| Join for Free

Ticker

From DRF (The Inside Post): Mylute will not run in Belmont Stakes 2013. Posted 5 hours ago
Eblouissante breezed 4f :49.17 (18/44) at Belmont (dirt Training) on 5-22. Posted 10 hours ago
Giant Finish will make his next start in Belmont Stakes 2013. Posted 15 hours ago
Unlimited Budget is expected to face males in Belmont Stakes 2013. Posted 2 days ago
Verrazano will make his next start in the Pegasus Stakes at Monmouth on 6-16. Posted 2 days ago
Dreaming of Julia will make her next start in the Mother Goose at Belmont on 6-22. Posted 2 days ago
Game On Dude worked 4f in :50.60 (28/36) at Santa Anita on 5-20. Posted 2 days ago
Overanalyze, breezing for Belmont Stakes 2013, went 4f in :47.50 (3/34) at Belmont (dirt training) on 5-19.Posted 3 days ago
2013 Belmont Stakes hopeful Palace Malice breezed 4f in :47.49 (2/34) at Belmont Park (dirt training) on 5-19. Posted 3 days ago
Coffee Clique romps in the Selene Stakes!Posted 3 days ago

Ride
Sir Barton
against other champions!

Sir Barton

1916 - Horse
Deceased
2 fans2

4 favorites4

[Edit]

Owner(s):

J. K. L. Ross - John E. Madden -

Trainer:

H. Guy Bedwell

Bred:

Kentucky (USA) by Vivian A. Gooch - John E. Madden - [Add Data]

Pedigree:

Star Shoot - Lady Sterling by Hanover

Rating:

8.35/10

Profile

Pedigree

Progeny

Siblings

Photos

What the Horse Racing Nation is saying about Sir Barton...

A Kentucky Derby Field with Just 14 Horses?

The new points system has had enough debate. Let’s take a more radical look at the Kentucky Derby and think about what would change if the maximum field were 14. Read More

Show All 72 Comments
BrianZipse · I know so many that are for the reduction of the Derby field, but this is the first reasoning I have seen predicated on quality control ... very convincing, Matt! · 58 days ago ·

like

3

3
CauseForConcern · From a historical standpoint, this is good reasoning. From a handicapper's viewpoint, I consider this the greatest challenge. To successfully handicap the Kentucky Derby is most rewarding when considering the exotics. The size of the field inflates the pari-mutuel payoffs. And, for a full year, you can brag about how you nailed the Derby. Or, better yet, your acquaintances will tell the tale, and you can gloat the whole way!!!!! · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
rafirox · "And, for a full year, you can brag about how you nailed the Derby." I still brag about hitting Barbaro, lol. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
Dressage3295 · Completely agree with a smaller field. Better chance for the best horse to shine instead of the luckiest. · 58 days ago ·

like

3

3
tcglory · You know what they say dont fix what isint broken! I dont think the field or anything with 20 horses is the problem. I think the new point system will make it ahrder to win a triple crown cause your only gonna see classic type horese in the field. And maybe we just havent seen that next great horse and i mean we have seen good horses but maybe just not one so superior to win it. Trainers are trying there hardest and so are breeders to breed the next champion and trainers are saving as much horse as possible to take all 3 vigrious races. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
AmbitiousD · Very nice article, Matt. These are my 2 conclusions based on your points above. #1 is that I am not for reducing the field size to better the chance of a triple crown winner. Sure, half the TC winners did so against Derby fields of less than 14, but the other half... #2 I agree that "win and you're in" from this year's Sunland Derby may not be the best of the Kentucky Derby field, but with a 800k purse, they would have gotten in under the old conditions as well. I think the point system can be improved by either reducing the value of the 50/100 point races, or increasing the point value of the earlier 3 year old races. Very interesting discussion to have :). · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
rafirox · The 20 horse field is has crushed many triple crown hopes. Point Given? Afleet Alex? I would like a 14 horse field. As a handicapper, I enjoy the challenge of 20 horses, but as a fan I don't like anymore than 12 horses in the gate. 14's ok, though. · 58 days ago ·

like

2

2
Dressage3295 · 14= a huge bonus. Its less likely a horse will run into traffic or that he could be possibly injured during the race. 20 babies running full out on a track is a simple recipe for disaster · 58 days ago ·

like

2

2
likin sparks · A true champion will rise above the rest no matter the field size, when we talk about the quality of horses we have to look at the physical specimen and not what races they are entered or biasing a point system. These are not the quality horses compared to those 20, 30 and 40 years ago these are weaker, chemically tainted and poorly bred so regardless limiting the size of the field will have no bearing. · 58 days ago ·

like

2

2
Dressage3295 · As much as we'd like to think that the best horse with great quality wins every time- it doesn't always happen. Curlin, Native Dancer, Risen Star, etc. Reducing the size of the field would be a bigger advantage I think for the horses that never had a start their 2 yr old year · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
Dressage3295 · As much as we'd like to think that the best horse with great quality wins every time- it doesn't always happen. Curlin, Native Dancer, Risen Star, etc. Reducing the size of the field would be a bigger advantage I think for the horses that never had a start their 2 yr old year · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
darlene · I wish for a field of 14 for quality and for safety · 58 days ago ·

