The Unbeatable Horse

re: The Unbeatable Horse

brunoaltimino — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 01:56:25 GMT

This is the race that does the greatest harm to Secretariat's legacy. The other losses are explainable and Secretariat avenged all those losses. But he never avenged that loss to Prove Out. Moreover, Prove Out was a spectacularly talented horse with an impeccable pedigree. Secretariat needed his best effort against Prove Out.

re: The Unbeatable Horse

Zenyattasbiggestfan — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 03:42:45 GMT

Thats great. I love Riva Ridge.

re: The Unbeatable Horse

Russ — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:45 GMT

Saratoga AJ

I had often wondered about the 'ducking' as well. I have never found anything written on that. Here is what is known: The meadow had two good horses, Riva and Sec. They wanted to give Riva a shot at the title for best older horse and to do that he had to run the gold cup. They had decided after the Marloboro that they would not pit the two against each other again. Penny liked both horses and didnt want to see Riva defeated again. She knew Sec was the better of the two. It also made economic sense to run them seperately, on different schedules. If they both won, they could maximize their earnings. Riva could never handle a track other than a good dirt course. As for Sec, they had wanted to try him on grass, even before the Woodward, so they eyed the ManOWar, just a few weeks after the Marlboro. When he performed so well in that race, all kinds of options opened, more on grass than dirt. One thing for sure, Riva was going to run the gold cup, so that left grass races as the only option for Sec. He had time for only one race before his retirement so the Candadian was the best fit.

As for Sec not being able to run 2 miles better than 3:20, that is a tall assertion to prove. All the indicators indicated his ability to run long distances, probably as much as 2.5 miles. His slowest 1.5 run was 2:28 and a little change in the Canadian; all others were 2:24, 2:24.6, and 2:26.4 (a terrific time) in the Woodward on the slop, and without training. These are Kelso figures. Kelso's best figure at 1.5 was 2:23.8 on turf. Sec's was 2:24 on dirt and dirt is a slower surface than grass. If Kelso ran two in 2:19, I think Sec would have bettered that or at least the indicators suggest it. No, Prove Out had some luck that day in the Woodward, he faced a Sec not in training for that race, and still Prove Out(who was in peak form)had to run a Hall of Fame figure to win. He did that. Had Sec been in training for that race, it would have been different, we dont know how different, but different. And Prove Out had a little more luck his way. In his previous race at 9 furlongs, his longest distance up to that time, he finished 7th, and logically entered the Woodward as the long shot. Nobody saw him coming. Had he won his last race, I think Lucien would have worked Sec, preparing him in case he had to run. Or possibly he might have scratched him believing there was not enough time to properly work him. All idle speculation in the end.

re: The Unbeatable Horse

Saratoga AJ — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:10:36 GMT

Which is why to this day I still maintain that Secretariat's connections ducked a rematch with Prove Out in the the biggest championship race at the time,the JCGC. That's why they switched to grass for Sec's last two races. He never would have beaten Prove Out at two miles (3:20).

re: The Unbeatable Horse

Steve — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:42:04 GMT

Great story about Prove Out. His time of 2:25.8 in the Woodward seems astonishing given that it was achieved on a sloppy track with standing water. Conditions like that are grueling. I am not sure how this compares to Secretariat's 2:24 Belmont Stakes achieved on a lightning fast track, but it can't be far off.

re: The Unbeatable Horse

Draynay — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 03:15:27 GMT

Russ to suggest Prove Out was a superstar or great horse is just plain wrong. Prove Out did not hit the board in more than half his races. You can't call that anything more than a good horse at best. Secretariat ran some great races and as a 3 year old ran a few clunkers.

re: The Unbeatable Horse

Russ — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:52:21 GMT

Dear Mr. Haskin,

As usual, I find your material about a year later and a dollar late, but I still would like to comment. I loved your article and simply want to add to it, but allow my comment. You set it up the way say Seabiscuit was set up or the latest book on ManOWar by I can’t recall her name. A match race of sorts was set up in the background of those colts, the one against War Admiral, the other against Barton, and perhaps Ruffian against Pleasure. Your "two elements" phrase reminded me of those incidents, elements that came together that resulted in something historical, but there was the difference, as you noted: in the other events, all expected and prepared for a great meet; in Secretariat’s case, AJ (Allen Jerkins) prepared, LL (Lucien Lauren) did not.

