Talk:Secretariat (horse)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Thoroughbred Racing, an attempt to improve Wikipedia articles and content on topics related to the sport of thoroughbred horse racing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
An event mentioned in this article is a June 9 selected anniversary
I deleted reference to Man O'War in the first paragraph because it had no relevance to the article on Secretariat, and the Blood Horse poll isn't taken seriously by real racing fans (see below why). I also deleted reference to Man O'War allegedly winning Horse of the Year at two. That is not true. Only one two-year-old had won the award previously, back before the various polls were combined and the Eclipse Awards were created. Secretariat was the first--and only--two-year-old to win Horse of the Year after the Eclipse Awards were created.--Susan Nunes
Comparing athletes is never an easy task. I think that there have been gamer horses than Secretariat, but none as brilliant. I think some days he just was bored by the competition, such as Onion. True, he didn't show up every day, but when he did, few could have beaten him.
--Secretariat wasn't "bored" in the 1973 Whitney; he was sick. He met up with Onion in the inaugural Marlboro Cup and beat him and four champion horses (an unheard of feat--NO race before or since has had FIVE champions total in a single race) in world-record time. Don't people even do any research at all before they post? I was around then and saw the race.--Susan Nunes
The Belmont runnaway was one of the most amazing feats ever and will never be duplicated. The Derby with quarters of 25 1/5, 24, 23 4/5, 23 2/5 and 23 is another measure of his brilliance. You just don't see this performance in racehorses. As far as the track conditions go, can you imagine if Secretariat ran over the track in this year's Belmont? That track was like a paved road, and he would have shaved a few 5ths off his time. I am not a fan of hard racetracks, and we are hopefully apporaching an era where tracks move to safer surfaces, as Keeneland has done with Polytrack. Ableroos 13:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
--The track was NOT "souped up" for the 1973 Belmont! Please stop the nonsense. There have been other fast tracks at Belmont, and no horse has ever approached Secretariat's record. And none ever will because he was a freak of nature.--Susan Nunes
Secretariat lost FIVE races. Was beaten by a gelding named ONION who never won a stake race in its life!
--Oh, please. Exterminator, one of the greatest horses of all time, lost 50 races and won 50. He was around the same time as Man O'War, but the latter's connections obviously didn't bother challenging the great gelding. The number of races won/lost has little to do with greatness. Some of us who read Wikipedia actually followed Secretariat's career in 1972-1973 and actually saw the horse in person. Secretariat had an abcess in his mouth for the Wood (meaning he couldn't grip his bit properly, as jockey Ron Turcotte noted), he had the flu in the Whitney and should have been scratched (the race Onion won, and Onion was slaughtered by Secretariat in his world-record Marlboro Cup performance), and he was put in as a last-minute replacement for Riva Ridge in the Woodward. He was nearly knocked down in his first race, finishing fourth, and he was disqualified in the 1972 Champagne Stakes for bearing in on Stop the Music. After each loss, he returned with a resounding victory. Let's tell the truth about the great horse. He had a legitimate excuse for every loss. Man O'War never ran against real competition and beat only one older horse, Sir Barton, who was all worn out by that time. Oh, and Secretariat was NEVER at ANY time pushed to the limit. By the way, Onion was a "he," not an "it."--Susan Nunes
William Nack wrote Secretariat's bio and basically was with the horse everyday in '73. After Secretariat died, Nack wrote a beautiful piece called "Pure Heart".
It was said Secretariat was "jumping out of his skin" on the morning of the Belmont.
Secretariat was really a hit-and-miss horse. His Belmont stakes victory is probably the greatest performance by any thoroughbred in the history of horse racing. On the other hand, he did get beaten five times - which is quite a considerable number.
--Nonsense, see above.--Susan Nunes
That's probably why Secretariat is #2 on the all-time list, not #1.
