Maiden Derby winners

[Linny]

Great points easy goer.

Remember too that timing was far less accurate in 1920. Are races were timed manually and it's not like they could verify "odd" times with a videotape. Starts were chaotic and a few 1/2 seconds one way or the other make a big difference.
Tracks were not groomed and prepared surfaces as they are today. Drainage was dreadful and the condition "heavy" was common.

[slotdirt]

Totally forgot about the lack of a starting gate back then. I wish I had some video of that, but having seen a start at a steeplechase, I have to imagine a mass start back in Man O'War's day was completely chaotic.

[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!

Oh yeah, I had forgot about the timing thing. That too is a good pt. I really should have mentioned that. The timing alone probably accounts for a good bit of time loss up till the 1930s when they finally got the starting gates in most places. yeah, lose a lot of time that way for sure.

The banked tracks and the aluminum shoes come in around 1950 I guess.

***

I would have to research more on the prestige value of the Derby although I am not sure that really has much to do with the argument about MoW. It is well known that Mr. Riddle didnt think 3 yr olds should go 10f in May so that is why he did not run.

It is also the reason that he did not carry 150# as a four year old. He thought that was not a good idea. History seems to validate him, as we dont see that much weight here at least no in north america.

***

I dont find too many "bad horses" winning the derby in 20s and 30s although there are always going to be underdogs that win it.

Behave YOurself, 1921 and Brokers Tip 1933 are about the only two I can figure as mediocrities to win it then. Morvich was underdog but he went on a tear right after winning this and so he must have been peaking. CLyde van Dusen and flying Ebony were not much but they won as mudders, so I guess it had to do with an off track on those days.


Prolly someone in the 22nd century is going to pt. to Giacomo in 2005 as some sort of proof that the derby wasnt up to snuff or something. It happens. Most of the time when the good horses didnt make the derby back then it was because of injury, going from memory here.

****

One thing that I notice in terms of trends is the field size of the derby and this has accounted for something of an increase in closers winning it in the last 30 years. THe track certainly plays well to closers in modern times, but looking at the 40s and 50s, I dont think they are doing nearly so well. Most likely this has to do with field size. There is no reason to go 5 wide when the field is only 7 or 8 horses.

For instance Citation would probably have won it as a closer nowadays but in 1948 he stayed about 5 or 6 lengths back of Coaltown in what was essentially a two horse race. No reason to let a horse like that get out in front by a lot, Coaltown could finish. But say nowadays with at least 3 or 4 cheap speed horses, out there, he could probably stay further back and win in true closer fashion.

There were still some great closers that won it in 40s and 50s, Ponder, Whirlaway, Needles, but now we are getting like 1/2 or more of the derbies won by closers.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

EG, Your reading comprehension skills lack.

Among other things, I never said Exterminator carried 150lbs, it was Roseben and he did that on multiple occasions.

I only made the Roseben point, because another poster thought MoW deserved his ranking as #1 in the 1900's, because he 'carried a lot of weight, set a lot of records, and horseman thought he was special'

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Roseben carried 150lbs on multiple occasions (12lbs more than Man O' War ever carried) and routinely gave between 50-to-60 lbs in weight to his opposition. Oh yeah, in a 20 length victory, he also ran 7 furlongs at Belmont Park, in 1:22 flat, breaking the North American record by almost three full seconds.

His track record stood at Belmont for 51 years, until Bold Ruler broke it in 1957

Roseben also won 52 races. Needless to say, he wasn't in the top 100.

[boswd]

Easy Goer - Great book for history of the sport is "They're Off!!! Horse Racing at Saratoga" by Edward Hotailing.
Not only gives a great account on the history of racing at Saratoga but on the sport it's self and of the times throughout the years. If you are a history buff for the Sport, this is a must read!!!!!!!!

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by easy goer

Morvich was underdog but he went on a tear right after winning this and so he must have been peaking.

That is dazzling misinformation right there.

Morvich went into the Kentucky Derby with a perfect 11-for-11 record. And won it.

He was an ugly looking Cal bred of modest ability, who thoroughly dominated the smallest foal crop of the 1900's. 15 fewer horses in his crop than Man O' War's.

Yes, Zev '23, the next one after Morvich '22 is the one I that I meant, I was flipping through Hunter's book too fast I guess. Zev was apparently a big underdog but went wire to wire, he then won the WIthers, Belmont and QUeens Cty Hdcp and then a couple others before the match race w/ Papyrus. So maybe he was in top form, just no one knew it.

By the way can you explain what this is supposed to mean:

"I guess I'm supposed to consider him the #1 horse of the century because he once ran a 1 1/4 in 2:01 4/5ths? ... Oh yeah, we also have to assume the tracks were 20 lengths slower back than"

What exactly is the pt? You've basically explained the fallacy in your reasoning in the same passage, or maybe not..?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by boswd

You also have to remember, back then The Derby didn't have some prestige that it holds now. It was still an important race but the Belmont, Preakness and even The Travers were regarding as more important races.
I think it was in the 40's when the Derby started to make it's move as the most important race.
So therefore you would get some "not so great" horses winning the Derby

i glanced over part of the book dealing with the derby, and mow not going there.
i know riddle thought about it-and also mentions that he thought about regret, the first filly to win it, and that she was off til august after doing so. riddle wanted to enjoy the horse and racing all year, and of course back then travelling to ky wasn't quite so easy as now. it also mentions about horses sickening, or even dying, due to shipping. riddle preferred keeping man o war right there on the east coast within hours of many different tracks.