like

2

2
Southern.Humor · treet Sense was very much the best horse at the time of the derby in his crop. Size of field had nothing to do with curlin loosing. That being said, I think a smaller field might be better for the derby, with so many horses, there is always one good one in the crop that has problems occur. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
Dressage3295 · We can't be sure of that. With a smaller field, Hard Spun or Curlin could have been the ones on top · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
ashley.tamulonis · Bravo! I'm convinced. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · If your reason for limiting the Derby field to 14 is to get a triple crown winner, I think you are missing the whole picture. Yes horses have lost the Derby with large fields and have won the Preakness and Belmont because the fields were smaller. However Native Dancer lost the Derby with 11 in the field. Also a number of horses have won the Derby with a large field or a small one and lost the Preakness and won the Derby. That list includes: Twenty Grand 12 Derby lost Preakness and won Belmont, Johnstown 8 in the Derby lost Preakness with 6 and won Belmont, Shut Out won Derby 15 and lost Preakness with 10 and won Belmont, Capot lost The Derby with starters but won both Preakness and Belmont, Needles won the Derby with 17 lost the Preakness but won the Belmont, Tim Tam won the Derby with 14 won the Preakness but lost the Belmont, Carry Back won the Derby with 15 and The Preakness and lost the Belmont, Kaui King won the Derby with 15 won the Preakness and lost Belmont, Canonero II won the Derby with 22 and the Preakness but lost the Belmont, Bold Forbes won the Derby with 8 and the Belmont but lost the Preakness with 6 in the field, Pleasant Colony had 21 in the Derby won the Preakness but lost the Belmont, Damascus lost the Derby with 14 but won the other two, Spectacular Bid won the Derby with 10 and the Preakness but lost the Belmont. And there are more for this list. My point is that limiting the Derby doesn't help you get a Triple Crown winner because horses have won with large fields but lost one of the other Jewels usually the Preakness. Others have had small Derby fields and lost the Belmont or the Preakness. Basically, it takes a lot more than gerrymandering the Derby field to win the TC. You need a great horse. · 58 days ago ·

like

3

3
Buckpasser · Capot lost the Derby to Ponder with 14 but won the other two. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
Cocoa2 · More than half the TC winners had a one starting gate field? More than half the TC field didn't have an electronic starting gate. I don't approve of making the triple crown easier. Horses rise to the challenge, races do not fall to cater to horses · 58 days ago ·

like

1

1
Buckpasser · Quite true Cocoa, the Electronic gate came into being in 1939 but wasn't used at all tracks until 1940. Prior to that you had starting stalls which were open at both ends. Before that for Sir Barton you had a tape barrier or a walk up start. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
CauseForConcern · If the premise is to better insure a possible Triple Crown winner, why not say that no longer can a "fresh" horse be entered in the Preakness, or, more importantly, the Belmont. If a TC winner has to endure three races in five weeks, going the longest distances they've ever encountered, it seems unfair that any horse that hasn't run in the first two legs be allowed to take away the chance of a potential TC winner(i.e. Da Tara or Sarava). · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
Dressage3295 · Personally, I don't want it for an easier TC win. I want it to ensure a better quality/safer field. · 58 days ago ·

like

2

2
Buckpasser · Many horses have won the Derby that if we on quality control would not have competed. Exterminator was only entered because Sun Briar had come up lame. When his trainer suggested to Kilmer that Exterminator be entered in his stead, Kilmer laughed and felt Exterminator had no chance. Needless to say he won and began long and illustrious career on the turf. Sir Barton was entered as a pace maker for his stablemate Billy Kelly and according to biographies of Arnold Rothstein because of a bet he had with Commander Ross the owner of Sir Barton and Billy Kelly. Sir Barton of course won and then went on to win the TC. Canonero II was certainly not the first choice to win and probably wouldn't have been there under quality control. There are many other examples of Derby winners who have been surprise winners but have had good careers on the turf. After all Aristedes wasn't expected to win the first Derby as he was the pacemaker for his good stablemate, Chesapeake. Then you have Morvich who was unbeaten coming into the Derby and was the top two yr old and never won another race after the Derby. IMO limiting the field to 14 doesn't insure a better quality field and neither does limiting it to 19 or 20 or any other number. · 58 days ago ·

like

1

1
rafirox · I didn't say I want it so it would be easier, I just said it has ruined many dreams. The fact that the TC is such a difficult task makes it all the more memorable. Only a champion, for modern day, will be able to win three G1 races in five weeks at three different tracks one at a 10 furlong distance on a quirky track with 20 horses, one at 9.5 with sharp turns, and one at a 12 furlong distance on a sandy track. I love the TC being challenging, but overall I think they should make the limit 14 for quality, but mainly safety. Every derby I am very afraid a animal will get hurt, I literallly think about it the entire race. · 58 days ago ·