--The ONLY reason Secretariat finished number 2 on that list--made up of a panel of seven "experts" was one "expert" (name never disclosed) didn't even rank him in the top ten. That list is NOT a serious list for that reason. No "expert" would be that stupid as to omit Secretariat from the top ten.--Susan Nunes
By the way, comparing Secretariat's times with Man O'War's is like comparing apples and oranges. Horses do get faster over time - for example, it's quite probable that Ghostzapper is faster than Secretariat was in '73. It doesn't take anything away from his accomplishments, however.
Contents |
[edit] Tracks were fast
it is quite possible that secretariat's record on the 1.5 mile will never be beat. This is due to the fact that during that time, the tracks were made much faster by adding additional layers in the dirt.
[edit] That's a falsehood
That's a falsehood. There have been other fast tracks at Belmont, and no horse has ever approached Secretariat's feat.
And no horse ever will because he was a genetic freak.
Oh, those five losses: In his first race Secretariat was nearly knocked down, but he rallied to finish fourth, the only time he was off the board. People who saw him that day knew he was much the best.
Second loss, the 1972 Champagne Stakes: He bore in on Stop the Music and was disqualified and placed second.
Third loss, the 1973 Wood Memorial: Secretariat had a boil on his lip, and he was not acting like himself. Ask Ron Turcotte about the abscess. Secretariat finished third, behind stablemate Angle Light and Sham. The abscess later broke, and Secretariat destroyed all comers in the 1973 Kentucky Derby, including later three-time Horse of the Year Forego.
Fourth loss, the 1973 Whitney: Secretariat had a virus and probably should have been scratched. He finished second, behind Onion. Secretariat slaughtered Onion in the inaugural Marlboro Invitational, setting a world record in that race, perhaps his best, for there were FIVE champions in that race. (Secretariat, Riva Ridge, Kennedy Road, Cougar II, and Key to the Mint. The Breeders' Cup races have NEVER had that many champions in a single race.) Man O'War NEVER faced the caliber of competition Secretariat faced.
Fifth loss, the 1973 Woodward: Riva Ridge was originally entered in that race, but was scratched when the track turned muddy. Secretariat COULD run in the mud, but trainer Lucien Laurin only gave him a couple of half-hearted runs over the track. He lost to Prove Out, when he shouldn't have.
It was clear Secretariat was no mediocrity, and there is a legitimate reason for each of those five losses. He wasn't a "hit or miss" horse, and anybody who writes such garbage doesn't know what he or she is talking about.
People like Charles Hatton, the dean of American turf writers, who saw both Man O'War and Secretariat, said Secretariat was the better horse. I'll take their knowledge any day over somebody who has very little knowledge of horse racing.
And Ghostzapper being faster than Secretariat? Oh, please.
As for that Blood Horse poll placing Secretariat second: Well, out of those polled, one moron didn't even place Secretariat in the top ten, which immediately calls into question that person's "expertise," and that's the ONLY reason Secretariat didn't place ahead of Man O'War. That "expert" was never publicly revealed, and for good reason.--Susan Nunes
I'm sorry, never be beat? I'm afraid I'm missing something here. As pointed out above (with the "apples and oranges" comment), the breed continuously improves. If the rate of improvement continues, it has been speculated that the breed will catch up with Secretariat by around 2040. This is more impressive, it seems, than Man o' War, because it is most doubtful that the breed did not catch up with him before the mid-eighties. As genetic freaks go, Secretariat was pretty genetically freaky, but, if horse racing continues progress at a steady rate, it is absolutely impossible for a record like that to stand the test of time. However, polytrack may take over dirt racing within the next few years, and in that case, it is very unlikely that 2:24 will ever be beat, because no horse will have the means to (breaking the record requires a pretty good horse, and, of course, a DIRT TRACK). Also, you are correct in saying that the tracks were not extra fast, especially because of the reasoning that if the tracks were faster then, it would be unfair to future generations of thouroughbreds to remove the advantage. As to Ghostzapper, it is completely arguable that he was as fast as Secretariat. We will of course never know. Also, the fact that he only raced four times at his peak might make it more difficult to determine who would win, as we do not know how well Ghostzapper could have raced given more time to race. In addition to that, Andrew Beyer estimates a figure of 138 for his Belmont, which was quite a bit better than any other race he ran, while Ghostzapper's highest was 128. If Ghostzapper had a Belmont-esqe day, then would he have beaten Secretariat? We don't know, but it certainly provides thought for the mind.