Now for what I would like to add. Some years back, I researched that race and Prove Out in particular. Had he been sound, he would have been Graustark’s best, and in 1972 there might have been a Triple Crown winner and it would not have been Riva Ridge. The horse had talent belonging to the Hall of Fame, so if anyone claims Secretariat defeated easy fields, they had better think twice. Prove Out was one of many such runners Secretariat faced. Here is why. I don’t know where you stand on Beyer figures but I respect them given they be taken in the context of the race. Andy gave Prove Out a monstrous 131 for the Woodward, something only the best can do. I went further and calculated figures for the Jockey Club Cup and the Grey Lag he won the following year. The horse scored a 127 for the Cup which is what I expected. On reading the post race material, I thought the horse lost some of the form he had in the Woodward. Though he ran an overall good time (actually a great time) and a sharp time in the closing quarter, it was not as clean as the Woodward. Still a 127 is something only the best perform. Then he scored a huge 129 in the Lag, a Hall Of Fame figure, something Secretariat did on a regular basis. These 3 figures average to 129, a Hall of Fame score. So for about 5 weeks or so, beginning late in the 1973 season, a new super horse had arrived, one that was clearly the best of the older horses.

When Secretariat lost the Woodward, it was not like other opponents he had lost to; this one was a legitimate contender. Prove Out might well have defeated Citation and perhaps a few others that day. Some have said that Secretariat could not handle the mud, but I question that. Secretariat never had trouble on mud before, which he ran on multiple occasions. Up to that race, he had run twice on the surface and had not lost. In fact, on his first such run, he finished 1/5th off the 1 1/16th mile track record on a hand ride (the Laurel Futurity he ran as a two). He ran very fast workouts in the mud as well, so that was not the problem. AJ once made the “mud” comment on the Woodward some years later saying the horse could not handle mud, but I believe he was defending LL who was still living at the time. Secretariat scored an enormous 128 in the race, below the casual hand-ridden 129s he had been running. It was a labored driving 128 indicating training issues more than anything else. He subperformed. In the ManO’War one week later, the horse went 1.5 miles again but with ease. LL used the Woodward as a workout and then gave him his typical 5 furlong zinger 3 days before and the horse barely broke a sweat while shattering the course record. Had Secretariat been in peak form for the Woodward we might have seen a different finish. Averaging Secretariat’s top three Beyer scores of 129, 129, and 148 (using the par figures at that time) gives an average of 135, a few points better than Prove Outs’ 129. (Even if we were to use the revised figure of 139 for the Belmont, using updated par figures for the distance, the average would be about 132.) Secretariat had speed to spare when he was peak.

In the Woodward, Secretariat was as good as he could be that day, but Prove Out was as good as he would ever be.

A quick note: In the Woodward, Secretariat ran the distance in 2:26 2/5s, again breaking Gallant Man’s track record, and this time in the mud. Some estimated his time at 2:26 3/5s, but that is using the old 1/5th for a length scale which is not accurate. A better scale is 1.3 lengths for the fifth which I have found support for in a number of publications. Secretariat’s second ¾ mile time bettered his Belmont run, and even bettered Affirmed’s time in his famed run against Alyadar in their Belmont. Both Secretariat and Prove Out that day ran like the super stars they were.

re: The Unbeatable Horse

eugene levey — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:18:35 GMT

WELL SOME ONE MADE A MISTAKE WRITING THAT SECRETARIAT BEAT TOP CLASS "TENTAM" & "BIG SPRICE" IN THE "MAN OF WAR" STAKES BY 5 LENGTHS..YES HE DID, BUT IT WASNT "BIG SPRICE">IT WAS "BIG SPRUCE"

re: The Unbeatable Horse

Steve Haskin — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:56:26 GMT

Helen S., thank you. If you e-mail me at shaskin@bloodhorse.com. I will find that Lava Man article and send it to you.

re: The Unbeatable Horse

lazmannick — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:09:19 GMT

Great Article (and don't ever say an article like this could be too long. I could rea this stuff all day long.)

I wonder how Curlin or Big Brown or any of the other prima donnas racing today would have fared in those races or even during those times, especially if they had to overcome the same obstacles that those great horses had to overcome. I remember when horses raced in the Derby and then ran in a prep race the following week for the Preakness which was run a week later. It was so different back then---breeding intentions (stamina vs speed), training methods, purses, etc. etc. Probably one of the biggest differences were the trainers. Horses back then were unsound too, but they found ways to deal with it and overcome those problems. And the owners raced their horses even when they could have easily retired them for stud purposes. It ticke me off when I read somewhere that if Big Brown would have won the Belmont he probably would have been retired. Just say that he did. Many people would be louding him for his greatness, but too me it would have been a fraud.

re: The Unbeatable Horse

Rebs Policy — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:05:40 GMT

Dear Mike S and Julie L,

A pleasure to see two staunch Cougar II fans.