like

1

1
amino998 · CfC>>A friend and I were at the Del Mar walking ring the year after Sarava’s Belmont. When he arrived from the receiving barn to run in an allowance race, we looked at each other and said, “THAT’S a Belmont winner???” If you can’t beat a Da Tara or a Sarava, sorry, you’re not Triple Crown worthy. As for eliminating the unworthy from the Derby, I found Mine That Bird’s decisive victory over a weak field more satisfying than a head bobbing finish for the win between those immortals Pioneer of the Nile, Musket Man and Papa Clem. How about 19?>>leave the dangerous and nearly impossible 1 hole empty. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · A smaller field should guarantee a safer outcome, but it doesn't. Horses like Tim Tam, Tanks Prospect, Prairie Bayou etc. pulled up lame or broke down in fields under 14 in the Belmont. Sadly breakdowns and other problems occur regardless of the size of the field. · 58 days ago ·

like

2

2
Buckpasser · Rafirox. The Preakness and the Belmont have actually ruined more TC ambitions collectively than has the Derby. And the Preakness and Belmont fields are usually substantially less than the Derby field. · 58 days ago ·

like

2

2
Buckpasser · My quick count of horses that have won the Derby and Preakness but lost the Belmont combined with those who have won the Derby and Belmont but lost the Preakness is about 33. Andy gives the figure 11 for those that lost the Derby but won the other two Jewell's. · 58 days ago ·

like

1

1
travel_vic · over exertion rearing its ugly head after the overwhelming Derby efforts. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · over exertion rearing its ugly head after the overwhelming Derby efforts. · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
buds · How about an extra week between the Preakness and the derby, · 58 days ago ·

like

0

0
amdaman · I don't see a problem with the field size. Historically, there's nothing to support that safety be a concern. Regarding quality, I say we first see how the new qualifying system works out. Perhaps Sunland will attract better horses in the future. Maybe raising the nomination fees, as well as the entry and starting fees would discourage anyone with enough pocket change to nominate a dud, or at least encourage owners to make a more realistic evaluation of their horses before entering them in the KD. · 57 days ago ·

like

1

1
LennyGeorge · 14 is not smaller ............ but it would be much much better · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
AndyScoggin · buckpasser--Don't forget that prior to 1931, the Preakness was run before the Derby 11 times. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
DAVIDM9999 · I would prefer an eleite field of 14 rather than a wtaered down field of 20. About half of the horses going in the Derby each year cannot get the distance and are simply ill spotted. One thing a field of 20 does is infalte the odds on the real contenders however I hate to see 7F horses being pushed for 3 additional furlongs. I also think the congestion caused by horses backing up thru the field can be minimized allowing for cleaner trips of the real contenders. A field of 14 won't happen as CD wants the maximum handle and maximum spectacle. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · AndyScoggin. Yes I am well aware of the fact that the Preakness was run before the Derby 11 times. It was also run on the same day at least twice prior to that. I was counting horses after 1931 who actually started in all three races. I started with Twenty Grand who won both Derby and Belmont but finished second to Mate in the Preakness. I threw out horses like Ill have another who didn't start in the Belmont along with 1932 Burgoo King who won the Derby and Preakness but did not start in the Belmont. Also as a small aside merely because the Preakness was held before the Derby doesn't necessarily disqualify it from consideration. It depends on the actual length of time between the two races. Sometimes it was as little as three days sometimes more. Also for the record the Derby was not always run on the first Saturday in May. A couple of renewals, I believe one was Reigh Count's were actually run later in May. I will pull up my program from that Derby and check it out. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · there has not been a Derby field in a very long time with more than about 6 real contenders · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · My entire point in this discussion is that the Derby is unique in its standing in American Turf. Horses that should never have been in there in the first place like Sir Barton, Exterminator, Cananero II have won and have gone on to a great career in many cases. The Derby was a launching pad for that. And in other cases the sure thing has gone down thinking Native Dancer here. Also the top two yr from the year before doesn't always make the grade, thinking of Bold Lad, Successor, Top Knight, Silent Screen etc. etc. to me this the race that keeps thoroughbred ownership alive because everyone can think with that small purchase priced horse, he too could win the Derby. And many of them have. To me it is to paraphrase the movie The Maltese Falcon: "It is the (race) that dreams are made of." Take that illusion away and its just another horse race. Just my opinion. · 57 days ago ·

