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.