view raw text
THOROUGHBRED IMPROVING THEORY OF DETERIORATION OFTEN SUGGESTED. A CRY OF OLDEN DAYS ALSO. Sovero Te;t of Handicaps Shows Our Racers Superior in Speed end Endurance to Old-Time Celebrities. IMv W. 8. Yoshurgh. New York. March 17. — AM t lit ■ RMC horses of the ■present g« aeration as good ms those of former gen ■orations or bare they .deteriorated V The question il one we frequently bare olamaatd. and from :i!l I bare lean, I gather th.it it baa always been dis-caseed — in act it baa been ;i burning subject of discussion foe the past 100 years. If wo turn to the racing literature of MBBB-M ere find leapthp let; tcta from correspondents lamenting "tlie decline" in tne merit ot the hers.s ,f thai t inn- leoapaml with the previous generation. Turn to that of 1888-48 it is the siiine ;ind likewise to thai of each succeeding decade. I" r years it has been the favorite subject in which for some novice to "flcsti his maiden steel." I am often amused reading the old Sporting Magazine of the ••thirties." when- numerous writers lament the "decline of horses of the st.unii of Eclipse. Sir Henry and Sir Charles." and so too in the English Magazine of tliat period there are always to be foi;nd writers crying for "the ahaeawc of a P.lacUloek. an Kmilius. or a Phantom." A generation later they are to be found bewailing "the want of a Priam, a Hag Middloton. or a Venison." while the succeeding generation claim "there are no lancer horses of the type of TreVHin ton. Stockwell and West Australian.* Here in ..merica we were, as a boy. assured that there an re "no longer such horse s :• P.oston. Fasliion and reytona." then it was Lexington, while still later we have heap assured there are now no such horses as Hindoo. Lake Blackburn and Duke of Magenta, 0T mar. a of the lass of Ruthless. Miss Woodford. Than and Fireuzi. i Comrari-on by Tirr.e Test. Old-time racing men will occasionally admit that there are more speedy horses. "more sprinters." than there wore in their day: but*they deny modern horses have the ability to stay a distance as r aaa pa Hid with those of former genera tions. There are. of eaone, exceptions. I recall the lata Mr. Withers saying, in 1888, that if Kt ii tucky. the rhsmpson of the sixties was alive, "he couldnt win a selling race." And this was only a trifle over twenty jrcan after Kentucky had so loniin.it d raring that the conditions of some stakes read "Kentucky barred." It la qatte likely thai in recent years we have had a greater proportion of inferior horses in training than ere had forty or fifty years ago. There are more horses, bat that we bare aeoM the equal of the beat of that period it is diifi-cult to establisli. The system of racing has changed. The distances have been reduced: but the weight* have been increased. Besides, in those day- races were started with the flag, the liors. s from a walk, breaking into a gallop witli no great pace as a rule until tie hot half mile. Now they arc started standing behind a barrier, getting away flat footed, bat urged at the top of their speed as soon as the barrier rises. Some one may answer that the fact accounts for the races being run taster. If wo admit that it makes the modern Iwrw the better, as it is a greater test of both speed and stamina. The greatness of some ef tlie old-time race horses exists largely in a sentine ntal perspective — the result of early impressions favorable to some horse. It was tie- 1 aiatd Dr. Johnson who said. "Pa -erabh impressions, may be deceitful and dangerous. By trusting to [mpn ssions. a man may gradually come to vi: Id to them, and at length be subject to them, so as not to lie a free agent." That then Were some great race horses forty years ago is certain, but the horses of todaj run a mile from five to six seconds Canter than those of that period, and at three-quarter* the Improvement in speed is even greater. Bveu in England it is noticeable. Ip to UN Kettledrums 2:43 was the fastest Derby. Place MM, With oae exception, every Derby has been run better than 8:40. Ip to 1888 the beat time made in the St. Lege* was 8:14. since 1900 it has been run in as fast time as 3:04 and 3:0:1. Longfellow and Roamer. When a gentleman is said to have Umaitlfl that there were "no great men nowadays" to the late Mr. .ladstone. he. who probably fidt the remark to be personally slighting, replied that then were BS many as ever, but that the general level was higher, l.en-e tl.ey did not appear quite so remarkable as those of former days-: lVrhaps Mr. Jlad-stoaes reply might be applied to the question Whether tlie horses of today are as good as those of former days; but that again is a matter of opinion. Most assuredly the horses of the pre seat d.iv. m.