like

1

1
travel_vic · Canonaro figured and he figured strongly...so did Exterminator...Just because the rank and file did not pick up on quality does not mean they were not up to snuff. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Lisa111 · I agree 100% Buckpasser. The lure and the excitement and everything that goes with 20 horses charging out of that gate is what turns a horse race into a spectacular test of athletisism, skill and will for both the horse and the jockey. The Derby is spectacle, beauty, big hats, My Old Kentucky Home and 20 pumped up horses parading for all to enjoy. Just taking away 6 of them, takes away the magic that is the Derby. And anyone of those six could have excelled that day and taken home the trophy. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
rafirox · Like always, when I debate with Buckpasser, he/she beats me. @Buckpasser, you have changed my opinion 100%, however I still think it might be safer with only 14 horses. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
botsonian · The Road to the Roses fantasy challenge is open only to Americans? WTF?!? · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · Rafirox. Thanks for the compliment. I am a trial lawyer and am used to arguing a position, rightly or wrongly. My point is really that when you try an impose a criterion like "quality" to be able to compete and that somehow limiting a field to 14 or even increasing it to 19 or beyond instills quality, is in my view inaccurate. Because quality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is until the day after the first Saturday in May. Look at the arguments here concerning Shanghai Bobby: can he get a mile and a quarter or not? We will know for sure if he is that gate on that first Saturday in May. Also as to safety, yes less may be better. But Native Dancer was given a horrific ride and · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · There were only 11 in his Derby. You could argue that with a larger field, people are more alert because of potential problems and may be more careful or as careful as they can be. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · TV I agree with you about both Cananero II and Exterminator being up to the mark and people missing that prior to the Derby. After that there wasn't a doubt in the rank and file's mind. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
rafirox · That's accurate. I do agree it is in the eye of the beholder. And perhaps shortening the field won't insure extra quality. I do believe that the trainers and owners might run their horses more often if there was a 14 horse field. The people (jockeys, track crew, gate, etc) are probably much much more careful and aware of potential problems, but the horses? The horses, I am not an expert in animal behavior, are scared, frightened, excited. Just like humans, the Derby's huge for them, and they know it. They know how big a crowd's there, they understand the field size. There, imo, is a logical argument towards both sides. I still would be afraid with safety, but breakdowns can happen in any race. I remember last year Hansen and Prospective clipped heals, and Hansen almost went down. It scared me to death, as with a 20 horse field, that could of caused 3-5 horses to go down. But, again, breakdowns or accident as you said, can happen in any race. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
icyhotboo · I disagree with a lot said here on the basis that limiting a field to twenty, fourteen, eight, or any number isn't the basic problem. From my perspective, that's to far to early to run a 3yo at the 10f distance. I realize the ultimate reasons for running the KD the first Saturday in May is money, as opposed to running it the last Saturday in May. The short summer season is also a big factor. The psychological aspect of having a KD winner can't be overstated. It literally tips the scale of sanity upside down, so as to have both owner and trainer not trying to qualify the horse in their mind on the basis of being ready at that time, but to qualify to run period, regardless of risk to the horse on the basis of maturity. In my mind this early start of the best 3yos, and the scramble to get into the starting gate, is the reason we have so few of these elite, fragile creatures left intact come the fall. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · Icy. Your view is certainly that of Sam Riddle and other owners and trainers who didn't run in the Derby. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
rafirox · I think differently about the reason so many elite, fragile colts and geldings retire too soon, icy. I think half of it is breeding. The fast and early maturing, one and done sires hardly do anything good to the sport. How many old school, 10-12 furlong stallions? How many bring turf excellence? True endurance? Durability? How 'bout all three? Only Dynaformer is what I could think of. We need better breeders. Too many horses are similar. Too much inbreeding. That is why losing Animal Kingdom was a big loss. THIS is why so many are retired early, IMO. Along with training. The training, nowadays, is WORKING to stay fit. Why not run the horses every two weeks and give them a foundation? Oh, they can't because of the breeding. Why must most owners retire their star colt so early? Oh yeah, GREED. It all comes together. We need bigger purses RESTRICTED to older horses. What about a 2 million dollar race for horses only five and up? FORCE trainers and owners to keep their horse around. I think my point is you're saying that injury and the rush to the gate is what is causing all these early retirements, I see differently. I'll Have Another, Union Rags, Creative Cause, etc ALL could have came back for a 4 yo season, but the trainers and owners found the excuse to retire them and make money in the shed. · 57 days ago ·

like

1

1
rafirox · In order to change the sport, we need a fantastic horseman. We have Sheriffs, Mott, and some others. But, we need a breeder like Bradley. An owner like Phipps. A trainer like Jones. THAT'S what we need to change the sport, NOT moving the Derby date. I think, if bred and trained properly, colts and geldings should be able to go 10 furlongs in May. It's been that way for 138 years, why must it be changed now? JMO. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Mike in SB · One result of the 20 horse Derby fields is that the race is no longer the determining race for the 3 year old championship. Most of the Eclipse winning 3 year olds in the last two decades or so since 20 horse fields have become the norm have won the Preakness. The 14 horse Preakness has become the most important 3 year old race to determine champions, even if it is much less popular with the owners and fans than the Derby. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
buds · TV- That was a terrible comment “there has not been a Derby field in a very long time with more than about 6 real contenders.” Let me think…What about last year! There were 12 Graded stakes winner of distances longer than 8.5 furlongs and 11 of those 12 were multiple stakes winners. These horses all had legit chances at winning the derby. Now I didn’t like all 12 horses but they certainly deserved a shot, and 12 is way more than 6! I listed them for you cuz people like to check up on facts on this site so here they are. Ill Have Another 3-G1 wins (2nd G2), Bodemiester 1- G1 win (2nd G1,G1,G2), Dullihan 3-G1 wins (2nd G3), Creative Cause 1-G1 and 2 G2 wins (2nd G1, G1), Union Rags 2-G1 and 2 G2 wins (2nd G1), Hansen 1-G1 win and 2 G3 wins (2nd G1 ,G3), Daddy Nose Best - G3 wins, Optimizer 3-G3 wins (2nd G2,G2), Daddy Long Legs 2-G2 wins, Take Charge Indy 1-G1 win (2nd G1,G3), Gemolgist G1 and G2 wins, and Alpha G1 and G2 wins (2nd G1,G1). · 57 days ago ·

