Maiden Derby winners

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

so i guess i don't care for being called a fool because of my opinion.

And I probably should appologize to you and all the fine turf writers (I'm sure not all of them are "lazy and incompetent")

My flight to Florida, and out of this bitterly cold weather, had to be rescheduled because I wouldn't have made my connecting flight to Atlanta, which was delayed. I also wasn't about to stay in Atlanta over night and catch a connecting flight to Tampa in the morning--like the Delta guy wanted me too. Our rinky dink local airport doesn't fly directly to Tampa.

Another four days in this craphole has me in a foul mood.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

And I probably should appologize to you and all the fine turf writers (I'm sure not all of them are "lazy and incompetent")

My flight to Florida, and out of this bitterly cold weather, had to be rescheduled because I wouldn't have made my connecting flight to Atlanta, which was delayed. I also wasn't about to stay in Atlanta over night and catch a connecting flight to Tampa in the morning--like the Delta guy wanted me too. Our rinky dink local airport doesn't fly directly to Tampa.

Another four days in this craphole has me in a foul mood.

That sucks for you... the weather is great down here right now!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

And I probably should appologize to you and all the fine turf writers (I'm sure not all of them are "lazy and incompetent")

My flight to Florida, and out of this bitterly cold weather, had to be rescheduled because I wouldn't have made my connecting flight to Atlanta, which was delayed. I also wasn't about to stay in Atlanta over night and catch a connecting flight to Tampa in the morning--like the Delta guy wanted me too. Our rinky dink local airport doesn't fly directly to Tampa.

Another four days in this craphole has me in a foul mood.

can't say i blame you about not wanting to overnite in atlanta. never could figure out why my cousin lives there.

hopefully your mood will lighten with the sun. we're enjoying a bit of early spring weather here right now. doubt it will last tho!!

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

can't say i blame you about not wanting to overnite in atlanta. never could figure out why my cousin lives there.

hopefully your mood will lighten with the sun. we're enjoying a bit of early spring weather here right now. doubt it will last tho!!

Three of my cousins live there as well and to be honest, while I don't care for Atlanta itself, the suburbs are very nice and I wouldn't mind living there.

[slotdirt]

I read the Legend like Lightning book about six months ago. It was a pretty good read, and I definitely don't think it was biased towards the horse himself.

As for Man O' War the horse: he set a gang of world, track, and stakes records at a variety of distances - some of which were never broken - and even broke a world record in a race where the place horse finished an estimated 100 lengths in arrears. It's estimated that on that particular day - in a virtual walkover - Man O' War bested the world record by as much as eight lengths. He gave up as much as 33.5 pounds to his competitors, beat the first Triple Crown winner in a match race, and won 20 races by a median of 9.5 lengths.

Secretariat, by contrast, never gave up more than 12 pounds, and won 17 of 21 starts by a median of 3.5 lengths.

Stats can work both ways, eh?

I would not worry. The contrarian probably thinks that Lincoln is overrated as a President. There's one in every crowd.

Lincoln is terribly overrated...

Anyhow, the original pt. by Drugs about foal crop size I think is a valid pt. You can make similar pts. about major league baseball before black players arrived or say Olympic in the days before before many kids even had the chance to compete at track and field instead of having to go to work in Africa or China or Texas or whatever.

But moving on from that pt. the argument DrugS has some serious explaining to do.

1. Track records. In the original post he said something like "...if you really believe that horses ran 20 lengths further today..."

Well dont they? Look at the records in MoW's day and compare them to todays. MoW who is running some of the fastest times of his day is still running some 2 sec. behind records from the 50s and somewhat more than that today.

I mean there is no doubt that horse times were slower back then and it wasnt the horses fault: track surfaces were slower, iron shoes were heavier, and the turns werent banked. There is also another thing that is not mentioned often: these jocks were often fighting each other, recall the famous photo of the '33 derby. This appears to have happened alot, although prolly not much to MoW who was usually clear of the field. (as aside, prolly the reason MoW and Sec were able to set so many records is that they usually were clear of the field and able to cut the turns so sharply, or in MoW case not have to fight through the jocks)

Another thing that really has not been talked about much is that there must have been a lot of time loss on the turns, for the above reason. One could probably study track records on straight courses, and one turn courses vs 2 turn courses, and put together a reasonable guess that these horses are losing up to a sec. or so on the turns alone.