-asured by the tuning test, are sujierior to those of former days. In the race for the Saratoga Cup of 1871, Longfellow ran the first mile in 1:40, beating Kingfisher, and ii created each a seasa- tion that he was acclaimed a super horse. let, for the Washington Handicap at Laurel in 1911. Ktamer ran the first mil.- in 1:88% with 124 pounds, while Longfellow had only 10S panaris Hut here liters t! • question of track: It will be said Laurel in 1914 was faster than Saratoga in 1071. No doubt it Bras, but who can say lioag-1Mow would bare beaten Reenter? In short, there is no method known by which horses of different periods caa be compared, it is a matter of opinion, or impression. Barf there is another argument in favor of the horses of the present compared with those of the past, one I have aercr seen in piint. It is that they are more kigbl tried, a horse which can prevail over his contemporaries of today should be better than one which did so forty or fifty years ago. The horse of today, after the spring of his thn-i veal old season, has to run almost entirely for handicaps. I he becsee of forty or • fifty years ago ran for tile most part in weight -for age racs. Nowadays, there are scaicely any ueight-for-age* paces "far three-year olds and over. Longfellow never started for a handicap. neither did Harrj Baanati natil he had lost his form at five. I cannot recall Tom Howling or Rake ot Magenta starting for a handicap. Lake Itl a. Lbiirn started for only two. Hindoo for one. while S.ihaloi sever started for one after be bad WOM the Suburban. Continued oil second page. n tj t r. 0 j It of s t t jj a a r v , c I li " a o 1 i i t a a ■ a I i I I J I I . , j THOROUGHBRED IMPROVING. ■ Continued from first page. Difference in System. In the old days, a horse of high-class had an easy time of it. He went through the season win- . ning race after race, as he seldom incurred penal- | ties, and then only small ones. But a horse of , today not only incurs penalties, but he lias to | race for handicaps, in which he is asked to concede , often as much as thirty pounds to other horses. is a condition rendered necessary by the growth racing. In order to make race* attractive, some such means must be employed to equalize the horses: otherwise the races would more often than not prove mere walkovers for the winners. Besides, a class of owners has arisen that will not start their horses unless they feel that they have good chance of winning, which in weight -for-age lares is often remote. The fault is not with the racing clubs. They are willing to give races at weight forage, but they have met with so little encouragement they have all but abandoned them. But the point I would make is that a horse which can prevail in handicaps is manifestly a better horse than one which has only beaten the same horses at even weights. And that is what the horse of today does and the horse of forty or fifty years ago did not. The successful horse of today has not only beaten his contemporaries, but he has given them weight as well, thereby adding further ovi-dence of his superiority. He has been tried by a harder test — a test that renders his position of prominence more difficult to attain. Peter Pans Brigh ton Handicap with 115 pounds in July was more creditable to him than any other of his victories, as three-year-old. as he conceded 25 pounds to a colt of his own age. and after being knocked out of his stride and falling to the rear, he came through like bullet and won. In The Managers third, in the National Handicap at Laurel in 1912. as a three-year old. he car ried 127 pounds. In that race he drew the extreme outside position in a field of ten horses and lost considerable ground crossing over to the rail. Then he had the greatest trouble in threading his way through the field and was knocked out of his stride. but came with a tremendous finish and was catching his horses at the end. It was a performance no racing enthusiast could possibly forget. Severity of Modern Tests. As a test for breeding purposes, I believe the handicap better than the weight-for-age race. After Salvator won the Suburban, he was never allowed to start for a handicap. The utmost effort was made to retire him to the stud without taking any chances of defeat. And what was the result? Salvator was one of the worst failures in the history of racing. His owner was not a man who allowed self deception to influence him except in this particular case. Ben Brush, on the other hand, raced in all