Spectacular Bid VS Seattle Slew

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You do realize that Dr. Patches was a VERY talented horse? He had previously won an allowance at Saratoga ( as did Slew ) that got a very similar, if not better, fig. Plus. Patches had something Slew was about to get, Angel Cordero.

Seattle Slew, until the Marlboro Cup, was ridden by Jean Cruget. Now, Ron Franklin did Bid no favors, but Cruget was one of the worst ever. Winning the TC, much less nine or ten straight races, with Cruget is akin to walking across the Grand Canyon on a tightrope with PG1985 on your shoulders.

By the way, using the Swaps as any kind of example of Slew's talents ( and you're right, he was relatively " slow " as a 3YO ) is wildly unfair....and you know that. At least base your argument on relevent races.

I thought so too; 3 weeks after the TC and the horse was rightly exhausted. Nice move there by the Taylors.

As to the Indy/Slew ?, Slew would have eaten AP Indy for lunch at any time.

Why is it bad for a front-runner to be one-dimensional (esp. when his one dimension was spectacular) and a closer not to be? I watch his Derby on replay and it's still incredibly impressive - and his GC was a real display of courage.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Betsy

Why is it bad for a front-runner to be one-dimensional (esp. when his one dimension was spectacular) and a closer not to be?

Spectacular Bid wasn't a one-dimensional closer - on 7 different occasions he won Graded Stakes races in wire-to-wire fashion. On 5 different occasions he won Graded Stakes from 5 lengths back or further after a half mile. But ideally - he was a presser.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Spectacular Bid wasn't a one-dimensional closer - on 7 different occasions he won Graded Stakes races in wire-to-wire fashion. On 5 different occasions he won Graded Stakes from 5 lengths back or further after a half mile. But ideally - he was a presser.

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.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Betsy

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.

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.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

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.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Betsy

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.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

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.