[boswd]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i glanced over part of the book dealing with the derby, and mow not going there.
i know riddle thought about it-and also mentions that he thought about regret, the first filly to win it, and that she was off til august after doing so. riddle wanted to enjoy the horse and racing all year, and of course back then travelling to ky wasn't quite so easy as now. it also mentions about horses sickening, or even dying, due to shipping. riddle preferred keeping man o war right there on the east coast within hours of many different tracks.

So in essence MOW won the three most important races for 3 yr olds back then. And since there really wasn't a Triple Crown as we now it, in an odd way MOW did win it. With The Preakness, the Belmont and the Travers being the most important races back in 1920.

interesting, I think there is only one horse to win both the derby and the Travers, or is it TC + Travers? Hmmm, is The Bid? What am I thinking of?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by easy goer

interesting, I think there is only one horse to win both the derby and the Travers, or is it TC + Travers? Hmmm, is The Bid? What am I thinking of?

There have been a lot of horses to win both the Derby and Travers...and Spectacular Bid wasn't one of them...he didn't start in the Travers.

Affirmed and Whirlaway are the only two triple crown winners to cross the wire first in the Travers---and Affirmed was DQ'ed.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by boswd

So in essence MOW won the three most important races for 3 yr olds back then. And since there really wasn't a Triple Crown as we now it, in an odd way MOW did win it. With The Preakness, the Belmont and the Travers being the most important races back in 1920.

i finished the book today, interesting that one of MOW's records stayed on the book for years, until the legend known as kelso finally broke it. and for those who bring up him 'ducking' exterminator-ex wasn't even considered the top older horse, sir barton was....ex was considered the best stayer-and he had a couple shots at man o war, and bypassed them. and of course man o war met with the mighty sir barton, the rest as they say is history...i recommend that book to anyone who might be interested. it was pretty good, well-researched, and not a 'drool fest'. i had read several books on big red previously, and found stuff in here that i hadn't known about--especially about 'hopped horses'. seems way back when, they used to run some of their horses on cocaine!!

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Sir Barton never won again after the match race loss to Man O' War.

He was 3rd as an odds-on favorite at LRL in his next start. Than was 3rd in a $3,600 stake at Pimlico at 2/5 odds. He finished his career, fittingly running 2nd to stablemate Billy Kelly in a stake at Pimlico.

I say fittingly, because Billy Kelly beat Sir Barton nine times in his career.

Can you explain wha the DQ reasoning on Affirmed was? I like studying the history of these fellas and finding out about these DQs sometimes adds to their legend or not...

What about the Secretariat/ANgle Light fiasco? Book I was reading said Turcotte said it was shameful but have heard other things.

The Dr Fager one seemed ridiculous, Ive seen the footage on that, it happens on the back stretch, seemed ridiculous. I count that in his column.

Or Genuine Risk/ COdex was it? Was that a bad one?

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by easy goer

Can you explain wha the DQ reasoning on Affirmed was? I like studying the history of these fellas and finding out about these DQs sometimes adds to their legend or not...

What about the Secretariat/ANgle Light fiasco? Book I was reading said Turcotte said it was shameful but have heard other things.

The Dr Fager one seemed ridiculous, Ive seen the footage on that, it happens on the back stretch, seemed ridiculous. I count that in his column.

Or Genuine Risk/ COdex was it? Was that a bad one?

There is probably footage of the Travers race w/ Affirmed & Alydar on You-tube, but Pincay dropped Affirmed right in front of Alydar as the latter was making his charge on the turn.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

There is probably footage of the Travers race w/ Affirmed & Alydar on You-tube, but Pincay dropped Affirmed right in front of Alydar as the latter was making his charge on the turn.

My memory was that it was on the backstretch well before the turn. Alydar was flying up along the rail and Pincay, riding Affirmed for the first time I believe, moved over in front of Alydar, causing Alydar to clip heels. I watched the race on a TV at Harrah's casino in Reno. (one of those 'you remember where you were' moments, horseracing version)

At any rate, the DQ was a no-brainer IMO. (although I was admittedly an Alydar fan, and had been looking forward to the rematch ever since the Belmont.)

--Dunbar

[boswd]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i finished the book today, interesting that one of MOW's records stayed on the book for years, until the legend known as kelso finally broke it. and for those who bring up him 'ducking' exterminator-ex wasn't even considered the top older horse, sir barton was....ex was considered the best stayer-and he had a couple shots at man o war, and bypassed them. and of course man o war met with the mighty sir barton, the rest as they say is history...i recommend that book to anyone who might be interested. it was pretty good, well-researched, and not a 'drool fest'. i had read several books on big red previously, and found stuff in here that i hadn't known about--especially about 'hopped horses'. seems way back when, they used to run some of their horses on cocaine!!

What book was it that you read? I love the old history books on horse racing. I mentioned this earlier in the thread but in case you missed it. read "They're Off!!!! Horse racing at Saratoga." Fantastic book about the history of the sport not only for The Spa but all over from Churhill Down, the Belmont to Santa Anita and all those old tracks down in Queens, and Long Island. Also all the sports greats. Wonderful book and a must for any horse racing fan.

[Linny]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

That is dazzling misinformation right there.

Morvich went into the Kentucky Derby with a perfect 11-for-11 record. And won it.

He was an ugly looking Cal bred of modest ability, who thoroughly dominated the smallest foal crop of the 1900's. 15 fewer horses in his crop than Man O' War's.

I don't think Morvich ever won again.

you know, I do remember that Affirmed Alydar Pincay thing, at least I remember them showing it on the television back when there were only three networks and no 24 hour sports news. What about those other DQs has anyone ever seen those..?