sorts of races, met all kinds of company and took up the lap weight for the Suburban, won it. and has proved a highly successful sire. The same is true in England. There the most successful sires of recent years have been horses which ran in handicaps — and won them. Polyincliis, which for three seasons past, has led the "Winning Sires." won his greatest renown in the Cambridgeshire of ISM Hi with 122 pounds up. Isonomys greatest race was for the Manchester Cup handicap, with 13K pounds up. conceding as much as fifty nine pounds. Barealdines greatest feat was winning the Northumberland Plate handicap i. with 135 pounds. Bend Ors was winning the City and Suburban with 12i pounds and Master Kildares in the same race with 12H pounds. Now in England there has been but one Derby winner Sainfoin which has sired a Derby winner Rock Sand since INS! — a period of twenty-seven years. Yet. the English have for more than a century said "to get a Derby winner, you must breed to a Derby winner." and this has. as time rolled on. grown to the dignity of a proverb. In fact, the owners of what were considered the best horses have often declined to race them for handicaps, being unwilling to risk a beating which would impair their prestige U|M n entering the stud. Besides, there had grown up an affectation of refusing to recognize "a handicap horse" as in the class with a Derby horse. In spite of this, as shown above, the handicap horses have completely outbred the Derby winners as the sires of Derby winners. Isoiiomy. Hampton. Barcaldine. Carbine. Chaleu-reux. Snndridge. Desmond. Janissary. Florizel II. and Polymelus all raced for handicaps, and hae sired Derby winners during the twenty -seven years quoted above. Failure of Derby Winners as Sires. In the face of the above showing it does not seem as if Derby credentials alone were enough to entitle a horse to consideration as a prospective sire of Derby winners. Yet. no horse enters the stud with the eclat that attaches to a Derby winner. He is regarded as a sort of "refined gold" when he enters the stud, and is sure of a full book of the choicest mares in the kingdom, and that. too. at a high figure for service. He is a favorite stock horse for years, unless he fails early. Nevertheless, the Derby winners of the last ■ . | , | , iua il cr of l century have failed, compared with the handicap boraci as sires of Derby winners. Besides. Persimmon. Isinglass and Ualopin are the only Derby winners which have led the English "winning sires" during the last quarter of a century. To sum up. it would appear from the above that the winning of a Derby, or any single race at even weights, is not the best test of either a racehorse or a sire. The handicap horse meets all comers of all ages, and gives them, not only a beating, but also weight to emphasize his superiority. Thus considering the greater severity of the tests by which horses of today are tried, as W1 0b as the improvement in the time in which races ire run. and the weights carried, it seems that we should have little reason for thinking that present-day horses are any worse than those of previous generations, but that possibly they are letter. We have, however, one defect in our gtateai of bleeding: I allude to the tendency toward making races for two-year olds oar Itaad-ird. There is a certain degree of danger in breeding to sires whose credentials are based wholly upon their racing as two year olds. If i-ontinued for many generations it is liable to produce horses which will not stand training more than one or two seasons. There is a class of horses which reach maturity early and become famous as winners of races for two year-olds. Often they are as good then as they are ever after: more often still they never are as good. Many of them decline after that age two, as. for example. Treniont. Mesmerist. Mexican. Portland. De Mund. and in England Slieve Callion. Oalvani and the Ameriean-bred Democrat. When they reach three and four years old they not only fail to stay, but lose speed as well. They seem to decline in nervo-muscular force. Early maturity does not always mean early decline, but often it does, and such horses as do decline are not the kind to "improve the breed." Of course, while stakes for two-year-olds are made the most valuable, breeders for sale will breed for that style of racing. but it is not the kind of breeding to produce great race horses. Assuredly, a horse is better for having raced as a tWO-year-aM, but a stallion should be one which has passed through the ordeal of more than one season of racing to establish his claim to con stitution.
