Ah, that explains it. Thank you.
Some horses don't need to be coddled, though. Such horses probably aren't suited to this trainer. He isn't a BAD trainer, per se, but frankly, I think Zenyatta could have had a better race record if they had taken more chances with her. It just depends on each individual horse.
Her profile page says she lost two races this year.
Seabiscuit won two races that day: the speed race, from the start to the first turn; and the stamina race, all the way to the wire. He did that because he was faster, gamer, and had more endurance. And what strategy? While Woolf had the idea to let War Admiral catch up, both riders wanted the lead early; it's an important part of a match race. And Seabiscuit got that lead because he was faster.
And yes, that most certainly IS the point of a match race. Charles Howard specifically said he wanted a match race because he wanted a fair race without any outside interference. Just The Biscuit vs. The Admiral. And said match race is the single most important piece of evidence with regards to the argument over who was better (And I'm not saying it was the only one!). Which you are conveniently ignoring.
And for the record, I think BOTH horses are most likely underrated; time does that. I am a fan of both horses; they were talented, game, and they knew how to win races. I even like both of them for similar reasons: they were both (almost ridiculously) small, and they both had heart and carried weight.
All of that aside, let me ask you this: Since both riders indisputably wanted the lead early, then how did Seabiscuit, who is apparently the lesser of the two, get it and not War Admiral? What sort of excuse did the latter have?
P.S. I don't care much for the movie; the book is better. They usually are.
P.P.S. Laura Hillenbrand spent years (four, I think) researching for that book. She gave War Admiral all due credit. I have no reason to suspect she lied (Why the hell would she?), so I believe she was telling the truth, which means Seabiscuit is NOT 'overrated'. And if Seabiscuit was 'simply' a top handicapper for two years, then War Admiral was 'simply' a top three-year-old for one year and a top handicapper for another one year.
P.P.P.S. Look, IN MY OPINION, Seabiscuit was the better racehorse. The match helps support said opinion. This debate isn't black or white. Well, it wasn't when it started, anyway. You accused me of being biased; well, duh! We're ALL biased! Including you! You said War Admiral's being better than Seabiscuit is a fact, and THAT most certainly IS insulting and unfair; you only THINK he's better; you can't possibly KNOW that. Thanks for digging that hole for yourself; it makes it much easier for me to bury you.
Have a nice holiday!
I realize that this article is probably not meant to be taken seriously, but at least two (three?) of these can be regarded as being insulting.
#9) What about Big Blue Kitten? He deserves more credit than this article offers.
#6) & #3) I assume these two are connected. I've never listened to any sort of acceptance speech that wasn't as boring as hell, so why single out Ken Ramsey?
If I were Ken Ramsey and read this article, I'd be insulted regardless of the intended humor.
Again, I realize this was most likely intended to be humorous, but I just don't think the above 'reasons' are funny.
Good grief, I completely forgot about this horse. Thanks for the update!
These photos are all beautiful; in particular, the horses are stunning.
Here's to hoping all of the horses remain sound for 2016. If they do, it's going to be one hell of a year for the Older Male division.
You don't know much about Seabiscuit, do you? He was mishandled for the first half of his career; it didn't really kick off until Charles Howard bought him. He broke a dozen track records, trekked all the way across the country to race on both coasts (War Admiral stuck to the East), and won many major races under 130 pounds or more. And of course he lost more races, HE RAN MORE OFTEN! His connections welcomed any and all challengers, and when you're facing top competition under massive weights, you're going to lose a few races; it comes with the territory. And War Admiral had no excuse for the match race. Seabiscuit won because he was the better horse. And four lengths is pretty damn decisive. They even carried the same weight, for heaven's sake!
And bringing in any statistics outside the match race itself is actually quite foolish, to say the least. A match race answers the question definitively; that's the point of having one in the first place. If you prefer War Admiral over Seabiscuit as a fan, that's fine, but referring to Seabiscuit as 'clearly inferior' is insulting and unfair.
Read Laura Hillenbrand's book, "Seabiscuit: An American Legend". It's what got me addicted to this glorious sport in the first place, and it will open your eyes to the truth.
I'm looking forward to it!
Copyright © 2010 -
other passionate horse racing fans!