1970 was my first year at the track -- 8-y-o backside brat -- and I got to see, in person, every start Cougar II ever made in California. (It was fairly easy after his first few wins as he became a "weekend warrior," running in high-profile stakes that were most often run on Saturdays.) I remember his run at Ack Ack all to well in the '70 Big Cap. As soon as Pincay put him on the crown of the track -- the surface near the rail was not favorable -- he took off after his famous stablemate like a hungry canary on bird seed. (I was rooting for Terlago that day as my parents worked for Jerry Fanning.) The fact that Ack Ack made all the running that day on a tiring track made his victory doubly impressive.

I used to visit both champions in the stable area back then -- stable employees kids roaming the backside was not unusual back then. Charlie Whittingham was always the kindest man and never talked down to me or was dismissive about questions about racing. A finer gentleman was not to be found and... what a mouth. Ribald & hilarious.

Those were truly halcyon days for the track. What times! Thanks for jogging my memory. And thanks again to Steve Haskin. Your columns always bring out stimulating and welcome conversation. A catalyst for good.

~~~~~

Now how about that great gelding, ANCIENT TITLE, another CA fan fave, getting into the H.O.F. That old dude was made of nails & pride. What a special trooper!

All the best,

"Reb"

re: The Unbeatable Horse

marc w — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:42:30 GMT

As mentioned above with the Sham fan I actually challenged Secretariat's broodmare success more than his race record (because I thought he had to have success with the blue hen mares seen) I mentioned I thought Dr Fager was a better horse. Secretariat was certainly one of the greatest, of that there was no doubt. Mr. Haskin you with your experience and knowledge would also know that horses like Hoist The Flag, Ruffian, more recently maybe Candy Ride, and the like, certainly looked like no one could beat them, but didn't get the same press as Big Red. (Ruffian got her share but not to that extent---it would be interesting to find out if John Cruguet he thought Seattle Slew or Hoist the Flag was a better horse? Maybe you could find out?

I mentioned on "that same post" that probably even the Fager might have lost to "Prove Out" he was so powerful in those races, and he may just have been the best horse "ever " for those few starts. More recently I truly believe that Empire Maker was a better horse than Funny Cide--but he wasn't in the Derby and I have no doubts had he gone in the Preakness --Funny Cide would have been the best then too. He was just fantastic for those 2 races--just a good horse for the rest of his career.

re: The Unbeatable Horse

Steve Haskin — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:53:33 GMT

My error on Riva Ridge. Totally forgot about that International, perhaps because he never picked his feet up on the soggy turf, which makes it more surprising they'd try him on it again. Anyway, I did correct that.

Jim, that's a very kind comment and I appreciate it, but if someone ever did download my brain, I'm afraid their computer would crash.

Again, MeckeFan and everyone else, thank you for the kind words. I'm glad these looks back are being well received. It encourages me to keep writing them.

re: The Unbeatable Horse

Julie L. — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:39:23 GMT

Mike, I agree with you that Whittingham wanted the Horse of the Year title for Ack Ack and what a shame that he didn't allow the face off. Cougar II was a beautiful, talented and great runner, I just wish more people rememebered him and what he accomplished on the racetrack. Viva la Cougar!

re: The Unbeatable Horse

Mike S — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:52:38 GMT

Julie L, my fellow COUGAR II fan! When ACK ACK beat COUGAR II in the Santa Anita Handicap, COUGAR II was way back early, on a dull track, and was still 4th, 6-1/2 lengths back, at the top of the stretch, and extremely wide, but still managed to get up for 2nd, being beaten by a diminishing 1-1/2 lengths.

Later that year, Charlie Whittingham scratched COUGAR II from the Hollywood Gold Cup because he feared that COUGAR II would run down ACK ACK and ruin that horse's chance for Horse of the Year. ACK ACK was Charlie's favorite.

COUGAR II sort of helped ACK ACK secure the Horse of the Year award in 1971 by going to Belmont and obliterating the field of New York's finest in the Woodward Stakes (only to be unfairly disqualified...he was WAY the best that day).

re: The Unbeatable Horse

Steve Haskin — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:19:27 GMT

Thank you all again for your comments. I just returned from Saratoga and I will address as many of them as I can as soon as I catch up.

re: The Unbeatable Horse

