An Interview With Author Richard Sowers About:
The Abstract Primer
Of Thoroughbred Racing
Separating Myth From Fact to Identify
The Genuine Gems & Dandies 1946-2003
Q. Why did you write this book?
For as long as I can remember, I've been a student of sports history. Another way to rephrase that may be to say I've wasted my life. Essentially, however, of the sports I care very passionately and deeply about, a number that actually has diminished somewhat in recent years, there are two that, in my opinion—or at least by my standards—had no truly terrific reference books: stock-car racing and thoroughbred racing. So I wrote The Complete Statistical History of Stock-Car Racing: Records, Streaks, Oddities, and Trivia, which Richard Petty said "should be the bible for our sport," an opinion with which, in all due modesty, I wholeheartedly agree. I hope The Abstract Primer of Thoroughbred Racing: Separating Myth From Fact to Identify the Genuine Gems & Dandies 1946-2003 is received as warmly.
Plus, of all the sports I've passionately embraced, it has been my experience that horse racing is probably the most difficult to establish a firm grasp of its history. Because the industry is driven by gambling and because the powers-that-be realize that the fine print in the Daily Racing Form can be intimidating to beginners, the sport does a reasonably good job of educating, or at least trying to educate, novices about the principles of handicapping. What is far more difficult for the newcomer who is exposed to the sport through television or a memorable day at the track, an avid fan of other sports who might be willing to embrace thoroughbred racing in the same manner, is to learn the sport's equivalents of Hank Aaron's 755 home runs, UCLA's seven consecutive NCAA titles or Jack Nicklaus' six Masters championships—the true milestones, if you will.
Because reference materials that truly identify the genuine gems and dandies for the newcomer—or even the seasoned hardboot—didn't exist until this book, I think thoroughbred racing has lost many potential fans and failed to cultivate others who have tried to embrace this sport and its history as easily as they can those of say, baseball or golf, yet found it too intimidating.
This book was written with the intention of appealing to both those who have been around the sport for a lifetime and those who are novices, who ask how they can learn more about the sport—not necessarily for handicapping purposes and certainly not in order to learn how to raise a thoroughbred champion—but in the same manner that a baseball fan would want to know how Roger Clemens' achievements compare with those of Nolan Ryan, not how Clemens grips his fastball.
When I landed a dream job for anyone who loves thoroughbred racing, covering the sport for The (Louisville) Courier-Journal, the Kentucky Derby's hometown newspaper, I realized I still didn't know everything I wanted to know and felt like I needed to know about the sport. Finally, I realized that, to a certain extent, no one else did, either. Because of this book, that knowledge now is available to everyone.
I've often been asked if I'll give the same treatment to some of the other sports for which I have a deep passion, such as college basketball, college football, golf or baseball. The answer is no, because I can recommend what I consider a truly outstanding reference book, or books, about those sports and because I have no desire to duplicate anyone's efforts. Essentially, I believe both The Complete Statistical History of Stock-Car Racing: Records, Streaks, Oddities, and Trivia and The Abstract Primer of Thoroughbred Racing: Separating Myth From Fact to Identify the Genuine Gems & Dandies 1946-2003 each filled a genuine need—to give two of the greatest and most popular sports in the country the kind of top-class, abstract reference material that is readily available for most other major sports.
Q. How is this book different from already existing reference books about thoroughbred racing?
In many ways. For starters, it separates the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, by cataloguing only the achievements of the participants in thoroughbred racing's major events from the participants' accomplishments in all events. That may or may not seem like a big deal on the surface, but it truly is. Fans of thoroughbred racing might be aware, for instance, that Laffit Pincay Jr. won 9,530 races or that Bill Shoemaker won 8,833 as a jockey, just as any fan of stock-car racing knows Richard Petty won 200 races or any baseball fan knows Hank Aaron hit 755 home runs. The difference between Pincay's 9,530 victories in the saddle and Aaron's 755 home runs is that Pincay won exactly 9,530 races and that Aaron actually hit more than 755 home runs. The home runs that Aaron hit in Little League, high school baseball, the minor leagues, postseason exhibitions in Japan—or even in the All-Star Game or World Series—wisely and logically aren't included in that total, only the 755 he hit in regular-season major-league games. How many of Pincay's 9,530 victories were in minor races, and how many actually came against the best competition the sport had to offer? This book eliminates grouping apples and oranges together. A better example may be that of horses. It's pretty easy to learn that Secretariat won 16 of 21 races or that Native Dancer won 21 of 22, but for the purposes of history, should their victories in maiden races be grouped with and treated equally to their triumphs in the Belmont Stakes? This book includes only the achievements garnered in the 6,461 North American stakes races classified by this book as major since World War II.
