view raw text
Angles of the Coming Great Match I By SALVATOR. I One of the most interesting angles of the j coming great match to be decided at Belmont Park, on May 30, when War Admiral and Seabiscuit measures strides — at least to many of the veterans — is the fact that | George Conway, who is and always has I been the trainer of War Admiral, was one j I of the staff of the late Matt Byrnes, who j I was the trainer of Salvator throughout his entire turf career and prepared him for his historic match with Tenny, run at Sheepshead Bay, on June 25, 1890. There are, to begin with, only a scattering few present-day trainers who are old enough to have anything but a hearsay knowledge of the Salvator-Tenny match, for i the most of the present corps were then in ■ breech-clouts, if, indeed, they had even as yet made their advent upon this footstool. I It is forty-eight years back to 1890 — and to I have any worth-while personal knowledge • of it, a man must today be well past sixty. Beyond that, for one of the scattering few then active not only, but ectively connected I with the winner on that occasion, to be the trainer of one of the coming contenders, i and the one that has been made the favorite in the ante-post betting, strikes one as almost romantic. If such a detail were intro-I duced into a turf romance, it would be j classified as just another of those exercises of the "long aim of coincidence" which I story-tellers are licensed to indulge in. But — here it is, the undeniable and absolute I fact. NOT MANY COUNTERPARTS. I In speaking of the coming event, almost all turf writers hark back to the one of 1890 for a similitude. It is the general opinion that nothing else of the same kind that has since occurred has classed with the Salvator-Tenny duel either as a sensational event when it took place or a historic one afterward. Indeed, in all our turf history, from its beginning, nearly 200 years ago. there have been but two others which rightly may be classed of such importance. Those were the two great matches be- ] tween American Eclipse and Henry in 1823 j and between Fashion and Boston in 1842. Two of the duels between Lexington and Le-comte in 1854 and 1855 were not matches. The first meeting between the pair was in the Great Post Stakes; the second was in a Jockey Club Purse, in the former there be- ] ing two other starters and in the latter one. Both were run in 1854. Their final bout, , like the others at New Orleans, was run in 1855 and was actually a match, the terms being: Jockey Club Purse, ,000, with an inside stake of ,500 each. The American Eclipse-Henry and Fashion-Boston matches were both run on Long Island and nearby the spot where War Admiral and Seabiscuit will soon meet, and were witnessed by immense outpourings of people. There was a large crowd at the Metairie course in New Orleans to see the two sons of Boston contend, but it did not compare in size with the other two. The race was also considerable of a failure. Le-comte was not in fit condition to start. He just saved his distance in the first heat and was then withdrawn. All these old-time affair were four-mile-heat contests. DEFINITION OF MATCH. In the connection it is interesting to know that a number of different writers, in discussing the approaching race, insist that it is "not a real match at all"; taking as their ground the definition of a "match" | appearing in the Rules of Racing. It reads: "Rule 6. A Match is a race between two horses the property of two different owners on terms agreed upon by them and to which no money or other prize is added; it is void if either party die." As is well known, neither Mr. Riddle nor Mr. Howard challenged for the coming event, his challenge was accepted, and each owner posted a stated sum to seal the match. The race will be for 00,000, offered for a meeting between them by the Westchester Racing Association Shakespeare, in his drama of King Henry V., puts into the mouth of that monarch the much-quoted words: "Nice customs curtsey to great kings." And that, precisely, is what obtains in this discussion. The race of May 30 offers a case exactly fitting. Technically it may not be a match. Actually, so far as the horses are concerned, it is. Both are great racing kings. Just when the existing technical definition of a match was written into the Rules of Racing would require extensive research to establish. *What is germane to the question is the fact that it was long subsequent to 1890, when Salvator and Tenny waged their epic combat at Sheepshead Bay. It had not then as yet occurred to the rule makers that there was anything in an associations bringing two great rivals together to decide the supremacy between them, and offering a fitting sum of money therefor, which took the contest out of the match classification. ONLY ONE MEANING. From time immemorial, a match, to a sportsman, has been a meeting between two horses to decide the better one of the pair. It is probable that this will ever remain the general conception of such an event, irrespective of red tape. There is an even greater book than the book of rules and inscribed upon its pages is the injunction: "The letter killeth; the spirit maketh to live." Judicial practice, in modern times, tends ever more and more to consider the spirit, the intention, behind an act, as superior to the technical definition. Many cases involv- ! ing vast interests, privileges and powers, are I decided along those lines. So, while technically the coming race may not be a match "according to the rules," neither was that between Salvator and Tenny — or, for that matter, the famous one between Zev and Papyrus run in 1923, also at Belmont Park, where that of May 30 will be staged. If those who decline to call it a 1 match prefer to call it just a race, they will be technically correct, beyond doubt. But in so bowing to the technical spirit they will not really be describing it. CALLING IT "SPECIAL." The terms, race, is a generic one, applicable to any one of the innumerable forms of speed contest. So is the term, special, which one writer puts forward as the proper designation. A special may be any one of an infinite number of different turf events. On the other hand, the designation of match tells every intelligent person exactly what kind of a contest it is going to be in a plain and unmistakable term. And, as usual, we may turn to the pages of the Webster, the worlds greatest definer, whose work is constantly consulted by jurists when making decisions in which the precise meaning of language is of importance for the final verdict, stripped of red tape or technical verbiage. This is what he says: "Match — a bringing or coming together of two parties for a trial of skill or force, a contest or the like." There you have it, in the plainest of plain English.