like

3

3
icyhotboo · "It's been that way for 138 years, why must it be changed now?" It should be changed now because in actuality prior to 1931 when the term "Triple Crown" was first used the Kentucky Derby was run in mid may, not the first Saturday in May. The change was so that a specific order could be established. It seems to me it's an error that needs to be corrected for the reason's stated prior. How about the preakness being run in mid May at 9 furlongs, followed by the KD on the first Saturday in June, followed by the Bemont 3 weeks later.I don't believe this time change and the loss of 1/16 of a mile will dull the lustre of any future triple crown winner. If so add the extra 1/16 on the the Belmont which will be held the end of June when most are more mature. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
buds · The field size will not change; I hear a lot of people talking about quality of horses. The quality has nothing to do with it, it’s all about money. This is why some races have more points than others. I bet if it benefited Churchill downs, we would see the Illinois Derby be worth a few points. It’s not a coincidence that the wild card races are at the tracks that they are. Its all about money. If sports were about quality, we would have an NFL with only 20 teams cuz we only have 20 good quarter backs! I’m still surprised that horses are not filled with ads like NASCAR as they run around the track! (UPS woulda been all over Big Brown)LOL · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
icyhotboo · buds, I agree with you. When talking about quality that hasn't changed either. Since 1950 the median time for he KD is 2:02.0, and the percentage of injuries is close to the same as back in the 60, and 70s. · 57 days ago ·

like

1

1
Mary Z. · I say don't mess with The Derby. If there's a lack of class, meaning the owners, not just the horses, maybe a street sweeper to clear the junk would help. · 57 days ago ·

like

1

1
Buckpasser · Just for the record, the Derby prior to 1931 was run 13 or 15 times on the first Saturday in May ( I included Paul Jones and Regret's Derby because of possible leap year issue since they ran May 8th respectively). There was also one time in 1901 when His Eminence won and the race was held on April 29th. Also it should be noted that the Derby was run initially at 1 1/2 miles to emulate the Ascot Derby. The present distance came about in 1896 I believe. All of this information came from the Derby Media Guide. · 57 days ago ·

like

1

1
Buckpasser · One final point, many times when the Derby was run later in May had more to do with the opening of the meet at Churchill Downs. This came from the Derby media Guide and also was stated in Matt Winn's autobiography Down the Stretch. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
cocoa2 · 1896 was also the year the first roses were draped over the winner · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · Cocoa2. Thanks for info. Didn't know that. · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · just because a three year old wins some extended sprint at graded stakes does NOT mean it has the maturity distance and weight carrying potential of 10 furlong the first week in May of its three year old season. THIS SEASON two, I'll bet there will not be more than 6 real contenders. · 57 days ago ·

like

2

2
cocoa2 · travel_vic's absolute comments beginning to fall apart, as par usual · 57 days ago ·

like

0

0
illhaveanothertriplecrown · i like the 20 horse race. more exciting · 57 days ago ·

like

1

1
Lisa111 · I agree with Mary Z. Don't mess with The Derby. Would 12 horses at four year olds be a solution to all that is wrong with a coveted race that has been an American Tradition for well over a century??!! All of the horses that make the gate are contenders and they got there by winning Graded Stakes against EACH OTHER. It is the single race of the year where the "common folk" tune in to see this sport because of this tradition. Mess with it and it falls. · 57 days ago ·

like

4

4
yoshi.haiwa · I could live with 16, but anymore than that is too problematic. I watch the Derby every year but I'm not dumb enough to bet on that big a field. The winning horse is more likely to be just plain lucky, unless he/she is a superhorse, not the best in the field. · 56 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · With these huge fields, I have, quite frankly, been ready to see a horrible accident as that thunderous mass runs by the stands the first time. So many colts get pinched back (with it being all over for them early) right at the start never to recover. Lookin at Lucky is one of many that readily comes to mind.......Give the field some room. and I agree and have always said, this race is 50% talent and 50% luck to negotiate to the wire in front. · 56 days ago ·

like

1

1
teuflesburg · The Kentucky Derby should be the best of the best. Horses should have to win several races against other quality horses to have the opportunity to make it to the big dance. Maybe horses should have to earn their way into each leg of a Derby prep race? For example: The horses who make the Florida Derby have to have won or placed in a lower level Derby prep. Then the top two from each of the seven 100 point races make it to the Derby. · 56 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · As long as money and influence trade hands, there will be also rans in the field · 56 days ago ·

like

1

1
ismalli · It is without any doubt The Kentucky Derby Fiekl is too large; yet, as with other sports, we could go 2 Race Format three weeks prior, and the top 14 Race May4th · 56 days ago ·

like

0

0
Zenyatta-Perfection Personified · Absolutely. The BC has only 14 horse races, as do the other TC races. The 20 horse field doesn't allow a real horse race to take place, with so many horses taken out of contention by the big field. · 56 days ago ·

like

1

1
AndyScoggin · I want to thank everyone for the great comments and discussion. I really do believe that the Derby field should be 14! · 56 days ago ·

like

1

1
icyhotboo · "He doesn't necessarily have to win Saturday to go to the (Kentucky) Derby, but he has to run the right kind of race. If he doesn't, we won't go. I want the horse to take me there." McGaughey/ If more owner trainers let the horse guide them, they wouldn't have to set a 20 horse limit, because about half of them in a 20 horse field aren't ready or are strictly sprinters that clog up the field at some point and foul it up for others when they rapidly fall back. · 56 days ago ·

like

1

1
icyhotboo · I know this is said almost every year, but this year there does seem to be many quality horses. · 56 days ago ·

like

0

0

Sir Barton

Which is the best of his offspring? Susan's Girl, Tapizar, Paddy O' Prado or On Fire Baby?