There are several reasons that thoroughbred racing's most significant achievements have never before been presented in this manner. One reason is that I think people certainly have contemplated how the records and achievements of both human and equine participants stacked up against their competitors in the truly major events, yet found the research to unearth that data overwhelmingly time-consuming. For example, hundreds and hundreds of stakes races each year since World War II have to be evaluated before one can determine which deserve to be ranked as major.
Another reason is that, as a former sports promoter, it is my candid opinion that a "more the merrier" attitude prevails. That may take a little clarification. If a track is presenting a stakes race that includes, say, five stakes winners, it enjoys the freedom of being able to promote that its upcoming race has attracted five stakes winners. If all five of those happened to have won a single $25,000 stakes races for state-breds, however, it isn't beneficial for the track to point out that those five stakes winners aren't exactly the cream of the crop. Nor is it likely that the track will even mention, much less emphasize, that point. Yet it is beneficial for the track to point out that those five horses have managed to win one of the approximately 2,500 stakes races presented in North America each year—or the who knows how many more worldwide.
The same is true for owners, breeders, trainers, jockeys and everyone else in the industry. A stallion manager, for example, can advertise that a particular stallion has sired 100 stakes winners or 60 graded stakes winners. But is it equitable for one of that stallion's runners who won a race worth only $25,000 that is restricted to horses bred in a particular state to be rated the same as a Triple Crown winner or a two-time Breeders' Cup winner? For the purposes of advertising, perhaps. For the purposes of history, I don't think so.
This book also ignores a lot of statistics about industry-wide trends—such as attendance, parimutuel handle, auction prices and stud fees—to which most existing reference materials give considerable attention. Storm Cat is a terrific sire because of what his offspring do on the track, particularly their performances in major races, not because of his $500,000 stud fee. That's a reflection of his popularity and of the prices his offspring command in the auction ring. History should judge Storm Cat's prowess as a stallion based only on his offspring's accomplishments on the track and in the breeding shed—not because of what their sale prices are.
Finally, most existing reference books emphasize the recently completed calendar year, while this one gives equal attention to the 58 years since World War II and places the emphasis on the records of the competitors in major races, not the races themselves. That's quite a difference. Try researching the results of stakes races in existing reference materials to determine who the most successful filly milers, trainers or sires of sires in major North American races have been. It would take years. I know. Now, thanks to The Abstract Primer of Thoroughbred Racing, it takes minutes.
Q. Will this book help horseplayers and horsemen?
Although this is neither a book about handicapping nor the care and feeding of equine athletes, the answer is yes. In handicapping any race, your primary concern is how you expect the participants to perform in the upcoming event. Yet I'd think, particularly for the major races, the lessons of history presented in this book, whether via the performances of jockeys, trainers, bloodlines or thoroughbreds with similar records and/or pedigrees, would have some value. I've never heard a horseplayer complain about having too much information. Likewise, because the nature of the breeding information presented in this book emphasizes the ability of sires, dams and broodmare sires to produce major North American winners—and because of the introduction of the Sire Line Index, which measures a stallion's male-line contributions for four generations—I'd think it would be very valuable information both for breeders and for owners and trainers who are in the business of acquiring thoroughbreds. Owners who are interested in hiring trainers and trainers who are interested in hiring jockeys certainly could find valuable information as well.
Q. How did you get interested in horse racing?
Like most people, I fell in love with a horse. For reasons that escape me, quite possibly because of an article I read in the now defunct Sport magazine, I became a fan of Carry Back. The first race I actually recall seeing was his stirring victory in the 1961 Kentucky Derby, when he came from 17 lengths off the pace to edge Crozier. From then on, I have tried to absorb virtually everything I could about thoroughbred racing, which wasn't necessarily easy since I grew up in two states that didn't have parimutuel wagering—and still don't.
Q. What did you learn in the course of researching and writing this book that you found particularly enlightening?
As I mentioned earlier, when I began covering the horse racing beat at The Courier-Journal, I was very frustrated because I knew I didn't know as much as I'd like to learn about the sport. If someone asked me to recommend a book or two or three about certain other sports in order to learn the basic knowledge that you'd expect a sportswriter assigned to cover the New York Yankees for The New York Times to possess, I could offer many suggestions. The late Mike Barry, a longtime Louisville columnist, once told me not to worry, that most sportswriters grow up learning about baseball and that few are equipped with sufficient knowledge when they begin covering thoroughbred racing unless they happened to grow up as degenerate gamblers. Yet I had been trying to absorb everything I could about thoroughbred racing for some two decades before I got that assignment, yet was still keenly aware that I knew 100 times more about baseball, college basketball or golf, for instance. And, yes, I had studied the existing reference materials in great depth.
Interestingly enough, not too long after I began researching The Abstract Primer of Thoroughbred Racing, Bill Christine, the longtime Los Angeles Times turf writer, wrote a guest column in The Blood-Horse complaining that neither he nor the other 99 experts who select the Hall of Fame inductees had the proper information to vote intelligently. And there are few, if any, turf writers in the country who are more widely respected by their colleagues—or by me—than Bill Christine. Further, his column essentially emphasized that the voters lacked sufficient information to select intelligently from among the three nominees in each category. So I guess the most surprising thing I learned was how illogical some of the selections for the Hall of Fame or season-ending championships, both the Eclipse Awards and their predecessors, have been.
I don't want to cite any particular selections, but several years ago a thoroughbred was among the three nominees in the Horses of Yesteryear category, limited to those who finished their careers at least 25 years earlier, who, based on the findings of this book, probably wouldn't qualify as one of the top 100 candidates in that category since World War II.
It's also puzzling when, thanks to the overdue 2004 induction of Shug McGaughey, only one eligible trainer who has compiled more than 40 major North American victories since World War II has yet to be enshrined—and apparently never even nominated. It's also a mystery why 14 of the top 35 jockeys in major races since World War II aren't in the Hall of Fame, half of the four thoroughbreds who have won at least three major races on both grass and dirt haven't been selected or the only filly since World War II to win at least three major races as a juvenile and five or more as a three-year-old wasn't a champion and isn't a Hall of Famer.
This is not meant as a criticism of either the Hall of Fame or the Hall of Fame voters, but of the lack of available archives that allow those people to make informed selections—an oversight that, hopefully, has been corrected with the publication of The Abstract Primer of Thoroughbred Racing.
Q. Does your research show any significant trends in the sport?
Absolutely. Some of them probably will surprise knowledgeable observers, and others probably won't.
Among the findings that shouldn't be particularly surprising are that colts and horses are being rushed to the breeding shed long before their racing careers have reached a logical conclusion. Five entire males have posted major victories at two, three, four and five since World War II, but only one of them was born after 1958.
Among the other trends that should come as no particular shock are greater emphasis on grass racing and more big-money events for fillies and mares and sprinters. Perhaps it would surprise many observers to learn that, as a percentage of prestigious events and big-money races, there is much less emphasis on two-year-old racing than there was 40 or 50 years ago. And, in any given period since World War II, a small group of trainers and jockeys virtually have ruled the sport. That was also true of owners 30 or 40 or 50 years ago far more than it is today.
The trends I find most disturbing are shortening the distances of so many major races and that our champions are winning far fewer major races than they once did.
The increased emphasis on breeding for speed instead of stamina has caused a lot of tracks to change traditional mile-and-a-half races to mile-and-a-quarter races or races that were once a mile-and-a-quarter to a mile-and-an-eighth, which seems a little like the tail wagging the dog. We're not asking our thoroughbreds to run as far, to carry as much weight or to compete as often as we did 30 or 50 years ago, which, to me, means the breed isn't necessarily improving.
Q. Your book includes the time period from 1946 through 2003. How did you arrive at 1946 as a starting point?
Well, the book is certainly heavy enough to use as a doorstop as it is, so if it contained the same information since the origin of the thoroughbred, it probably would require a wheelbarrow to carry. I originally considered using 1984, the first year of the Breeders' Cup, which dramatically changed both the schedules and goals horsemen have for our best thoroughbreds and the way champions are chosen, as a starting point. I quickly decided that time period was insufficient for the book to be the achievement I wanted it to be and needed it to be to serve the purposes it hopefully accomplishes.
I decided on 1946 for several reasons. Throughout the entire time period, the two major racing centers in North America have been New York and Southern California. That was true for only a very short time period before 1946 because Southern California racing as we know it today—Santa Anita, Hollywood Park and Del Mar—didn't exist until the mid- to late '30s, and the circuit essentially ceased to exist during most of World War II. Second, travel restrictions in the rest of the country considerably hampered thoroughbred racing during World War II and, in fact, the entire sport shut down for much of 1945 because a wartime edict from FDR, effectively lopping many of the season's most important events off the calendar. The Kentucky Derby, for example, wasn't run until June 9 that year and has been firmly entrenched on the first Saturday in May only since 1946.
Finally, some of the key elements I've often heard people who've been around racing before I was born cite as the major differences between racing today and the old days—such as year-round racing and horses and horsemen traveling all over the country to compete in major events—were as prevalent in 1946 as in 2003 as a check of old stakes results and the records of horses and horsemen in this book clearly reveal.
Because of the combination of a very lengthy absence of the sport in one of the country's two major racing centers and a relatively lengthy nationwide ban on thoroughbred racing and the other aforementioned elements, there is no clearer demarcation line between the way things are in thoroughbred racing and the way things were than 1946, which I designated as the beginning of the "modern" era. That's simply for clarification purposes and the parameters of this book, however, and by no means an official designation such as baseball or NASCAR have for record-keeping purposes.
Q. In promoting this book, you've emphasized that you used objective criteria to determine the sport's genuine gems and dandies. How did your particular favorites stack up?
As an objective observer, I'm not allowed to have favorites. As a human being, however, of course I do.
Quite frankly, I was amazed at how highly they rated—jockeys, trainers, horses, sires and everything else.
Carry Back, for example, just happened to be the first horse I ever truly embraced, but by no means the only one or necessarily my favorite. In evaluating his performances in all categories, he not only ranks among the top 10 entire males since World War II, but actually may be the most underrated.
Q. What impact do you hope this book will have on the sport?
First, I hope this book truly succeeds in separating myth from fact and results in horses, jockeys and trainers who truly earned Hall of Fame recognition eventually being enshrined.
Second, I hope that veteran observers of the sport will notice the considerable differences in this reference book and other available reference materials and recommend it to those who are new to the sport as a way to get the same types of fans that other sports have—rather than merely gamblers—to become fans of thoroughbred racing just as they are fans of baseball, basketball, auto racing, golf, football or whatever. I hope it helps attract fans who are very interested in major races regardless of whether they have a stake in the outcome in the form of a parimutuel ticket. I am fully cognizant that the sport is fueled by gambling, and I have every faith that those who embrace the sport soon will be tempted to risk $2 or more when a race unfolds before their eyes at the track or at a simulcast center.
Finally, I hope the accomplishments of the participants that merit their inclusion in this book will help reverse such disturbing trends as horsemen keeping their horses in the barns instead of on the track, fattening their records and bankrolls against inferior competition or rushing a minor stakes winner off to the breeding shed at the earliest opportunity because the horse "has nothing left to prove."
Q. If you're separating myth from fact, as the subtitle indicates, just how good was Secretariat?
Very. As I clearly state in the book, it's almost like comparing apples to oranges to compare a colt such as Secretariat with the likes of the trio of greatest geldings this country ever produced—Kelso, Forego and John Henry—because his career on the track ended in October of his three-year-old campaign while those three continued to dominate their opponents as grizzled veterans.
In terms of judging three-year-olds, Secretariat ranks among the best in a number of categories, including being one of five Triple Crown winners since World War II, in his tests against his elders, for his versatility on dirt and grass, for eye-popping clockings in his races and is the only race horse since World War II who had the largest winning margin in major races at two different distances.
He also was an outstanding two-year-old, of course, but whether he was either the best juvenile or three-year-old since World War II is up to the reader to determine. More evidence in Secretariat's favor—or against his candidacy—is available in The Abstract Primer of Thoroughbred Racing for horsemen and horseplayers to make an informed decision than ever before about Secretariat or how virtually any other equine or human participant compares with any other.