Back to Back Triple Crowns?

[RXB]

Against an average or weak crop, Sham might've won the Triple Crown. His prior form wasn't outstanding but in the Derby and Preakness he ran two powerful races, certainly good enough to win those races more often than lose them. The fact that he was defeated convincingly both times while running eight lengths clear of the third finisher just goes to show how awesome Secretariat was when he was at his best.

The Secretariat fanatics, however, feel the need to suggest that Sham would've won it in ANY other year, which is ridiculous. They might want to familiarize themselves with the greatness of some other horses, such as the three truly great colts who came along later in that decade.

[clocker7]

I thought that the last two BCCs demonstrated that the 2014 3yos were strong and that the 2015s (except AP) were weak. I haven't seen anything since to make the case otherwise.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by RXB

Against an average or weak crop, Sham might've won the Triple Crown. His prior form wasn't outstanding but in the Derby and Preakness he ran two powerful races, certainly good enough to win those races more often than lose them. The fact that he was defeated convincingly both times while running eight lengths clear of the third finisher just goes to show how awesome Secretariat was when he was at his best.

The Secretariat fanatics, however, feel the need to suggest that Sham would've won it in ANY other year, which is ridiculous. They might want to familiarize themselves with the greatness of some other horses, such as the three truly great colts who came along later in that decade.

I could be wrong, but I've never, ever seen or heard it suggested that Sham was the second greatest horse of all time in the USA, which is what your statement implies. I have seen it suggested that without Big Red, he would have probably won the TC that year. Big difference from what you suggest.

[RXB]

Originally Posted by tucker6

I could be wrong, but I've never, ever seen or heard it suggested that Sham was the second greatest horse of all time in the USA, which is what your statement implies. I have seen it suggested that without Big Red, he would have probably won the TC that year. Big difference from what you suggest.

"Sham in any other era would have been a Triple Crown winner Big Red was just too good."

"Poor Sham would probably win the Triple crown in almost any other year."

"Bottom line: If Secretariat was the greatest horse, then maybe Sham was the second greatest."

It took me only a couple of minutes to find those three quotes. I'm sure that I could find plenty more like them if I cared to bother.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by fiznow

No. Nyquist is a great horse but he ran out of gas in the finish, Exxagerator almost got him. So I don't think Nyquist will stay the 1 1/2 miles in the Belmont Stakes.

He was close to what is a very hot pace for 1 1/4 mi, no matter how the track was playing. Usually when the front runners go that fast in the Derby the front 5 or more collapse in the stretch.

[Magister Ludi]

The last race of the Triple Crown was the Kentucky Derby, added in 1875. There have been 12 Triple Crown winners in 141 years. 12/141 ~ 8.5%.

However, as of the date of this post, 40.2% of the poll’s respondents believe that there will be a Triple Crown winner in 2016. This would appear to be yet another example of the mechanism which causes the favorite-longshot bias, whether it be risk-loving or misperception of the probabilities.

[RXB]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

He was close to what is a very hot pace for 1 1/4 mi, no matter how the track was playing. Usually when the front runners go that fast in the Derby the front 5 or more collapse in the stretch.

It was a hot pace and Nyquist ran well... but I'm going to provide a breakdown of where the winners and place horses in the 10 dirt races at CD came from that day, based on their position at the early call. Leaders, the front half of the non-leaders and the back half. I'll list the total number of runners in each group, their combined wins and combined seconds:

Early Leader: 10/0+1
Front Half: 49/10+7
Back Half: 53/0+2

Those are remarkable stats; that is a truly unusual cluster.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by RXB

"Sham in any other era would have been a Triple Crown winner Big Red was just too good."

"Poor Sham would probably win the Triple crown in almost any other year."

"Bottom line: If Secretariat was the greatest horse, then maybe Sham was the second greatest."

It took me only a couple of minutes to find those three quotes. I'm sure that I could find plenty more like them if I cared to bother.

And how about Dr. Swerczak saying Sham had the second largest heart of all time with ZERO documentation?

Yes, Sham worship is a thing.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by RXB

It was a hot pace and Nyquist ran well... but I'm going to provide a breakdown of where the winners and place horses in the 10 dirt races at CD came from that day, based on their position at the early call. Leaders, the front half of the non-leaders and the back half. I'll list the total number of runners in each group, their combined wins and combined seconds:

Early Leader: 10/0+1
Front Half: 49/10+7
Back Half: 53/0+2

Those are remarkable stats; that is a truly unusual cluster.

Those other 9 races weren't 10 furlong races with 45 second half miles and 1:35 and change miles.

[clocker7]

That Sham was likely to win the Triple Crown is a major stretch.

