Rank The 12 Triple Crown Winners

[reckless]

Originally Posted by charm city whizz

That's an awesome post, heard stories over stories of forego from my father....ANY time there's talk of a big horse in size he always gets brought up, forego was a mythical figure growing up in my house

Thanks for the kind words.

I was a big Forego fan myself -- oh what a crop of runners those 3YOs of 1973 -- topped by the greatest of them all, Secretariat.

I cannot emphasize that enough and I'll always try to champion that special crop whenever it is appropriate.

I actually bet Forego in the Derby, no, not to win but in the exacta with Secretariat on top. I didn't really like Sham and picked Forego because in the days preceding the race Forego had the best workout of all those horses going into the Derby. I believe he went 5 furlongs in 57 seconds. Amazing.

Pete Anderson, a good veteran rider in his day but not an A-lister, was Forego's jockey before Gustines got the mount
.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by Steve R

I believe there is an error in your calculation. The SR+TV numbers of the earlier TC winners in the DRF book are based on the old methodology where sprints were not separated from routes and actual track records were used, not three-year-best times. Using the old technique, American Pharoah's numbers are:

Derby, 93
Preakness, 86
Belmont, 97
Total, 276

I know for sure the track record part is correct, but even if they did split out the sprints in those days the figures would be:

Derby, 92
Preakness, 96
Belmont, 97
Total, 285

Dr. Steve:

When comparing the great (and not so great) horses from different eras and using something like the DRF book Champions as a guide, don't you think the DRF speed figure based on then track records was a more accurate gauge of performance (speed) than the current version of 3-year best times?

Secretariat's Belmont effort broke a 16-year old track record, and his mark still stands 42 years later!

In the most recent 15-20 years there have been just a handful or so 1 1-2 mile races on the main track annually. I am sure that 1 1-2 mile races were much more common then. Thanks.

[Robert Goren]

Rank The 12 Triple Crown Winners
1. Secretariat
2(tie). The rest.

No real way to separate them, but Secretariat sure looks better than the rest of those we have film on when watching him on video.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

Rank The 12 Triple Crown Winners
1. Secretariat
2(tie). The rest.

No real way to separate them, but Secretariat sure looks better than the rest of those we have film on when watching him on video.

I'm not a big Count Fleet fan, but if that's your criterion, have you seen his races?

And have you seen Whirlaway's Preakness?

I certainly think the 1973 Belmont, in the end, is one of the greatest races run by an American racehorse. In that sense, I give Secretariat his due. But he certainly isn't the only horse to run impressive races in the TC.

(And your point of view also requires one to rate a gigantic win over a field of stiffs (Secretariat's Belmont) higher than Affirmed's TC races over Alydar. I'm not sure that's correct, though I will admit I do that too.)

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Cicada

1. Secretariat
2. Citation
Tie American Pharoah
Tie Seattle Slew
Tie Affirmed

I wasn't around for the others. I saw and read enough about Citation in the '50's to form an opinion (I was born in the 40's).

After Secretariat's Belmont win, I remember reading comments by knowledgeable observers who were still around who also saw Man o' War run and almost all of them put Man o' War at number 1. And almost all of them knocked Citation down to number 3.

Swaps is my personal all-time favorite. For those who like to rely on times, his times compare quite favorably to Secretariats'....and he did it on three legs.

Swaps didn't run in the Preakness or Belmont, and he had a far better career than Secretariat. And yes, overall, he was faster-- though nobody who is a Secretariat fan will ever believe that.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Swaps didn't run in the Preakness or Belmont, and he had a far better career than Secretariat. And yes, overall, he was faster-- though nobody who is a Secretariat fan will ever believe that.

not really. He was ranked #20 by Bloodhorse for a reason. Don't get me wrong, I think Swaps was great and fast, but just not the horse to use in your vendetta against Secretariat.

[Cicada]

Vendetta? I think you've pretty much validated the previous post.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by Cicada

Vendetta? I think you've pretty much validated the previous post.

how so? Swaps was a great horse, but hardly better than Secretariat as was intimated.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by tucker6

not really. He was ranked #20 by Bloodhorse for a reason. Don't get me wrong, I think Swaps was great and fast, but just not the horse to use in your vendetta against Secretariat.

Why do you think polls determine greatness?

i mean we can talk about the 1955 Californian, or all the world records with 130 pounds on his back, or taking a couple of seconds off the 1 1/16th mile record, but i guess none of that compares to a popularity contest.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Why do you think polls determine greatness?

It wasn't a poll. It was a roster of knowledgeable horse racing insiders that came together and determined who #1 through #100 was for the 1900's. Similar to a NFL Hall of Fame voting. NOT a poll. Secretariat #2. Swaps #20. I know, doesn't fit your meme.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by reckless

Dr. Steve:

When comparing the great (and not so great) horses from different eras and using something like the DRF book Champions as a guide, don't you think the DRF speed figure based on then track records was a more accurate gauge of performance (speed) than the current version of 3-year best times?

Secretariat's Belmont effort broke a 16-year old track record, and his mark still stands 42 years later!

In the most recent 15-20 years there have been just a handful or so 1 1-2 mile races on the main track annually. I am sure that 1 1-2 mile races were much more common then. Thanks.

I'm not a big fan of the three-year-best time approach. However, I guess strictly for handicapping purposes (if you like the SR+TV angle) it works just as well. But I do think the older method is more useful for comparison across different years although it doesn't really tell you whether horses have gotten faster or slower over time. Track records are still being broken from time to time but for North American records not a single record at a classic distance has been broken in 35 years while three major sprint records have been broken in the last six. Maybe that means the continual infusion of speed into American pedigrees has resulted in faster sprinters and slower classic horses.

It's interesting to me that Whirlaway won the Derby in 2:01.2 74 years ago and that Noor won at 10f in 1:58.1 65 years ago, so maybe they aren't getting faster.