So last weekend I was just flipping through sports docs on TV, saw that famous Belmont Stakes clip of Secretariat absolutely demolishing the field back in ’73. Got hooked because, c’mon, that horse moved like a damn freight train. Figured I’d actually dig into what made that race so special instead of just rewatching highlights like usual.
Down the YouTube Rabbit Hole
Started simple – searched “Secretariat vs Sham Belmont” on YouTube. Wasted hours binging grainy race footage and those overly dramatic history channel docs. Sham looked incredible… anywhere else. But against Secretariat? Just hopeless. Keep seeing Sham’s jockey basically giving up halfway through. Wild.
Needed more than commentators yelling “UNBELIEVABLE!” Pulled up some old sports articles. Found this one piece calling it a “rivalry that wasn’t really a rivalry.” That clicked hard. On paper they were competitors, but the gap? Massive. Started scribbling notes: Why do we remember Sham at all if he kept losing? Messy timeline sketched out:
- Kentucky Derby: Secretariat breaks poorly, Sham pushes him hard, loses by 2.5 lengths
- Preakness: Secretariat starts awful AGAIN, Sham leads, Secretariat still wins pulling away
- Belmont: Secretariat decides to just break reality. 31-length win while Sham crumbles
Microfilm Madness at the Library
Got obsessed. Went to the downtown library Tuesday morning. Smelled like dust and old paper. Found the microfilm reader – clunky beast from the 90s. Loaded May/June 1973 reels. Took forever. Eyes burning. Found these tiny newspaper columns talking about the “duel of the century” hype BEFORE Belmont. All the pressure on Sham to finally beat the big red horse. Brutal in hindsight. Handwriting notes got super tiny trying to keep up. Spot near the end where one writer basically admitted after Preakness that calling it a rivalry might’ve been… generous. Coffee stains all over my notebook.
Connectin’ Dots Over Cold Coffee
Sat at my kitchen table Thursday night, notes spread out like a detective board. Kept circling back to that fake rivalry thing. We do this constantly, right? Need someone to be the challenger. Even when it’s not close. Makes the winner look even stronger. Saw it everywhere suddenly:
- Tech giants always got their “closest competitor” even if it’s not even close
- Politics painting the other side like this huge threat, mostly just scaring folks
- Heck, even in that mess of a startup I worked at years ago – founders hyping this tiny competitor like they were Amazon to scare investors!
Secretariat didn’t need Sham. But we needed Sham. Needed the fight narrative. Needed the “what if?” Just makes that Belmont blowout hit different. Seeing Secretariat all alone? That’s pure, terrifying dominance.
Why My Brain Stays Stuck on This Race
Finished up late Friday. Wasn’t about memorizing race times anymore. It’s that pattern. How we hype up challengers that never stood a chance just to make the story feel better. Makes you question every rivalry shoved in your face nowadays. Secretariat ran his own race, smashed records, left the “rival” eating dust. Real deal don’t need fake competition. Saw it working backwards:
- Hooked by the sheer visual insanity of Belmont
- Discovered the buildup calling it an “epic duel”
- Saw how reality didn’t match the hype
- Realized why that hype exists ANYWAY
Big Red did his talking on the track. Shook off the noise. Left the “rivalry” talk in the dirt where it belonged. More I think about it, more I see that same lesson everywhere. Especially in this online world full of forced competitions.