Of course, no offense, but because I doubt you are almost one hundred, you have no comparison between Man O' War and Secretariat, and since you saw Secretariat, are most likely being biased. Also, as to your description of him beating a lot of nobody horses, he beat EVERY good horse in the country that ran on dirt, except the ones that he scared off. I could also say of Secretariat that he was a pretty good horses that had one or two good days and didn't do TOO well the rest of his career. I could say even less, but I have respect for him as a race horse, and even suggesting that he was something less than the above stated is absolute nonsense. As for Charles Hatton and company, then no, I would think, and probably be correct in saying, that it is near half and half.
If you want to pose the Man O' War and Secretariat question on a genetic basis, then Secretariat is far superior to Man O' War. As a question of better horse, it is almost impossible to tell. As to the beyond tenth vote, that is interesting, and I though I cannot challenge it, I would like to see where you found that information.
- "then Secretariat is far superior to Secretariat". Can you explain please? Mfields1 10:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think what that user is trying to say in his obscure way is that Man O' War was superior because he also had descendants that were great racers (War Admiral and Seabiscuit, to name two), but quibbling over which horse was "better" is about as silly as arguing over whether Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds was/is "better". Different times, different circumstances (although, in my not-altogether-humble opinion, Ruth was the greatest that ever was and ever likely will be). Wahkeenah 11:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, meant to type "Man O' War", and yes, you can't by almost any means compare them. Squarethecircle 14:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think what that user is trying to say in his obscure way is that Man O' War was superior because he also had descendants that were great racers (War Admiral and Seabiscuit, to name two), but quibbling over which horse was "better" is about as silly as arguing over whether Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds was/is "better". Different times, different circumstances (although, in my not-altogether-humble opinion, Ruth was the greatest that ever was and ever likely will be). Wahkeenah 11:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
As to the "Hit or Miss" question, it really depends on what you mean. If by hit or miss you are referring to the style of racing that Omaha was involved in, in which he went through fluctuations in wins and losses, than most certainly no. If by hit or miss you mean that when he went out, he was Secretariat or "something's wrong with Secretariat so he will lose" Secretariat, then he was. Also, as you pointed out, losses don't count that much, as you presented the case of Exterminator. There have been horses eons ahead of him that have had similar records. Secretariat had a better record than a lot of greats. His record can't count against him.
As to knocked down in his first race, I have not heard evidence of that, though it is quite possibly true considering I haven't read much Secretariat-related literature lately, but a horse of his stature could quite possibly have lost NO ground. However, some of the greatest horses have not broken their maiden on their first race, that simply signifies that they need some more experience before they can start winning races. Therefore, whether or not he was bumped the first race should not count against him at all, because there is absolutely no doubt that the only horse that could compete on his level he ever raced against was Forego, who finished fifth in the Derby (he hadn't bloomed yet, though I doubt he would have one if he had).
His later losses, he had every right to lose the Woodward. He might have been tired, and Prove Out was probably better on the mud. Every horse has a day when the odds are undeniably against him, and unfortunately for Secretariat, he had one at the Woodward. Also, regarding Man O' War's one loss, I have the most slim chance of being mistaken, but his only loss came due to the fact that at the starting gate, his jockey was caught asleep and he was facing backwards. He lost by a nose, coming back from dead last, in a charge somewhat similar to Secretariat's charge from the back of the pack to win the Derby.
I'm appalled at your forgetfulness. The other two year old was Native Dancer, who was an exceptionally brillant horse, and, had he won the Kentucky Derby, he would would most likely be ranked higher than Citation (for the feat of being undefeated is almost impossible in modern horse racing, at least in major racing).
Again, in the Whitney, you fail to appreciate the fact that he could have just had a bad day. Secretariat was not perfect.
