Secretariat didn't really win Belmont by 31 lengths

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

I got 1:53.05, so it is pretty darn close IMO. The run up was pretty lengthy that day.

Timing off a videotape?

Videotapes were not manufactured precisely to run at constant speed. They stretch, the machines could be a bit faster or slower, etc. It's not like a digital recording.

The DRF clockers who hand timed it live got him in 53 and 1 or 53 and 2. That was also CBS' estimate by comparing the frame count of the race to Canonero. That's probably as accurate as we can get.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Timing off a videotape?

Videotapes were not manufactured precisely to run at constant speed. They stretch, the machines could be a bit faster or slower, etc. It's not like a digital recording.

The DRF clockers who hand timed it live got him in 53 and 1 or 53 and 2. That was also CBS' estimate by comparing the frame count of the race to Canonero. That's probably as accurate as we can get.

I know how it works. I've timed enough races old and new that I know how to do it pretty darn well. There are plenty of other old Preakness runnings available for comparison.

Long story short, I have a pretty big arsenal of tools for race timing I've learned over the years, not just timing of replays.

[PhantomOnTour]

This is RACING...accurate timing is crucial, and not just for the winner.

[cj]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

This is RACING...accurate timing is crucial, and not just for the winner.

Somebody gets it! (along with dilanesp)

[rastajenk]

But how crucial is it for a horse beaten 8-10 lengths after being taken a little bit wide into the stretch before making a mild mid-stretch sustained effort, maybe in company with another also-ran, maybe not, to finish fourth or fifth? Apparently that horse needs the most accurate number humanly possible to assess its fortunes going forward. Anything less is borderline fraudulent. Does that not describe dozens of entrants every day? How did anyone ever got hooked in the first place in the face of such erroneous information?

Re-reading some posts, I want to add this.

Originally Posted by cj

Agree. But, if you knew the data was accurate, maybe you would trust them more and not think that three points, or a length and a half or so, fell within the fudge margin.

I get the feeling you're missing my most basic point. Your comment would be important if I were using speed or pace number absolutely literally, i.e., always playing the top number, or the top average, or whatever. But if one uses them to separate contenders from pretenders, like I believe most people who even look at them do, then the level of precision that makes this an issue becomes less important, it seems to me.

Nothing personal, of course.

[Tom]

Now you are picking an extreme example to prove your point.

[cj]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

But how crucial is it for a horse beaten 8-10 lengths after being taken a little bit wide into the stretch before making a mild mid-stretch sustained effort, maybe in company with another also-ran, maybe not, to finish fourth or fifth? Apparently that horse needs the most accurate number humanly possible to assess its fortunes going forward. Anything less is borderline fraudulent. Does that not describe dozens of entrants every day? How did anyone ever got hooked in the first place in the face of such erroneous information?

Re-reading some posts, I want to add this. I get the feeling you're missing my most basic point. Your comment would be important if I were using speed or pace number absolutely literally, i.e., always playing the top number, or the top average, or whatever. But if one uses them to separate contenders from pretenders, like I believe most people who even look at them do, then the level of precision that makes this an issue becomes less important, it seems to me.

Nothing personal, of course.

To each there own. People can use them however they like. I still don't think there is any valid reason to present data as factual that is incorrect.

[Pensacola Pete]

Announcer Chic Anderson called it 25 lengths at the wire. Now it looks as though he was correct.

[Secondbest]

Just looked at the Belmont chart. Right next to time it says against wind in backstretch. Makes those pace numbers even more impressive.

[Milleruszk]

I don't know if the same racing rules applied back then but today any horse beaten by 25 or more lengths is put on the Stewards List for poor performance. In order to get off this list your horse would have to qualify fitness by running 1/2 mile in 53.0 or under. If this rule was enforced every horse in that Belmont would be put on the Stewards List whether it was 31 or 25 beaten lengths.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Secondbest

Just looked at the Belmont chart. Right next to time it says against wind in backstretch. Makes those pace numbers even more impressive.

It's an inconceivable performance. I realize Secretariat set some other track records, but those races really aren't in the same category as the Belmont. Nobody has ever run a mile and a half race like that in racing history, going that fast early on and finishing that fast late, including even Count Fleet's Belmont, which was an amazing race itself and has been completely forgotten, and Seattle Slew's JCGC, which we consider great because he survived the fast pace even though he finished up 3 seconds slower than Secretariat did.