As an aside: MoW could throw a very fast quarter in 23 sec. very comparable to modern horses (this in iron shoes!), this also makes me think again, that much of the time loss in pre-1950 racing has more to do with unbanked turns.

Anyhow, you have not put together any sort of cogent argument that horse times are some sort of delusion in those days. There are reasons the times were slower and they are objective. What you cannot deny is that MoW was setting records nearly every time he went out. SImilar to Swaps 4 yr old campaign, Secretariat's 3 yr old; Spect Bid; and maybe a few others Certainly puts him in good company.

2. Carrying wt. This argument is some sort of bad joke to cite Exterminator for carrying 150# and citing this against MoW is intellectually dishonest. Completely dishonest. Famous hi weight carrying horses includes like Bold Ruler, Dr Fager and Forego. I thnk you will find in their great seasons the most they carried was 136-138#. I dont think BRuler carried more than 136 in 1958 and Fager 138 in 1968, maybe there are a few exceptions, did Forego ever carry 140#?

One thing is clear:

NO ONE CARRIES 150# ANY MORE, NOR DID ANY HORSE CARRY 150# OFTEN!

Okay? So Jeezus Christ get off this stupid argument about wt. MoW was obviously carrying nearly as much as the great wt carriers of the late 20th cent. MoW carried up to 138# in his 3 yr old season (as much as Dr Fager and BOld Ruler) and set track/world records, this makes him one of the great wt carriers of history. Jeezus what a stupid freakin argument. Exterminator carried 150# So that means....Dr Fager sucks????

What a dumb argument.

3) Match race vs Exterminator. According to Avalyn Hunter and her pedigree book, p. 77, the reason the race w/ MoW and SIrBarton did not take place was that the connections of SirBarton and Exterminator could not agree on what the distance would be. They felt that Exterminator was better at 10f+ and SB better at <10f. What Mr. Riddle thought is not mentioned, I seriously doubt they thought he was inferior at 10f as the horse won the JCGC and Lawrence Realization by 100 lenghts...

It seems to me that given his destruction of the opposition and the track records he set. MoW 2/3yr old campaigns are something comparable to Secretariats and they both seem to be on a similar plane. If you like Sec for top 5, then you should like MoW. Personally, I like BUckpasser, Dr. Fager and Spect. Bid as much as Sec. and dont really see much between them but this is off pt. a little.

[mark2061mn]

Originally Posted by easy goer

1. Track records. In the original post he said something like "...if you really believe that horses ran 20 lengths further today..."

Well dont they? Look at the records in MoW's day and compare them to todays. MoW who is running some of the fastest times of his day is still running some 2 sec. behind records from the 50s and somewhat more than that today.

I mean there is no doubt that horse times were slower back then and it wasnt the horses fault: track surfaces were slower, iron shoes were heavier, and the turns werent banked. There is also another thing that is not mentioned often: these jocks were often fighting each other, recall the famous photo of the '33 derby. This appears to have happened alot, although prolly not much to MoW who was usually clear of the field. (as aside, prolly the reason MoW and Sec were able to set so many records is that they usually were clear of the field and able to cut the turns so sharply, or in MoW case not have to fight through the jocks)

Another thing that really has not been talked about much is that there must have been a lot of time loss on the turns, for the above reason. One could probably study track records on straight courses, and one turn courses vs 2 turn courses, and put together a reasonable guess that these horses are losing up to a sec. or so on the turns alone.

As an aside: MoW could throw a very fast quarter in 23 sec. very comparable to modern horses (this in iron shoes!), this also makes me think again, that much of the time loss in pre-1950 racing has more to do with unbanked turns.

Anyhow, you have not put together any sort of cogent argument that horse times are some sort of delusion in those days. There are reasons the times were slower and they are objective. What you cannot deny is that MoW was setting records nearly every time he went out. SImilar to Swaps 4 yr old campaign, Secretariat's 3 yr old; Spect Bid; and maybe a few others Certainly puts him in good company.

omg, do you know what you've just done? all i can say is take cover!