As for the Kentucky, not destroyed, just beat. He destroyed them later on in June. After that, there was no hope for any other horse attempting to win horse of the year in 1973.
I can understand that, as I have not seen the races live, I might not experience the thrill of racing or the understanding that comes with it, but facts are facts, and it may be an advantage that I have no emotional recollection, so that I am not biased.
Stop the Music won on a disqualification to second of Secretariat, for a bump. I wouldn't say he bored in, but bumping is bumping, and so, of course, he lost.
Ironically, I have not yet read the article. This knowledge comes from general compiled knowledge of horse racing, and several books on great horses. I have analyzed the facts I have learned from these sources, and compiled them into mildly chunky to very chunky paragraphs. If you have evidence that I am wrong in any case, please correct me, because I can't be an expert if I don't know the facts. Squarethecircle 23:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The talk page is for discussing the article. Please read the page and comment on improvements to the article. From what you have written in the last paragraph about the resources you have (books) on great race horses, perhaps you can improve the article. Mfields1 10:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Terrific Article!
Whatever the quibbles, and I side with the previous poster, this is a terrific article. Bravo! to the authors. — J M Rice 18:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes this is a great article. Kudos to the author(s). --BAW 22:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Here is his Belmont race:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7CX9SIwYVcg
No person can watch this without realizing this is the greatest horse ever.
Bob Woodley
[edit] Heart Size, Which is it?
"Unlike most enlarged hearts, Secretariat's showed absolutely no signs of disease. Popular belief is the heart weighed 21 pounds (9.6 kg); the truth is, the heart never was weighed and was only estimated."
From Phar Lap: "Phar Lap's heart was remarkable for its size, weighing some 6.2 kg, compared with a normal horse's heart at 3.2 kg. (Although in 1989 the famous Secretariat's heart weighed in at an astonishing 9.6 kg)"
In response to the above paragraphs. I have some information from a person at the necroscopy. Secretariat was necropsied (animal autopsy) to determe why he developed laminitis, for insurance purposes. The intention was to bury him in his entirety. The veternarian performing the necropsy was not permitted to retain any parts, but he was very experienced at this. He estimated the heart to be 21 to 22 pounds, though it was not officially weighed. This is his statement. Mfields1 20:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- What's the problem, then. There appears to be no conflict - or maybe I'm just missing something. Secretariat's heart was 9.6 kilos, and the articles agree on this. Wallie 13:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- The first statement was entered by a user who did not sign the entry. I'm guessing that the person doubts the heart size for Secretariat because it was not actually weighed but instead estimated. I wrote (recently) to the veternarian who performed the examination, which was an official examination and done for insurance purposes. This veternariam has performed thousands of necropsies on horses. The owners (of Secretariat) wanted to bury him intact, but there was a limited amount of time available (for practical reasons) between death and the burial. Often a
horse is cremated or only part of it buried. Anyway, from his experience he estimated the heart to be btween 21 and 22 pounds, and for the official record put it down as 21 pounds. He also stated "...the second largest heart I found was the heart of Sham, who actually broke the Kentucky derby record, but still lost to Secretariat. Sham’s heart weighted 19 pounds...". Mfields1 16:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on research I have done, there is no conflict regarding the estimated heart size of Phar Lap and Secretariat, thus I am removing the contradiction tag. There is no contradiction. Mfields1 16:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I want to clarify the statement I wrote from 5 June 2006. I wrote to the veternarian who necropsied Secretariat, who responded by email. The email was then inserted into the article. I should not have written "research" in my statement. It was correspondence. Not trying to open a can of worms but in reading the talk page it was an error to use the word research. Mfields1 16:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Since apparently Secretariat's heart was handled and estimated by the same doctor who did Sham's autopsy, and who did many such procedures, I'm inclined to believe his estimate. I hadn't realized Sham's heart was 19 lbs. I do regard Sham as one of the greatest thoroughbreds in history, who had the unfortunate reality of being born in the same year as Secretariat. Had Sham lived in any other year, he would have run a much different Belmont, and perhaps won it and been a Triple Crown winner. His speeds in the Derby and Preakness were superb, him being the only horse in history at that time to run the Derby under 2:00, only to lose the race to Big Red.