Sure, his Derby and Preakness efforts were commendable. But the rest of his 1973 resume was a mixed bag.

From the time that he came back from a 10 week layoff on December 9th at Aqu, he had run 9 times before his meltdown in the Belmont. That included migrating to Santa Anita, returning to Aqueduct to flop in the Wood, back to CD and then Pim. He was a spent colt.

What's more, he could not beat one of the other 3 losing contestants in the Belmont. The latter (Twice a Prince, My Gallant, and Pvt. Smiles) probably formed the worst contingent to run in the Belmont during the modern era. Years ago, I did a complete study of their resumes, and proved that they were basically hapless past 9f. That the margin of victory was only 31 lengths was a moral victory in their favor that day. That Sham was toasted after only 4f should have not been a surprise. He was mishandled by a crew with max hubris, and the result speaks for itself.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by tucker6

I could be wrong, but I've never, ever seen or heard it suggested that Sham was the second greatest horse of all time in the USA, which is what your statement implies. I have seen it suggested that without Big Red, he would have probably won the TC that year. Big difference from what you suggest.

He wouldn't have won it in 1973. He was last in the Belmont and never ran again.

[RXB]

Originally Posted by clocker7

That Sham was likely to win the Triple Crown is a major stretch.

Sure, his Derby and Preakness efforts were commendable. But the rest of his 1973 resume was a mixed bag.

From the time that he came back from a 10 week layoff on December 9th at Aqu, he had run 9 times before his meltdown in the Belmont. That included migrating to Santa Anita, returning to Aqueduct to flop in the Wood, back to CD and then Pim. He was a spent colt.

What's more, he could not beat one of the other 3 losing contestants in the Belmont. The latter (Twice a Prince, My Gallant, and Pvt. Smiles) probably formed the worst contingent to run in the Belmont during the modern era. Years ago, I did a complete study of their resumes, and proved that they were basically hapless past 9f. That the margin of victory was only 31 lengths was a moral victory in their favor that day. That Sham was toasted after only 4f should have not been a surprise. He was mishandled by a crew with max hubris, and the result speaks for itself.

Let's be fair: in the Belmont Stakes, Sham dueled head-to-head through 6f in 1:09 4/5 against a super horse. Do you really think that those three other horses (none of whom were G1 calibre) would've defeated him if he'd gone at a relatively normal clip for that race? I don't.

[clocker7]

Originally Posted by RXB

Let's be fair: in the Belmont Stakes, Sham dueled head-to-head through 6f in 1:09 4/5 against a super horse. Do you really think that those three other horses (none of whom were G1 calibre) would've defeated him if he'd gone at a relatively normal clip for that race? I don't.

Seattle Slew was caught up in a suicidal speed duel (on the outside) in the Preakness doing 1:09 4/5 (on an honest surface, BTW) and won by open ground. Meaning that, if a horse is fit, that should not be a barrier for success.

Now, on the other hand, SS was toasted after running in the deep mud in the Belmont. After being put out of a training routine for a moment, he was sent across country and performed like Sham. See what I mean? I wasn't dissing the horse, only pointing out how ludicrous it was to expect Sham to prevail in a depleted state.

[RXB]

Originally Posted by clocker7

Seattle Slew was caught up in a suicidal speed duel (on the outside) in the Preakness doing 1:09 4/5 and won by open ground. Meaning that, if a horse is fit, that should not be a barrier for success.

Now, on the other hand, SS was toasted after running in the deep mud in the Belmont. After being put out of a training routine for a moment, he was sent across country and performed like Sham. See what I mean? I wasn't dissing the horse, only pointing out how ludicrous it was to expect Sham to prevail in a depleted state.

Sure, but I doubt that Sham would've been in such a depleted state if he hadn't been running against Secretariat in the Derby and Preakness. He would've won those races in a relative canter and the lemon wouldn't have been squeezed so dry. So maybe he would've won the Belmont.

Really, my original point is that when someone says "Sham is overrated" I would reply "It depends." Some people overrate him; some people don't.

[clocker7]

Originally Posted by RXB

Sure, but I doubt that Sham would've been in such a depleted state if he hadn't been running against Secretariat in the Derby and Preakness. He would've won those races in a relative canter and the lemon wouldn't have been squeezed so dry. So maybe he would've won the Belmont.

Really, my original point is that when someone says "Sham is overrated" I would reply "It depends." Some people overrate him; some people don't.

Look, he ran 9 races before the Belmont, and theoretically saving a length or so at CD or Pim by subtracting Secretariat would not have changed that reality that much.

Those were awful horses he finished behind in the Belmont. He was Shagaf in June.