Spectacular Bid VS Seattle Slew

[Danzig]

i'm a huge seattle slew fan, have a print of him at three chimneys...but no way i'd rank him ahead of the bid.

[justindew]

Is Andy asleep?

[dalakhani]

I think there is little debate that Spectacular Bid was a faster horse. The thing is, Slew had this whole mystique thing going for him in droves. He was a cool horse with a cool name and the pretty horsey people love slew and thats why he gets rated higher in these polls.

Did anybody ever read the book "stud"? I loved the way Slew was described in there. The author said he had a "miles davis kind of cool". I know that you are talking strictly about speed and racehorse ability but that aura thing is why people tend to overrate the brilliance that he showed on the track.

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I think there is little debate that Spectacular Bid was a faster horse. The thing is, Slew had this whole mystique thing going for him in droves. He was a cool horse with a cool name and the pretty horsey people love slew and thats why he gets rated higher in these polls.

Did anybody ever read the book "stud"? I loved the way Slew was described in there. The author said he had a "miles davis kind of cool". I know that you are talking strictly about speed and racehorse ability but that aura thing is why people tend to overrate the brilliance that he showed on the track.

It is a shame Zenyatta and Seattle Slew never had the chance to hook up. The resulting foal might have been the next Michael Jackson.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

It is a shame Zenyatta and Seattle Slew never had the chance to hook up. The resulting foal might have been the next Michael Jackson.

At least they were both great horses.

There have been a lot of bad horses who were pretty cool as well.

I remember a favorite greyhound of mine growing up who was borderline uncontrolable and would jump all over his handler in the post parade. He rarely got past Grade C though.

[smartbid09]

If Spectacular Bid didn't have such an idiot on his back in the Belmont he wins the triple crown. If he wins the triple crown "the bid" wins 1979 horse of the year!

And If Bids owners kept Spectacular Bid on the race track for a 4-year-old campaign after winning the triple crown The Bid perhaps would have closed out his race track career with a walkover and the title "horse of the century".

This is a possibility of course not a definite.

But Ronnie Franklin rode him like an idiot, Spectacular Bid loses the belmont & he loses his one encounter to Affirmed. Slew however won when it counted. He left no doubt of his greatness. Poor bid! He deserves better than 10th on the Blood horse list. Can't say for sure he was better than Slew though. But he probably was.

[Port Conway Lane]

I wonder if a $20 win ticket on Screen King and a $5 ex ticket Bid over Screen King has any value. Old style colorful tickets.

I think it's pretty cool that prior to the '79 Derby Delp had already proclaimed Bid to be the greatest horse to ever look through a bridle and by the time he finished his career the Bid came damn close to proving him right.

[Thunder Gulch]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

It is a shame Zenyatta and Seattle Slew never had the chance to hook up. The resulting foal might have been the next Michael Jackson.

Zenyatta vanquished Slew and Bid in that computer race, so they both suck.

[classhandicapper]

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.

[randallscott35]

OMG, looking through this thread....

[FATPIANO]

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.............

[cakes44]

Zenyatta.

[Alabama Stakes]

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.

[Danzig]

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.