There is no question in my mind that Secretariat was the greatest horse who ever lived. I will never forget watching the Belmont in 1973. Nobody will who watched it. He was so magnificent in the big races that his losses are irrelevant, and merely show how it takes immense good fortune not to lose a few races, because of all the variables which an affect a horse race. Secretariat had exceedingly bad luck; and it meant nothing. His world record win over Riva Ridge was an amazing performance. When you watched him race, his speed was almost supernatural when he turned it on. I've taped both the half-hour and the hour versions of Secretariat's "Sportscentury" shows, and watch them now and then, marveling each and every time I watch that horse run. Most of his victories displayed running which was truly breathtaking. The kind of speed you have to see to believe.
Examine the reality of his races. He was big and thus a slow starter. In the Derby and Preakness, that meant huge fields and terrible starts; and the resultant necessity to pass numerous horses wide on the final turn in the Derby and the first turn in the Preakness; yet he set the Derby record and also (unofficially) the Preakness record. Put him in a race with a smaller field, and you see a world record at 1 and 1/8 and also 1 and 1/2 miles. In other words, he was the greatest horse in history at every distance, and also spectacular on the turf. I'll bet that final race is Eddie Maple's greatest racing experience and memory in his life by light years.
Bob Woodley
[edit] A broodmare sire - not a "failure as a sire"
Secretariat was not a failure as a sire. He became known as a very prominent broodmare sire once the discovery of the X-factor was known. It even states this in his article. I think the "failure" as a sire portion should be removed or at least changed to include that at the time he was considered not a prolific sire because he did not pass his incredible speed to his get, and his sons were not of his caliber nor valued as sires themselves. In racing history a sire is generally prized because he can also produce incredible sires. However he became one of the best, if not the best, broodmare sires because of the updated knowledge of genetics and thus of x-factor genetics - the reason for his large heart and why only his daughters could pass this onto their offspring. Storm Cat is known as a current terrific broodmare sire. Looking at his pedigree you'll see Secretariat on the bottom side (the dam or female side) of his pedigree.
I just feel that ever mentioning that Secretariat was a failure as a stallion need to be removed or changed. He is simply a different kind of sire not a failure (hardly a failure!) Nikidun 20:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] secretariat in general
Wow I never knew there were still so many secretariat fans left.I have groomed racehorses since Louisiana downs in Bossier city La.opened.I still work there now and then.I can tell you from personel experiance and standing in the kitchens at La downs and Oaklawn when the old timers would reflect on man o war and secretariat.I will tell you small wars break out.I have seen security called to settle near fist fights over the two.I am personaly a secretariat fan.I collect all of his things i can get.Here is one for all watching to educate yourselfs on.As for his first race, well its very simple to settle.They show the race every year just before the K.Y.derby.Along with almost all of his other races.Just watch.With almost 29 years as a groom and asst.trainer And exercise rider under my belt to go with a honest opinion.Here it is.Yes he was bumped a bit but i think he was just a little spooked too.I think he learned the first time around of how he wanted to execute his own stratagy.Lucien Laurin also understanding this kind of let him run his way.His way turned out to be from off the pace.As for the loss from being sick.well the facts are that his exercise rider Jim Gafny said it on T.V.he had to kick the horse to make him work. And he told the forman to report it and it never was So there is two I hope i can help all of you with.And i am so impressed with your passion for secretariat.It inspires me even more to never let his memory fade.Oh lets all remember if the topic is always who was the best Man O War or Secretariat then at least you still know who the two best are.And dont forget Secretariat is a fith or sixth generation grandson of Man O War So if the one who said :in so many gereations the New super horse will arrive in so many years why couldnt that be said Of Man o WAr and you seen secretariat.Who is to date the only one called SUPERHORSEHorsedawg 13:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Horsedawg