Show All 5 Comments
Age of Reason · "Offspring" refers to foals sired or dropped directly from a stallion/mare; "descendant" might be a better term, since 2012 BC Dirt Mile winner Tapizar would not normally ever be referred to as the "offspring" (son) of 1919 Triple Crown winner Sir Barton. Thought I'd point it out before someone else did much less politely. · 130 days ago ·

like

2

2
Cocoa2 · Offspring is a sel explanatory word, literally if visualized, any descendant with blood of one horse. While some may agree with you, Age of Reason, and I appreciate your motive of helping me, I've heard offspring used. Of course it has become apparent the terminology typical if seventy year old Irish horsemen is not always correct as with "lead pony", but I'm proud of the mistake and ill stick with it. Thanks for the help anyway. · 130 days ago ·

like

2

2
Age of Reason · ^^ Good defense. I like this kid. :p · 130 days ago ·

like

0

0
Mary Z. · Out of those, Susan's Girl. · 130 days ago ·

like

0

0
rafirox · Susan's Girl. · 130 days ago ·

like

0

0

Sir Barton

All the triple crown winners are underrated, well not seattle slew, Affirmed and Secretariat but the rest of them are. Did you know Sir Barton had never won a race before the kentucky derby, also it wasn't called the triple crown when he won the preakness and belmont. Sir Barton had simply won the Kentucky derby, Preakness and Belmont.

Show All 17 Comments
cocoa2 · I don't think any of them are but Count Fleet. Sir Barton was a good handicap horse, but was nothing to old bones and big red. Sir Barton was the rabbit in the Derby for a horse named bull something or tom somewhat... lol. · 165 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · Sir Barton raced twice as a two yr old: finishing 15th in the Hopeful behind Eternal. In the Futurity with Earl Sande up finished second in strong effort behind Dunboyne. In the Derby he was entered to be the rabbit for his highly regarded stablemate Billy Kelly. On a muddy track Sir Barton led all the way under Johnny Loftus ( Sande decided to ride Billy Kelly) Eternal hated the going and finished last. He lowered Man o War's record in the Citizens and Merchants handicap setting up the call for the match race. As a sire his best known offspring was Easter Stockings a Kentucky Oaks winner. Sir Barton ended up as an Army Remount horse and sire. Sir Barton died on a ranch in Wyoming. · 165 days ago ·

like

0

0
cocoa2 · rofl, yes, Billy Kelly. Thank you. · 165 days ago ·

like

0

0
CreativeCause · Eternal and Under Fire.... I think. Funny thing, he wouldn't extend himself in his work outs unless he was pushed by another horse, so his trainer was forced to use relays of horses to go chase him down. Sir Barton was considered a grouchy snob. · 165 days ago ·

like

0

0
cocoa2 · A few horses are like that. Really reminds you they are living, breathing animals not machines · 165 days ago ·

like

0

0
CreativeCause · They are. · 165 days ago ·

like

0

0
CreativeCause · animals.... they are animals. sorry, my bad. · 165 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · Billy Kelly and Sir Barton were coupled in the race as were a eternal and Sailor. Under Fire finished third. The Derby was supposed to be a rematch between Eternal and Billy Kelly as they had contested a match race previously. · 165 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · I am not sure if people are aware but for many of the runnings of the Kentucky Derby, different weights were assigned more in keeping with a handicap. In the 1919 race that Sir Barton won he carried 112 and Eternal carried 122 along with four others in the race, the next highest weight was 119 carried by Billy Kelly and most of the other horses. Sir Barton carried the second lowest weight in the race with Vulcanite carrying the lowest 110. · 165 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · Cocoa. You do know that Sir Barton beat Exterminator and even gave him weight. · 165 days ago ·

like

1

1
Cocoa2 · That I do know, buckpasser. I have a hard time thinking much of Sit Barton after seeing him be crushed by Man O war so easily · 165 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · I understand your view of Sir Barton, but he had very Shelly feet and was known to throw his shoes in a race. Once he actually lost all four shoes during a race. The match race at Kenilworth did not show Sir Barton at his best as the track was very hard and Sir Barton struggled with footing. Not that I think he would have beaten MOW but on a different surface he might have acquitted himself better. In Boots And Saddles written by Ross' son, he states that Sir Barton was eased as he was not handling the surface well. Also his trainer wanted the horse scratched because in the workouts he wasn't himself. · 165 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · Hard Guy Bedwell as much as said he was "hopped" often. One can take an allowance horse, dope him and bingo CHAMPION. · 164 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · Many of those old timers were hopped. As Fowlers Mixture which contained arsenic and heroin among other ingredients was standard in every stable. Sort of the LASIx of its day. · 164 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · meds are funny things inter -species wise. Opiates in horses can be stimulants when they are depressants in humans unless you are over 80 years old. Give a cat Valium and they start climbing the walls, not like we do. · 164 days ago ·

like

1

1
buckpasser · Quite true TV which is probably why it was standard equipment in every stable. · 164 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · Also when Sir Barton won the Derby, the Preakness was just four days later which obviously Sir Barton won. · 164 days ago ·

like

0

0

Sir Barton

ranked way too low.

