How fast would Niatross run if....?

[only11]

If Niatross were to run with todays harness equipment and souped up tracks how fast could he have run?? 1:45

[arno]

If Niatross ran he would be off stride!


I figure he could PACE a 145.2 on a sunny humid day at the Springfield Fair in a time trial.

[only11]

If Niatross ran he would be off stride!


I figure he could PACE a 145.2 on a sunny humid day at the Springfield Fair in a time trial.
pace ..thank you for the correction ...(thoroughbred mode)..
my top 5 of all time
Niatross,Somebeachsomewhere,Cam Fella,Nihilator,Albatross

[DeanT]

Fun question. It goes to how fast a horse can physically pace, imo. To go 146 you prolly have to get down to the 3/8's in 37 and change, then keep rolling. How much leg speed did he have is a question for me. Equipment and stuff means time, but means little on leg speed that's needed to set up a mile like that.

However, he is the fastest of them all (imo). That TT was pure magic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlZCF-g3__I

[only11]

Fun question. It goes to how fast a horse can physically pace, imo. To go 146 you prolly have to get down to the 3/8's in 37 and change, then keep rolling. How much leg speed did he have is a question for me. Equipment and stuff means time, but means little on leg speed that's needed to set up a mile like that.

However, he is the fastest of them all (imo). That TT was pure magic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlZCF-g3__I
THE BEST EVER?

[LottaKash]

THE BEST EVER?

Could be....:jump:

best,

[arno]

Niatross my a neck over Albatross then Nihilator 1/2 length behind.
The rest up the field.

I missed seeing Bret Hanover by 2 years.

Favorite harness horse of all time Sonsam, he went 3 and 4 wide to win the Meadowlands Pace from the 10 hole.

[DeanT]

All I know is I got smoked when I used to take Cam Fella over Niatross in "John Campbell's Harness Racing" game. Niatross is King!

[sonnyp]

we all are guilty of believing what is current is best. i got involved in harness racing in the mid 1970's. i think back to the equipment and racetracks back then compared to now and it is simply not fair to compare different eras in harness racing because of the evolution of the tracks and equipment.believe me, those items back then were "prehistoric" compared to what is used today in addition to shoeing, medication nutrition etc.

here's one to consider. in 1938 (what do you think the rigging was like back then and how deep were the tracks?) BILLY DIRECT, free legged, established the pacing record for the mile at the syracuse fairgrounds in 1:55.0. put him in a modern harness, shoes,nutrition,medication (lasix etc.) and put him on a "pooltable" like the meadowlands. how fast would he go ? NIATROSS was modern era compared to him !!!

[InsideThePylons-MW]

1:44 1/5

[Dick Powell]

I agree with ITP. He was my all-time favorite harness horse and got to see him beat Storm Damage at Vernon Downs and the $1 million Meadowlands Pace. His only losses were when he jumped the hub rail in the Battle of Saratoga and a elimination heat for the Meadowlands Pace when he broke stride. Galbraith said that he had grown so much that he kicked the bike and it would never happen again. Broke a world record for 5/8ths tracks on New Year's Eve at Pompano before he went to stud.

For a while, he stood at Saratoga Standardbred Farm - the one you see on the left at exit 12 when going up to Saratoga on the Northway. My wife was his hired to be his daytime groom and he was insured for $30 million. A really cool horse, nothing like most stallions where you are taking your life into your hands by being around them. He was afraid of everything and hated to even be outside in his paddock as he preferred the comfort of his stall (was really like two stalls in size). Got to see him at Vernon Downs in 1996 as there was a tour of him visiting harness tracks. We both cried when he passed

[Trotman]

I always wondered what time Niatross could have put up if time trialed in a single shaft. When Joe King introduced the single shaft the few trainers in the beginning that took the chance on buying saw dramatic drops in their horses times and then when they we're banned a number of those same horses never even came close to the mark they set in the single shaft.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Sitting behind a rabbit who goes to the half in 50 while being driven by Timmy
T in a single shaft sulky on a beautiful summer afternoon at The Big M or Springfield......

1:39 4/5

[harness2008]

There was a short time back in the 70's when all you had to do was look for the little diamond figure under a horse's number to see if it had the new sulky to pick the winner of a race. The times that horses recorded were unreal, some dropping 4, 5 seconds off of their best. On the flip side, I have also witnessed a few accidents on the track which were purportedly caused by the single shaft, which I do believe lead to its demise.

