view raw text
Ten Brocck was the first horse ever to run a mile under 1 :40. lie. ran it in 1:33 3-4 at Churchill Downs, carrying 110 pounds, in the year 1877. Forty-one years later, 1918, Roamcr carried! 110 pounds and ran a mile at Saratoga in Nifi. A reduction of approximately five seconds 1 in - .proximately forty years." .o compare the running abilities of Ttoamer "f.id Ten Broeck is no more difficult of satisfactory, conclusive result, than comparison of the track-speed cf the courses over which they ran. The point that intrigues is: How much of that five seconds reduction in the time required for a thoroughbred to turn one mile on an oval course was due to improvement in track speed, how much to training ! methods and how much to improvement in the breed of the thoroughbred himself? That each factor mentioned had a hand in the five seconds at stake appears, at first blush, a certainty. And adherents of the "bend-over," short-stirrup, non-wind resistance style of riding would undoubtedly lay claim to a share. Personally, -we are inclined to side with them. No one "who witnessed the motion pictures of the Zev-Papyrus race and studied -with discerning eye the slow motion close-Tips of Earl Sande and Zev, contrasting them -with those cf Donoghue and. Papyrus, could I but be impressed with the genuine "help" I to a horse which a rider of Sandes style j must be. The movement of Sandes arms ; and Zevs stride was the last word in abso- j lute harmony. Looking at it intently one found his im- j agination thwarted trying to picture such j perfect rhythm of rider and horse in any j other style of riding or seat of jockey. j . i Now,- a reduction of a second in the time of running a mile seems a small thing. Xet a second of a mile run in from 95 to 100 . seconds is roughly equivalent to six lengths. i T.aclv of wind resistance might have made it possible for Andy Schuttinger of IDiS not I the one of later years, to speed up Ten j Broeck a matter of six lengths over what Billy "Walker was able to get from him. AlucK ! as we believe in the advantages of the mod- era riding style, it is hard to conceive of a horse gaining six lengths under a present d?.v -5oc"key, unless the increased speed be! due almost entirely to freedom from wind resistance For, after all is said and done, a horses j time over a mile route is largely governed j by the "rating" he gets from his jockey, j The horse of today has but one burst of j speed and so did the horse of 1S77. One second of the reduction seems all that can be credited to the change in riding style. Training methods have changed since 1S77, , radically. It is not so difficult to conceive of Sam Hildreth, or James Rowe, or Jack Joyner, among a dozen that might be mentioned, training Ten Broeck in a manner that would have increased his speed at a mile "by six lengths. That six lengths, or second of time, for improved training methods, we readily concede. Perhaps it should be more, hardly less. From Ten Broocks time till Halmas Kentucky Derby in 1S95, the last derby run at a. mile and a half, the average time for the race over other than a muddy track, was about 2 :37. AVe specify "other than muddy or heavy" because there seems to have been no "fast" tracks, as we understand them, in those days. Look through the old guides in the New York public library some day and youll be surprised to note track conditions day after day as "heavy with dust," " very dusty," etc. It is evident that the Bowie course would have been regarded then as a pasteboard affair. Two thirty seven was about the average time for the derby. Spokanes 2:34, must have been a frrtik performance, due to the sizzling pace set by Proctor Knott, just as Old Rosebuds 2 :03 has stood out in modern times. For seven years after Spokanes victory, 2:37, h. was Halmas time over a track fast enough for horses to turn six furlongs in 1:13. Now, a mile and a half in 2 :37, meant a mile and a quarter in about 2:09. Xo Kentucky Derby winner of today turns in a victory over a fast track in time slower than 2:05. A figure of 2:05 might be called average. So, the speed of Churchill Downs may roughly be said to have advanced four seconds to the mile and a quarter, and as much for the mile, because there is but one turn in the mile of Churchill Downs today. And Saratoga has about kept pace with Churchill Downs. Likely enough the speed of Saratoga in 1918 was-all of four seconds faster than that of Churchill Downs in 1877. In the three factors tending to reduce time so far as noted, we have gained six seconds four for the track, one for the trainer and one for the jockey where we needed but five. Perhaps from the gain credited to each factor sufficient fractions should be deducted to round out the five seconds that are a matter of record. AYhich brings us to the question: How much has the horse himself gained in speed? Ten Broeclc raced against horses as good as weve ever had. One of his chief rivals Parole went to Fngiand and performed, even at a ripe old age, in a manner to make the Britons admit that true enough race horses were being produced in America, and presaging the coming triumphs but a few seasons later of Iroquois and Foxhall. That Ten Brocck was a better horse than Boamer is a statement capable of reasonable proof. If we were to select a modern horse to dim the performances of Ten Broeck, our choice would be either Man o AVar or Sy-sonby from purely a speed standpoint. For. in our opinion, in a test of speed either of those gladiators would have stood wonderful, honest little Boamer right on his head, just as surely as "The Big Train" ran John P. Gricr bow-legged that day at Aqueduct. All of which seems to indicate us as maintaining that the Speed of the thoroughbred horse fundamentally has not advanced in nearly fifty years. AVell, has it? "Why should the modern horse, in the pasture, untrained, have a higher flight of speed than the horse of the 70s? He has the same four legs that he had then, and no new element has entered his blood since we ceased breeding native and imported thoroughbred stallions to native mares whose pedigrees made them persona non grata in the English Stud Boole The modern horse, at halter breaking time, is no taller, no heavier. If he is the same flesh and blood horse, then why should he be able to run any faster? Tracks, trainers and seat of jockeys constitute the answer that says he does run faster. And that we are not alone in believing the modern horse no faster than his immediate ancestors, is a fact borne out by our inquiry last summer among authorities for their opinion as to which were the three best horses America has seen since Longfellow. - Every man whose experience went back that far named either Luke Blackburn or Hindoo as one of the three greatest ; here and there an expert named both of those champions. And they raced from 1S79 to 1SS2, but a few years later than Ten Broeck, and against some of the very horses he met Parole, notably. Xow dont set us down as pessimistic or cynical. The lorse himself may or may not have improved to any extent, but the racing of him has improved and that, after all, is the important thing. The thoroughbred horse without racing-well, lie is better than any other breed, but without racing he would be likely to deteriorate and eventually disappear as other breeds have before him. So forward, say we, with all scientific development of accessories to his racing improvement in the things that make him "seem" to be a better, faster horse than his predecessors.