Show All 6 Comments
travel_vic · never know about this one given wath Hard Guy Bedwell used to say about "hopping" him · 251 days ago ·

like

0

0
Sullivan · Beat Exterminator but minced by Man O' War in their match race. Some claim he was off that day but I am unable to find any limp or unsoundness in his stride and doubt he stood a chance against Man O' War. Shame that Man O' War never met Exterminator, Exterminator in his prime would've been more than just other runners for Man O' War. · 251 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · Prime? The old gelding was still winning at NINE, last race was in Quebec · 251 days ago ·

like

0

0
Sullivan · Your point? · 251 days ago ·

like

0

0
kaitlinefree1 · no triple crown winner should be ranked 222.? · 251 days ago ·

like

0

0
Buckpasser · According to the book Boots and Saddles written by the son of Commander Ross the owner of Sir Barton, the Kenilworth track for he match race with MOW was very hard and Sir Barton had shelly feet and the surface bothered him. "it was plain to see that the hard track was jarring him painfully." the jockey Keogh on Sir Barton "ceased to punish him as he struggled on...."p.216 interestingly on page 218 the author states MOW had come back from the Potomiac Handicap slightly lame and Goes on to say"on careful scrutiny of the moving pictures of the match race, it could plainly be seen that MOW was disabled in the same leg when he returns to the winners circle". The author speculates that a possible bow is another reason MOW was retired after the match race. Also for Sir Barton, the trainer decided at the last moment not to have Sande ride Sir Barton in the race. · 251 days ago ·

like

0

0

Secretariat, Seattle Slew, Sir Barton, Eddie Arcaro - June 11th

Upon winning the Belmont Stakes, Seattle Slew became the tenth Triple Crown winner and the first Triple Crown winner to remain undefeated, with a career record of nine-for-nine.Read More

Show All 0 Comments

A lot at stake for I'll Have Another

Contested at 1 ½ miles at Belmont Park in New York, the Belmont Stakes, for 3-year old thoroughbreds, is the longest and final race of the American Triple Crown series. It is aptly known as the "Test of a Champion" for being the most demanding and challenging race for a prospective winner in pursuit...Read More

Show All 2 Comments
BrianZipse · I've seen two of them in person ... I really want to make it three! · 356 days ago ·

like

0

0
Floridaf · I'm just ready to see my first! · 356 days ago ·

like

0

0

Triple Crown Newsreel: Sir Barton, 1919

The regal-sounding Sir Barton was actually a maiden when he entered the 1919 Kentucky Derby. The colt was only supposed to serve as a 'rabbit' for his stablemate, but not only did Sir Barton win the Derby, he captured the Preakness four days later, then the Withers, then the Belmont… Read More

Show All 0 Comments

Triple Crown Winners: Does I’ll Have Another fit?

Let’s take a look at some comparisons between I’ll Have Another and the holders of racing’s Holy Grail…Read More

Show All 11 Comments
TerryDickens · who is sir barton?and a 147at sanita track thats average,i like how you think that will make my odds higher · 363 days ago ·

like

1

1
TerryDickens · It depends,if O"Neal gives him his scooby snacks,(illegal medication) why yes! · 363 days ago ·

like

1

1
buckpasser · Sir Barton was the first TC winner 1919 · 363 days ago ·

like

0

0
cocoa2 · Also one of the best handicap runners. · 363 days ago ·

like

0

0
Bucky · you bet your tail end he does · 363 days ago ·

like

0

0
nother · i keep saying that to beat a freak like bodemeister twice takes a supercolt;; barring traffic issues and a freak incident, he wins by dalylight;; single on top in super and hi5 if available;;gl · 363 days ago ·

like

0

0
icyhotboo · At 1 1/4 mile or more this 3yo stands alone. He should win the Belmont but what makes the sport great is that great horses do sometimes lose. It would be disappointment but on a fast track and fairly clean trip I'd give him a 68% chance of winning. · 363 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · until the field is confrimed, the THEORETICAL about what will happen is no better than a guess · 362 days ago ·

like

0

0
buds · You people are crazy. Even if he is the best 3 yr old in the country, he still has to race 12 other that are reallllly good and are FRESH. I hope IHA wins, but 30% chance is more realistic, thats still probably a favorite when all said and done. · 362 days ago ·

like

0

0
wcbguy1 · HE Come a long way, I'll have another was even in the talk of winning the derby and he won it. Then he had doubters when coming in the prekaness stakes, and now he'l prove all his doubters wrong in the belmont. trust me. · 362 days ago ·

like

0

0
wcbguy1 · ingore that comment down below.HE Come a long way, I'll have another was not even in the talk of winning the derby and he won it. Then he had doubters when coming in the prekaness stakes, and now he'l prove all his doubters wrong in the belmont. trust me. · 362 days ago ·

like

0

0

Rachel Alexandra, Bob Baffert, Gary Stevens - May 16th

Rachel Alexandra became just the fifth filly to win the Preakness Stakes, and the first since Nellie Morse in 1924.Read More

