What do you think?
Rate this book
Sham: Great Was Second Best: A Brave Bay's Rivalry with the Legendary Secretariat
Sham was a horse that seemed destined for greatness. He boasted a winning pedigree, a sleek and muscular frame, experienced trainers, and talented jockeys. Early races validated his potential, as he ran to victories by as many as fifteen lengths. After he defeated the mighty Secretariat in the Wood Memorial, many turf writers were touting Sham as the Kentucky Derby favorite.
The stage was set for Sham-mania to sweep the country at a time when the nation needed a hero. But it was Secretariat who won over the nation. Despite impressive victories and record-breaking performances, Sham's popularity paled in comparison. If Secretariat was America's horse, Sham might well have been everyman's horse, a working-class hero who couldn't get the recognition he deserved. This is the other side of the story of Secretariat's famous Triple Crown season and of his remarkable challenger who found that great was only second best.
The stage was set for Sham-mania to sweep the country at a time when the nation needed a hero. But it was Secretariat who won over the nation. Despite impressive victories and record-breaking performances, Sham's popularity paled in comparison. If Secretariat was America's horse, Sham might well have been everyman's horse, a working-class hero who couldn't get the recognition he deserved. This is the other side of the story of Secretariat's famous Triple Crown season and of his remarkable challenger who found that great was only second best.
- GenresHorse Racing
414 pages, Hardcover
First published October 15, 2010
2 people are currently reading
70 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 21, 2015
I delayed adding a review for this book until I could sit down and do it properly.... I have a page of notes to aid me, so hopefully this will come out coherently.
I wanted to rate this book 1 (one) star, because of my complete and utter disgust, but I gave it 2 because I felt I was being unfair upon reflection and research. The research I will tell you about at the end of this review, as it will help you understand why this book had the size of problems as that it did.
Sham is, unfortunately, doomed to being the subject of third-rate books, as this one is no better than the other, Sham: In the Shadow of a Superhorse, albeit in a different way. The first was too short, too devoid of description and detail, and also contained a few factual errors. This was almost the complete opposite--it contains WAY TOO MUCH detail. This wouldn't be a problem if it were adding more facts or relevant details, but it isn't. Instead, we are "treated" to two-page long descriptions of locations such as Saratoga, Belmont Park, and Claiborne Farms (where he feels the need to argue the color of their racing silks, for reasons unknown, claiming they are actually orange).
Dandrea is clearly trying way too hard with these, as the flowery language, artful in the hands of some authors, is over the top and flinch-worthy. He acts as though every detail of Sham's early life is completely epic, making the text overly dramatic, which is both tiring and irritating. The lengthy descriptions of Saratoga were perhaps the most irritating of all, since Dandrea admits right after subjecting you to it that Sham only worked there as a two-year-old, he never raced there. How...unnecessary.
Much of the book is out of chronological order, which is a problem only because it's so jarring after going along in chronological order for quite some time. Well, and because it's a pet peeve of mine, but I think even if it doesn't ordinarily bother you, starting with a horrible Oscar-bait-wannabe description of the 1973 Kentucky Derby and then leaping way, way, way back in time will bother you, too.
Speaking of which, that brings me to another instance of extraneous detail. Dandrea feels the need to relate stories about many of Sham's ancestors (who are also the ancestors of about 100% of Thoroughbreds, by the way), for reasons unknown to me. The worst part of that is that, while relating stories such as Hermit's, he doesn't even tell you the meat of the story. There was a lot more to it than what he related, so why bother? He shows what an amateur he is by feeling the need to go so far back in history, back even to horses that all Thoroughbreds share as common ancestors, in some part of their pedigree or other.
Dandrea is an amateur, both of writing and of Thoroughbreds. His inexperience shows in the little things, like his refusal to capitalize 'Thoroughbred', and his persistence in stating that two horses who have the same sires but different mothers are half-siblings (in the racing world, they are only half-brothers/half-sisters if they share the same dam). For all the miles and miles and miles of research he shows he did in the back, he still doesn't know his subject. And he doesn't know how to write--or perhaps I should say he doesn't know how to revise, as a third of this book could have been cut and the book would have been better for it. A few pages could've been added at the end, though, because after describing Secretariat's Belmont, Dandrea suddenly loses interest and rushes through the rest of the book. He doesn't even bother to mention what books about Secretariat noticed--that Sham didn't 'give up', and Secretariat didn't accelerate away from him when he suddenly opened up a lead on Sham; Sham's stride suddenly becomes uncoordinated when you view the race, it's very noticeable, and he drops back suddenly. He had to be vanned off the track afterward--he simply had nothing left and stopped--Dandrea fails to report this, also. (Dandrea's inability to accurately interpret what he sees in a race reveals his inexperience also.) The imbalance in pacing is very, very noticeable after taking almost sixty pages just to lead up to one race.