And, of course, he did it on national television, which is really important. (Man O'War's 100 length win was probably an amazing thing to see, but it wasn't filmed.) Ending a 25 year TC drought helped too.

I don't think Secretariat is the greatest American horse who ever lived. I think some others had longer careers, carried more weight, won more races in open competition, shipped more, set more records, and were more consistent overall. But the 1973 Belmont has a legitimate claim to being the greatest single race ever run by an American racehorse.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by cj

To each there own. People can use them however they like. I still don't think there is any valid reason to present data as factual that is incorrect.

I could not agree more.

Gimme accurate data. I'll decide how to use it. Others can differ on how they use it. But start with accurate data.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

It's an inconceivable performance. I realize Secretariat set some other track records, but those races really aren't in the same category as the Belmont. Nobody has ever run a mile and a half race like that in racing history, going that fast early on and finishing that fast late, including even Count Fleet's Belmont, which was an amazing race itself and has been completely forgotten, and Seattle Slew's JCGC, which we consider great because he survived the fast pace even though he finished up 3 seconds slower than Secretariat did.

And, of course, he did it on national television, which is really important. (Man O'War's 100 length win was probably an amazing thing to see, but it wasn't filmed.) Ending a 25 year TC drought helped too.

I don't think Secretariat is the greatest American horse who ever lived. I think some others had longer careers, carried more weight, won more races in open competition, shipped more, set more records, and were more consistent overall. But the 1973 Belmont has a legitimate claim to being the greatest single race ever run by an American racehorse.

OK, we know you're not a Secretariat fan, nor a fan of those that preach his greatness.

Some of us do, in fact -- trust facts and interpret these facts accordingly.

Others seem to want to pooh-pooh the reality while attempting to nuance the facts into relative insignificance.

As I posted earlier ...

... (Secretariat) set six track records over 5 different surfaces ...

Swaps is the lone horse in my memory that had a similar record-setting resume. I always said that Swaps may be the most under-rated horse in our sport's history. But who else compares to these two?

In only 21 career starts Secretariat won 16 races, three seconds, one third, and only one fourth place finish (in career debut, beaten just over one length after a troubled trip). One of his second place finishes was when he was dq'd from first at two in the prestigious Champagne Stakes. That's not too shabby a resume, really.

In only 21 career starts Secretariat raced in 10 graded stakes races, winning seven. Secretariat also raced in six races that were ungraded at the time but became graded races later on. Of those six races, Secretariat officially won five of them, and there's his 'win' in the aforementioned Champagne but was dq'd to second place.

In only 21 career starts Secretariat raced at nine different race tracks. I think that bodes very well against your argument that 'some others shipped more', don't you think? And if you don't, what can I say? Nine different tracks run over in just 21 starts is a pretty high percentage, roughly 43% of the time.

Yes, 'others' may have carried more weight, may have faced more open competition and may have won more races, but why do you knock Secretariat on these matters when the economics of the times dictated he be retired after his 3-year-old year and only 21 starts?

Along the weight issue, dilnaesp, there's some irony here. I say irony because starting with race 1, Secretariat won every time he ran with added weight than previously carried until the Whitney at Saratoga where he carried 119 lbs, seven less than his previous race at Arlington. But he lost the Whitney as we all know. Then he wins the Marlboro Cup in still-standing record time after adding and carrying more weight, 124 pounds. His very next start he loses, despite carrying 119 again, 5 less than previous.

There's no doubt in my mind that if Secretariat was able to run as a 4-year-old, there's no telling what he could have accomplished. He'd be running against himself, for sure. And, imo, he'd prove to the world that he was an even better turf horse than dirt horse, hard to imagine.

[ReplayRandall]

In only 22 career starts, if not for a short head loss in the Derby, Native Dancer would have been undefeated and considered the Greatest of All-Time...

[dilanesp]

Reckless :

Like it or not, the lack of a 4 year old season is a big deal. We wouldn't declare some player with only a couple of brilliant seasons, who performed only a few times in the major leagues the greatest of all time in any other sport. We want to see a full career.

Except for the Belmont, horses like Swaps and Spectacular Bid were just as fast as Secretariat and also dominated the handicap division while carrying a lot of weight over a longer period of time.

The Belmont is sui generis and makes Secretariat unique. But the rest of what he did is merely excellent.