Show All 0 Comments

George Woolf, Sir Barton - May 10th

Sir Barton won the Kentucky Derby after being winless in six tries.Read More

Show All 0 Comments

A Kentucky Derby Timeline

This blog edition takes a look at some signature events that have transpired over the last 137 years. Consider this if you will, a Trackside text scrapbook about the “Run for the Roses." January 1st, 1872—Col. Meriwether Lewis Clark Jr., grandson of William Clark of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, b...Read More

Show All 3 Comments
BrianZipse · Very informative ... thanks, Nick! · 385 days ago ·

like

0

0
AndyScoggin · I always love the historical prospective. · 385 days ago ·

like

0

0
cpsoren121 · Awesome work Trackman! · 385 days ago ·

like

0

0

Sir Barton, West Australian - April 26th

The first Triple Crown winner, Sir Barton, was foaled at Hamburg Place in Lexington, KY.Read More

Show All 0 Comments

Sir Barton

although had a temper., he still was a pretty good horse

Show All 0 Comments

Sir Barton

This was a fairly good horse, but not a great horse at all.

Show All 3 Comments
travel_vic · Hard Guy didn't want to admit he went to the "hop" often with that one. · 398 days ago ·

like

0

0
cocoa2 · Held quite a few records, and then Man O' War came along. Good Handicap horse though. · 398 days ago ·

like

0

0
markruiz20 · i am agree with you · 398 days ago ·

like

0

0

Sir Barton

This was a good horse. Not one of the best, but a good horse none the less.

Show All 5 Comments
buckpasser · He was better than many people think. Everyone remembers the match race when he was not at his best. The track surface was extremely hard and Sir Barton had bad Shelly feet. My grandfather worked for the Ross stable who owned SB · 434 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · And he told me that SB was pulled up because it was so obvious to anyone there that SB was in pain. He never raced after that. Also he was giving MOW 6 lbs. since the race was weight for age · 434 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · Hrad Guy refused to say just why. This horse had serious "hopping" problems before drug tests were comonly done. · 433 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · Alot of horses in that era had hopping problems as they used fowlers mixture which had heroin in it. What alot people don't realize is that heroin was a common ingredient in some over the counter Meds for people. My mother remembers a thing called Lady Pinkums that was sold as a sleep aid that had heroin in it. Coca cola was regularly tested for cocaine and supposedly still is · 433 days ago ·

like

0

0
TampaBayDowns Fan · wow didn't know that! · 433 days ago ·

like

0

0

Sir Barton, Ghostzapper, Francisco Torres - October 30th

Ghostzapper set a stakes record and capped an undefeated 4-for4 season by winning the...Read More

Show All 1 Comments
mdracing69 · I had the pleasure of meeting 'Cisco Torres when I worked at Louisiana Downs. Nice guy and a fine rider! · 570 days ago ·

like

0

0

Sir Barton

A horse who is deprived of his fame. He was very good, and no other horse could have stayed better with Man O' War that day than Secretariat of Man O' War himself.

Show All 0 Comments

Damascus, Man O'War, Morley Street, Bill Shoemaker - October 12th

Damascus, owned by Edith W. Bancroft, broke his maiden at Aqueduct Racetrack, winning by eight lengths.Read More

Show All 0 Comments

Sir Barton

Sir Barton is sadly one of the most underated horses in the history of racing.People forgot that he won four races including the triple crown in a matter of 32 days and set many records.Sir Barton set some of these records while giving unreasonable amounts of weight away to horses like exterminator who he proceeded to crush anyway.Sadly Sir Barton had hoof problems throughout his career or he would have been even greater.Finially people keep pointing to his match race with Man O War in which he was defeated.People dont understand that Sir Barton should'nt have even raced that day as his hoofs were in extremely bad shape and was being run on a surface not to his liking.On top of this he was asked to gve away weight to Man O wAR.In a fair race over 10 furlongs with fair weights and Sir Bart 100% Sir Barton would have likely beaten Man O War.Sir Barton is better than Man O wAR he beat Exterminator and Billy Kelly who did Man O War beat?

Show All 2 Comments
icyhotboo · and if they didn't invent nuclear weapons nuclear war would not be possible. If Big Brown had good feet he would have.......... · 618 days ago ·

like

0

0
icyhotboo · "who did Man O War beat?" Sir Barton is the answer to that question sir. · 617 days ago ·

like

0

0

The Travers Stakes

A Trove of Traditions, Old and NewRead More

Show All 1 Comments
MichaelPavelick · Saratoga is my favorite racing meet just ahead of Del Mar. The Travers is my favroite race all year. Explains my multiple posts. · 634 days ago ·

like

0

0