I saw first hand how revolutionary it was in assisting horses to set lifetime marks that they would never have achieved without it, and having Niatross time trial in the single shaft would have been awesome. Not sure if he would have broken the 1:40 barrier but I really do believe it would have been close.

[markgoldie]

Okay. My two cents. Not as much faster as you all would believe. Several reasons.

First, the equipment that you all refer to is not really all that much faster. The shoes? Not all that much different. We've been racing in aluminums, especially on the front for many decades. Aluminums on pacers behind is a newer innovation but I don't think there is much of a raw speed advantage to them. In certain cases they can help with traction, depending on the track surface, but that's about all. The raw weight difference means little. Bits, boots, bridles, and hobbles are about the same.

Racing surfaces? Not as much difference as we all seem to accord. The fastest track of all would be the hardest (if you could get the proper traction), but there's little evidence that tracks are getting harder. In fact, tracks that are the fastest like Springfield, Indianapolis, and Lexington stay much the same over time. One of the reasons that it SEEMS that tracks are getting much faster is that the new pylon barrier has allowed horses to get closer to the inside on the turns. Sometimes they even creep inside the pylons. But on the fastest tracks with 1-mile circumferences, this isn't an overwhelming advantage. Some, but not huge.

Sulkies? The single shaft and the single hitch were IMO, faster then the sulkies we see today. The single shaft and hitch were banned due to safety concerns, but we have actually stepped back in raw speed since the double hitches simply do not allow the horse to lean the way the single hitchers did. This leaning crates more speed because it allows the horse to naturally counteract the centrifical forces present on the turns.

As a man who bought his first harness horse in 1967, the biggest reason Niatross would not have been tremendously faster is that his breeding is archaic in a sport which turns generations quickly. The physical differences in animals from 40 odd years ago is staggering. Today's standardbred is bigger, longer-legged, longer-pasterned, finer, sleeker, and all around built for more speed than the predecessors. In fact, nowadays, you can't tell a standardbred from a thoroughbred, whereas back then, a trotter or pacer looked like a mule standing next to a thoroughbred.

The point is that s-breds are evolving much faster than the t-bred counterpart since s-breds are still developing into a faster racing machine. This comes from continually breeding the fastest to the fastest. And so, today's top breeding farms are simply producing faster animals than were produced in the era of Albatross. At some point we will "hit the wall" just as has happened in t-bred racing, where it simply becomes impossible to keep producing faster and faster race animals. But I don't think this has happened just yet. So even though Niatross was an outstanding individual for his generation, I think if you brought him back today, you'd find that the current best of the best are just faster horses. Not his fault. Just a fact of successive breeding.

[sonnyp]

the reason standardbred times have dropped so much more than thoroughbred times over the decades is because of refinement in equipment and racetracks rather than refinement in the breed.

i agree with you that compared to BILLY DIRECT, NIATROSS was racing in relatively "modern" equipment. that's why i used an example from the 1930's with a remarkable clocking of 1:55 when most of the harness was heavy, coarse leather and the tracks were closer to plowed fields. the sulkys were heavy wooden "wagons" with none of the technology and aerodynamics of today's.

it doesn't appear that most here found this to be as remarkable as i, but trust me, what BILLY DIRECT, DAN PATCH and GREYHOUND did in their day was every it as astounding as the champions of the modern era.

[harness2008]

the reason standardbred times have dropped so much more than thoroughbred times over the decades is because of refinement in equipment and racetracks rather than refinement in the breed.

i agree with you that compared to BILLY DIRECT, NIATROSS was racing in relatively "modern" equipment. that's why i used an example from the 1930's with a remarkable clocking of 1:55 when most of the harness was heavy, coarse leather and the tracks were closer to plowed fields. the sulkys were heavy wooden "wagons" with none of the technology and aerodynamics of today's.

it doesn't appear that most here found this to be as remarkable as i, but trust me, what BILLY DIRECT, DAN PATCH and GREYHOUND did in their day was every it as astounding as the champions of the modern era.

There's no way that I can disagree with you sonnyp, which is why this is such a great argument. The reason that I cannot relate to what those 3 did in the first quarter of the century, aside from the fact that I did not live in that era is that I have really no idea what the general times are that were recorded by the run of the mill horses of that era for comparison purposes.

I'm not even sure how racing secretaries set up conditions for races. Was it done generally the same as today? Being a numbers guy, I guess if I had some benchmark to measure against for the general times of that era to compare to, only then can I make a guess, (and thats all it would be, a guess) as to which champions were indeed best.

[sonnyp]

There's no way that I can disagree with you sonnyp, which is why this is such a great argument. The reason that I cannot relate to what those 3 did in the first quarter of the century, aside from the fact that I did not live in that era is that I have really no idea what the general times are that were recorded by the run of the mill horses of that era for comparison purposes.

I'm not even sure how racing secretaries set up conditions for races. Was it done generally the same as today? Being a numbers guy, I guess if I had some benchmark to measure against for the general times of that era to compare to, only then can I make a guess, (and thats all it would be, a guess) as to which champions were indeed best.



in the 1970's, a sub two minute mile on a half mile track was still a big deal. in the early 1970's i had a $2,000 claimer that won races at saratoga harness (1/2 mile track) in 2:10 and change.

let me also state, relative to those horses in the 1930's, what about lasix and anabolic steroids ?

horses of the modern era bigger...faster ? yes, but lightyears more thru the medicine chest than the breeding shed.

[LottaKash]

.

it doesn't appear that most here found this to be as remarkable as i, but trust me, what BILLY DIRECT, DAN PATCH and GREYHOUND did in their day was every it as astounding as the champions of the modern era.

I believe you Sonny....Read a few things about them thru the years....The crowds of the day, that witnessed their feats, were in awe, from what I've read...

best,

[bigeastbeast]

I was at the rail when Niatross won the Meadowlands Pace in 1980.I thought at the time that I had never seen a more beautiful horse.

BTW-That was an extremely humid night,one of many during the 1980 heat wave.

In 1982,the Big M gave out drinking glasses of six of its champions.I still have four of them,but not Niatross.

[sonnyp]

NIATROSS at his worst and his best thanks to youtube :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpUSssOlKEg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlZCF-g3__I

[pandy]

If Niatross were to run with todays harness equipment and souped up tracks how fast could he have run?? 1:45

Nihilator was faster, in my opinion, and raced against a much tougher crop, possibly the best in history, which included Dragons Lair, Falcon Seelster, Forest Skipper, to name a few, all retired as millionaires. Dragons Lair was one of the fastest horses in history.

The fastest Niatross went in a race was 1:52.1, at Hollywood. Nihilator was the first horse IN HISTORY to pace in under 1:50 in a race when he won the Invitational at the Meadowlands in 1:49.3, which is still the most sensational pacing mile I've ever seen. Trainer Billy Haughton, who trained both horses, clearly stated on several occasions that Nihilator was the best horse he ever trained.

Here is an excerpt from a S.I. article:

But Nihilator's flaming performances transcend money. And it's a hot topic of conversation as to whether Nihilator is already better than Niatross. "Sure he is," says the colt's trainer, Billy Haughton, hardly an unbiased observer. "Yup," says Lou Guida, who does have the decency to note that without Niatross, there would be no Nihilator. Stan Bergstein, executive vice-president of the Harness Tracks of America and a keen observer of the sport, says it's close but that the nod probably goes to Nihilator.

In my opinion, if Nihilator were racing today, he would pace in around 1:45.2. Niatross would go around 1:46.4, which is the current world record. This is on their absolute best. Niatross was an super horse. Nihilator was something else all together, a freak. Niatross was Seattle Slew, Nihilator was Secretariat.

[LottaKash]

In my opinion, if Nihilator were racing today, he would pace in around 1:45.2. Niatross would go around 1:46.4, which is the current world record. This is on their absolute best. Niatross was an super horse. Nihilator was something else all together, a freak. Niatross was Seattle Slew, Nihilator was Secretariat.

Pandy, he did have the "ZIP"....

best,

[pandy]

Sonny P, you make a good point, horses like Billy Direct, Adios Butler, Bret Hanover, Dan Patch, Greyhound, went amazingly fast considering the wooden bikes they pulled. If memory serves me correct, I believe Bret Hanover went 1:53.1 in a conventional sulky. The new sulkies are about 7 seconds faster, so we're talking Bret Hanover in 1:46.1 today.

[pandy]

I was there that night and I have to say that it was one of the most exciting nights of racing that I ever attended, big crowd and Niatross was used hard parked to the half I believe by Herve, but he drew clear impressively.

My favorite Meadowlands Pace though is Sonsam's, watch that on youtube, he exploded wide at the three quarters for George Sholty.

[DeanT]

Pandy, wasnt the race mile just like a TT anyway? Shannon Majority was the rabbit and all Billy O had to do was sit and then brush off that half. Then he had Harmer on his tail for the last 3/8's pushing him. I think if Somebeach had the weather of that 149.3 mile, with a rabbit he would have been near 146. I think that was a good set up for the big horse.

I agree with you on Nihilator, though. What a marvelous athlete.

[pandy]

Hi Dean,

You're right, the race did set up perfectly for Nihilator, but when the pace is that fast most horses will bottom out, not draw off like that.

It's not fair to compare it to a time trial; in my opinion time trials are totally meaningless, and quite frankly I don't think that they should be put in the record books. Just think how silly it would be if thoroughbred workouts in company counted. I've seen many thoroughbreds train sensationally fast then couldn't beat a horse in an actual race (including a few that wold for over a million bucks as yearlings or two year olds).

[DeanT]

It's not fair to compare it to a time trial; in my opinion time trials are totally meaningless, and quite frankly I don't think that they should be put in the record books.
I tend to agree with that as well. TT's allow for mapped out fractions and we all know how much better that is than uneven ones.

The fastest and most accomplished TT's outside Niatross says a lot about that (imo) - Steady Star and Cambest. One still holds the fastest mile ever and no one will even admit it.

[Hanover1]

Okay. My two cents. Not as much faster as you all would believe. Several reasons.

First, the equipment that you all refer to is not really all that much faster. The shoes? Not all that much different. We've been racing in aluminums, especially on the front for many decades. Aluminums on pacers behind is a newer innovation but I don't think there is much of a raw speed advantage to them. In certain cases they can help with traction, depending on the track surface, but that's about all. The raw weight difference means little. Bits, boots, bridles, and hobbles are about the same.

Racing surfaces? Not as much difference as we all seem to accord. The fastest track of all would be the hardest (if you could get the proper traction), but there's little evidence that tracks are getting harder. In fact, tracks that are the fastest like Springfield, Indianapolis, and Lexington stay much the same over time. One of the reasons that it SEEMS that tracks are getting much faster is that the new pylon barrier has allowed horses to get closer to the inside on the turns. Sometimes they even creep inside the pylons. But on the fastest tracks with 1-mile circumferences, this isn't an overwhelming advantage. Some, but not huge.

Sulkies? The single shaft and the single hitch were IMO, faster then the sulkies we see today. The single shaft and hitch were banned due to safety concerns, but we have actually stepped back in raw speed since the double hitches simply do not allow the horse to lean the way the single hitchers did. This leaning crates more speed because it allows the horse to naturally counteract the centrifical forces present on the turns.

As a man who bought his first harness horse in 1967, the biggest reason Niatross would not have been tremendously faster is that his breeding is archaic in a sport which turns generations quickly. The physical differences in animals from 40 odd years ago is staggering. Today's standardbred is bigger, longer-legged, longer-pasterned, finer, sleeker, and all around built for more speed than the predecessors. In fact, nowadays, you can't tell a standardbred from a thoroughbred, whereas back then, a trotter or pacer looked like a mule standing next to a thoroughbred.

The point is that s-breds are evolving much faster than the t-bred counterpart since s-breds are still developing into a faster racing machine. This comes from continually breeding the fastest to the fastest. And so, today's top breeding farms are simply producing faster animals than were produced in the era of Albatross. At some point we will "hit the wall" just as has happened in t-bred racing, where it simply becomes impossible to keep producing faster and faster race animals. But I don't think this has happened just yet. So even though Niatross was an outstanding individual for his generation, I think if you brought him back today, you'd find that the current best of the best are just faster horses. Not his fault. Just a fact of successive breeding.
Well done.....