he was the favorite in the Champagne. People knew he had run against the track, with bad starts, and was still winning for fun in good time.

5. In his loss to Patches, Slew was probably still a short horse. Those were the days horses were still often raced into peak condition after 2-3 starts. Also, Patches was an underrated horse. He was quite good during that period and was getting 14 pounds from Slew. Patches once ran Forego to a neck at even weights in a prep race for Forego. But the main point to take from that race is that Cruguet was fired after the race for comments he made about Slew's training. He criticized Doug Peterson and said the horse was not trained properly and was still short. Slew's subsequent much faster and better performances suggest he was right, if not politically very smart for saying so publicly.

To think he was mediocre at 3 because of his slow figures, you would have to think he was a great 2yo, mediocre 3yo, but great again as a 4yo and also ignore all his trips and relatively short campaign that year. That's not the way horses develop and not representative of what actually happened. Andy Beyer was criticized by many other knowledgeable handicappers at the time for his view which was based almost entirely on Slew's figures. (that was the pre trip handicapper Beyer that evolved later)

All that said, whether he was better than Bid or whether his crop was weak are entirely different questions.

His crop was on the weak side and IMHO Bid was the better horse.

Bid was almost unquestionably the best horse I have ever seen live (though vulnerable to horses with more speed and similar ability and perhaps not quite as formidable at 12F).

I think had Bid and Slew met up at their peaks, Slew would have gotten the best of him on some occasions just like he did with Affirmed (who WAS coming off a monster race and was still 100%). Slew had more speed than both of them. When asked why he allowed Slew to get away from him the first time they met, Steve Cauthen stated "I did not". He said (paraphrase) "Every time I asked Affirmed, he picked it up, but that other horse still had an even better gear".

Slew was a different version of Fager. Maybe he wasn't quite as fast, but he had more stamina than Fager. Both were all time greats. They could both probably outrun just about any other great horse I've seen, but they'd also always be vulnerable to a duel or rabbit if there was another great horse behind them.

OMG, looking through this thread....:)

Just saw this thread, have to read every post, BUT there is no question who was better, NO one was better than The Bid, The Best that I have ever seen, no one since has come close.............

Zenyatta.

:tro: She was a useful mare.

The Bid was a stone cold runner, the likes of which we have not seen since. Seattle Slew was good, but certainly no Spectacular Bid. Ran fast everytime everywhere and looked awesome doing it. Head high power in the rear legs that shot him out of the turn. It would be cool to see some home movies of that grey.

slew is near and dear to my heart...i know he'd givr bid a fit, but i think i'd have to give the edge to SB.

too bad we couldn't have had a match up of the 4 yo old bid vs slew and affirmed-except in our imaginations.

Blame

:tro: