In terms of pure running ability, I would give the advantage to Dr. Fager. But the temperment of a horse is also part of the equation. Is a horse too rank or uncontrollable? A horse that could not be rated and could not avoid a speed duel with a rabbit is a horse with an exploitable flaw. And exploiting it is perfectly fair imo. In any event, both great horses.
As years have gone by, I am thankful that I no longer ever say which horse was better, and can simply enjoy the fact that I was alive to have seen them both. BRIAN
Hedevar did in fact hold the world record for one week in 1966, which Buckpasser broke winning the Arlington Classic in 1:32 3/5, which is the record Dr. Fager would break in the Washington Park Handicap when that was run at a mile in 1968.
Damascus was a great horse but not near as good as Dr. Fager. Dr. Fager would have won all 4 meetings but both times Damascus won his owner had to put a rabbit, Hedavar in to tiere Dr. Fager. The 2 times they raced head to head, no contest, Dr. Fager wins easy!!! Dr. Fager #3 of all time
I politely disagree. If we remove "rabbits", then we would also have to re-examine jockey strategy, such as "floating horses wide" and "pinning horses down on the hedge" and "boxing horses in." The end result is which horse will win under the allowed rules. Even "Match Races" really do not prove which horse is better. I appreciate these two horses as equally great, now. In the '60s, I chose sides. Now, I just marvel at the greatness we saw for those years. Thank you.
I don't believe in "rabbits" , especially in a race of 1967 for HOY. If a horse is only in there for the intention of "cooking" another horse,that horse shouldn't be in the race, period.
I agree that Dr. Fager was the better horse, as Braulio Baeza said "Dr. Fager could beat Damascus even in his sleep." However he also said "He was a real free-running horse. I rated him a few times, but he resented it and he fought me." Physically going more than 10 furlongs isn't the problem (weight sure wouldn't be a problem!) but I think to much of a pace could be (I not talking about a rabbit, just some speed in moderate to big field).
No offense but we really don't know how Fager would have fared beyond 10 furlongs. Thats because he never ran beyond 10 furlongs. The only horse to have ever benefited from employing a rabbit was Damascus. Thats because he was a great TB in his own right. But I would put my money on Dr. Fager vs Damascus going any distance in a eye to eye contest with no pacemakers employed! In my humble opinion,Fager was the prototypical match race running machine!
While I agree that Dr. Fager was the better horse, I think that some of the comments deriding Damascus are much over done. I have been doing some reading up on Dr. Fager, and was surprised by how measured Charles Hatton's assessment of him was; Mr. Hatton seems to be in the Damascus camp. Today a horse like Dr. Fager would be a god (bullet to a mile, four times {i think} under 2 mins. at a 1 1/4). Damacus was clearly longer (Belmont, Jockey Club Gold, etc.) and that use to count for a lot.
A rabbit wouldn't have worked with Secretariat because he COULD be rated. Secretariat would not (and perhaps could not) run a 20.6 second quarter chasing a rabbit. Rabbits don't last 1 1/4 miles. Usually they don't last 6F.
I can't believe you never hear about great horses like Damascus. A good example is Colin. He retired undefeated 15-0, and even beat Man O'War's sire Fair Play!
What made Fager great was also the thing that at times got him in trouble. That being his fierce will to win,and his idea that the lead was his to have. Sec was more layed back in that respect. But I think in a one on one contest at any distance up to 10 furlongs,Fager would give Big Red everything he wanted and then some. Trust me I rever both of them. Fager was the prototypical match racehorse.
Damascus was a horse who had to have a fast pace,and a rank Fager(thus the reason for Hedevar) to beat Fager. One on one Damascus was forced to be the one to try to crack Fager,and that was something he never did. Was Damascus a bad horse? Of course not,remember Damascus was not dependent on a rabbit in his races without Fager. And Fager would have shrugged off the challenge of hedevar,if Damascus wasn't present ,no matter how fast they went!
ihasch Says:
9/05/2012 4:40:40 AM
In terms of pure running ability, I would give the advantage to Dr. Fager. But the temperment of a horse is also part of the equation. Is a horse too rank or uncontrollable? A horse that could not be rated and could not avoid a speed duel with a rabbit is a horse with an exploitable flaw. And exploiting it is perfectly fair imo. In any event, both great horses.
redbrian3655 Says:
12/04/2012 9:39:21 PM
As years have gone by, I am thankful that I no longer ever say which horse was better, and can simply enjoy the fact that I was alive to have seen them both. BRIAN
WaltGekko Says:
26/02/2012 7:43:12 PM
Hedevar did in fact hold the world record for one week in 1966, which Buckpasser broke winning the Arlington Classic in 1:32 3/5, which is the record Dr. Fager would break in the Washington Park Handicap when that was run at a mile in 1968.
MrMiginsal Says:
24/10/2011 3:43:07 AM
Damascus was a great horse but not near as good as Dr. Fager. Dr. Fager would have won all 4 meetings but both times Damascus won his owner had to put a rabbit, Hedavar in to tiere Dr. Fager. The 2 times they raced head to head, no contest, Dr. Fager wins easy!!! Dr. Fager #3 of all time
redbrian3655 Says:
14/10/2011 9:40:07 PM
I politely disagree. If we remove "rabbits", then we would also have to re-examine jockey strategy, such as "floating horses wide" and "pinning horses down on the hedge" and "boxing horses in." The end result is which horse will win under the allowed rules. Even "Match Races" really do not prove which horse is better. I appreciate these two horses as equally great, now. In the '60s, I chose sides. Now, I just marvel at the greatness we saw for those years. Thank you.
funshipM174 Says:
8/10/2011 7:45:10 AM
I don't believe in "rabbits" , especially in a race of 1967 for HOY. If a horse is only in there for the intention of "cooking" another horse,that horse shouldn't be in the race, period.
711ATOM Says:
3/09/2011 5:03:06 PM
I agree that Dr. Fager was the better horse, as Braulio Baeza said "Dr. Fager could beat Damascus even in his sleep." However he also said "He was a real free-running horse. I rated him a few times, but he resented it and he fought me." Physically going more than 10 furlongs isn't the problem (weight sure wouldn't be a problem!) but I think to much of a pace could be (I not talking about a rabbit, just some speed in moderate to big field).
BE109 Says:
13/07/2011 5:35:50 AM
No offense but we really don't know how Fager would have fared beyond 10 furlongs. Thats because he never ran beyond 10 furlongs. The only horse to have ever benefited from employing a rabbit was Damascus. Thats because he was a great TB in his own right. But I would put my money on Dr. Fager vs Damascus going any distance in a eye to eye contest with no pacemakers employed! In my humble opinion,Fager was the prototypical match race running machine!
711ATOM Says:
10/07/2011 10:32:28 AM
Mr. Charles Hatton agreed with you. Fantastic horse.
Tigertail1717 Says:
11/05/2011 10:06:17 AM
in my humble opinion Damascus was the better of the two.
BiggieJack Says:
5/02/2011 12:52:47 PM
I saw the good Doctor run at Rockingham Park in Salem, NH. Set a track record in the easiest way. GREAT horse!
711ATOM Says:
13/12/2010 12:58:17 PM
While I agree that Dr. Fager was the better horse, I think that some of the comments deriding Damascus are much over done. I have been doing some reading up on Dr. Fager, and was surprised by how measured Charles Hatton's assessment of him was; Mr. Hatton seems to be in the Damascus camp. Today a horse like Dr. Fager would be a god (bullet to a mile, four times {i think} under 2 mins. at a 1 1/4). Damacus was clearly longer (Belmont, Jockey Club Gold, etc.) and that use to count for a lot.
TwoSlew Says:
23/09/2010 3:30:32 PM
Dr. Fager was BY FAR the better horse. Damascus needed help from rabbits to win. I call that cheating.
sl7293 Says:
16/07/2010 2:29:37 PM
A rabbit wouldn't have worked with Secretariat because he COULD be rated. Secretariat would not (and perhaps could not) run a 20.6 second quarter chasing a rabbit. Rabbits don't last 1 1/4 miles. Usually they don't last 6F.
2coolveronica96 Says:
24/06/2010 5:57:43 PM
my grandpa's fave jockey was shoemaker!! a real great jockey!!
lpvcrcd Says:
19/05/2010 3:18:35 PM
very nice-- Damascus was the first thoroughbred I remember watching on television.
STU676 Says:
10/05/2010 12:26:00 PM
Successor was a very nice horse. Eddie Neloy really liked him. Of course these 2 were all time greats. I was partial to Fager as were many.
BackstretchUnderdog Says:
24/04/2010 2:16:04 PM
I can't believe you never hear about great horses like Damascus. A good example is Colin. He retired undefeated 15-0, and even beat Man O'War's sire Fair Play!
BE109 Says:
30/03/2010 2:25:48 AM
What made Fager great was also the thing that at times got him in trouble. That being his fierce will to win,and his idea that the lead was his to have. Sec was more layed back in that respect. But I think in a one on one contest at any distance up to 10 furlongs,Fager would give Big Red everything he wanted and then some. Trust me I rever both of them. Fager was the prototypical match racehorse.
BE109 Says:
30/03/2010 2:21:22 AM
Damascus was a horse who had to have a fast pace,and a rank Fager(thus the reason for Hedevar) to beat Fager. One on one Damascus was forced to be the one to try to crack Fager,and that was something he never did. Was Damascus a bad horse? Of course not,remember Damascus was not dependent on a rabbit in his races without Fager. And Fager would have shrugged off the challenge of hedevar,if Damascus wasn't present ,no matter how fast they went!