Julie L. — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:33:07 GMT

Mike S. - how wonderful to have someone bring up the great Cougar II, he was one of my very favorites during the 70's, my bestfriend Gail was a huge fan of Ack Ack so you can just imagine how the two of us got when Cougar II and Ack Ack would face off. He was truly one of the "greats" and he sired a Kentucky Derby winner in Gato Del Sol whom I have pointed out before won the Derby from the 18 hole running wide the whole race and ridden by the great Eddie D.

re: The Unbeatable Horse

Mike S — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:14:41 GMT

In all my praise for COUGAR II did I mention that he was in the money in 30 of his last 31 races, all stakes? That's an amazing feat. And just one more reason he was a GREAT horse.

re: The Unbeatable Horse

Lory — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:13:46 GMT

I got to see Cougar11 run at santa anita was one of the best looking horses ever had the big billowing tail and a high action but what a horse. had the misfortune to go there with a really fast horse and run into Ack Ack on his way to horse of the year.

re: The Unbeatable Horse

HelenS — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:00:51 GMT

There really is a story behind each and every horse. I always knew the name Prove Out, and I assumed that he just happened to beat Big Red on an off day. Now I finally know his facsinating saga. So there WAS one horse who actually could and did legitimately beat the great Secretariat.

Just imagine racing Prove Out five times in as many weeks, and working him at such long distances! Also, the frequency with which the triple crown winner himself was raced is surprising. Today that would be considered abusive. I wish we could get back to those days when horse limbs were more solid so that I could enjoy watching a live race without anxiety. Also, the way the horses of old toyed with track records and world records is just unbelievable. How many records did Secretariat set anyway? Derby, Preakness*, Belmont, Marlboro Cup, Man O'War, and that world record workout you mentioned. WOW! And he never even was hit by his jockey, who just seemed to be along for the amazing ride. I once heard Pincay say that he thought he was going to win his first kentucy derby that day with Sham because the horse was giving it everything he had, and then along comes the big red horse to his outside just doing it so easily, and they both went on to break the record.

Steve, it is one of my pleasures in life to sit down at a quiet time in my day and enjoy your articles. You are the Vin Scully of horse racing. (I wish I could find the long Lava Man article you wrote, or knew the approximate date it appeared.)

re: The Unbeatable Horse

libby — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:42:56 GMT

Really enjoyed this, it read like a good book. A time when horses were sound and trainers did not make any.

re: The Unbeatable Horse

Mike S — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:15:59 GMT

How cool it is that some people remember COUGAR II fondly! I really do think COUGAR II was a "GREAT" horse, honestly. I can't be too harsh on him for finishing 3rd in the Hollywood Gold Cup, Marlboro Cup and Woodward Stakes at the end of his 7 year old year. I mean, he was 7 years old! So at that age he had definitely lost a step. But his form at 5 and 6 was brilliant, and I think he would have done way better against a SECRETARIAT or RIVA RIDGE, at that age, than he did at the age of 7. After all, COUGAR II raced 50 times! So if he got tired at the end of his career and finished 3rd in those races I think that's just fine. He did way better than any "lesser" horses would have done.

And don't forget that at the age of 6 COUGAR II ran 1-1/16 miles in 1:39-1/5 (the 2nd fastest up to that point in history) and then, three weeks later, he won at 1-3/8 miles on turf in 2:11 (NAR), a record that stood for about 15 years!

re: The Unbeatable Horse

RossD — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:37:48 GMT

Steve

Did you see montjeau's king george performance in 2000.Nothing would have beaten him that day.For anyone who didn't see it they can check it out on youtube.

regards ross.

re: The Unbeatable Horse

ace — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:02:20 GMT

Steve, please write a book, cataloging the wonderfully detailed stories you have. You blend the knowledge of the sport you have with the art of tale telling.

re: The Unbeatable Horse

fasthorses — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:27:02 GMT

Wonderful story!

I am reminded of another horse that I had the pleasure of seeing run that, when he was right (which sadly wasn't often), was nearly unbeatable. His name was J.O. Tobin and watching him beat Seattle Slew at Hollywood Park is something I'll never forget.