Also, kind of had to scratch my head at Sigmund Sommer supposedly bearing 'more than a passing resemblance to Alfred Hitchcock', according to Dandrea. After seeing pictures, I don't see it. Yeah, they were both tall, heavy-set white men. There the resemblance begins and ends, in my opinion. I'm beginning to wonder if, given Dandrea's wince-inducing descriptions and his obsession with color, he is blind and all of his reports in the book were via an interpreter...in which case I will feel bad.
Now for the research I did, which sort of gives some context to all of this....
This book was published by 'Acanthus Publishing', which, according to their website, 'provides professional publishing support to subject-matter experts by providing a hybrid alternative to self-publishing and publication through a trade imprint'. They say a lot more, too, but I'm not going to reprint it all here. Basically, it means they're a self-publishing company, but they help you make your book look more professional than the average self-publish, to help make it sell better. This essentially means that there was no editor involved at all. ...That explains a lot, doesn't it?
In the end, I felt as though Dandrea missed the 'meat' of Sham's story, just as he missed it with all of his many, many unnecessary side stories. Still, I felt that this book and the other Sham book both had a good message, earning them that second star--because it's true, without Sham, we would have no yardstick by which to measure Secretariat, would we? He was never again pressed as hard as he had been by Sham. And Sham really was a great horse in his own right.
Nonetheless, I think many Secretariat books give a lot of detail about Sham, and generally give him his due, if only so you can have a better picture of Secretariat, so you can simply read one of those books instead, and you'll get just as much out of it.
I wanted to rate this book 1 (one) star, because of my complete and utter disgust, but I gave it 2 because I felt I was being unfair upon reflection and research. The research I will tell you about at the end of this review, as it will help you understand why this book had the size of problems as that it did.
Sham is, unfortunately, doomed to being the subject of third-rate books, as this one is no better than the other, Sham: In the Shadow of a Superhorse, albeit in a different way. The first was too short, too devoid of description and detail, and also contained a few factual errors. This was almost the complete opposite--it contains WAY TOO MUCH detail. This wouldn't be a problem if it were adding more facts or relevant details, but it isn't. Instead, we are "treated" to two-page long descriptions of locations such as Saratoga, Belmont Park, and Claiborne Farms (where he feels the need to argue the color of their racing silks, for reasons unknown, claiming they are actually orange).
Dandrea is clearly trying way too hard with these, as the flowery language, artful in the hands of some authors, is over the top and flinch-worthy. He acts as though every detail of Sham's early life is completely epic, making the text overly dramatic, which is both tiring and irritating. The lengthy descriptions of Saratoga were perhaps the most irritating of all, since Dandrea admits right after subjecting you to it that Sham only worked there as a two-year-old, he never raced there. How...unnecessary.
Much of the book is out of chronological order, which is a problem only because it's so jarring after going along in chronological order for quite some time. Well, and because it's a pet peeve of mine, but I think even if it doesn't ordinarily bother you, starting with a horrible Oscar-bait-wannabe description of the 1973 Kentucky Derby and then leaping way, way, way back in time will bother you, too.
Speaking of which, that brings me to another instance of extraneous detail. Dandrea feels the need to relate stories about many of Sham's ancestors (who are also the ancestors of about 100% of Thoroughbreds, by the way), for reasons unknown to me. The worst part of that is that, while relating stories such as Hermit's, he doesn't even tell you the meat of the story. There was a lot more to it than what he related, so why bother? He shows what an amateur he is by feeling the need to go so far back in history, back even to horses that all Thoroughbreds share as common ancestors, in some part of their pedigree or other.
Dandrea is an amateur, both of writing and of Thoroughbreds. His inexperience shows in the little things, like his refusal to capitalize 'Thoroughbred', and his persistence in stating that two horses who have the same sires but different mothers are half-siblings (in the racing world, they are only half-brothers/half-sisters if they share the same dam). For all the miles and miles and miles of research he shows he did in the back, he still doesn't know his subject. And he doesn't know how to write--or perhaps I should say he doesn't know how to revise, as a third of this book could have been cut and the book would have been better for it. A few pages could've been added at the end, though, because after describing Secretariat's Belmont, Dandrea suddenly loses interest and rushes through the rest of the book. He doesn't even bother to mention what books about Secretariat noticed--that Sham didn't 'give up', and Secretariat didn't accelerate away from him when he suddenly opened up a lead on Sham; Sham's stride suddenly becomes uncoordinated when you view the race, it's very noticeable, and he drops back suddenly. He had to be vanned off the track afterward--he simply had nothing left and stopped--Dandrea fails to report this, also. (Dandrea's inability to accurately interpret what he sees in a race reveals his inexperience also.) The imbalance in pacing is very, very noticeable after taking almost sixty pages just to lead up to one race.
Also, kind of had to scratch my head at Sigmund Sommer supposedly bearing 'more than a passing resemblance to Alfred Hitchcock', according to Dandrea. After seeing pictures, I don't see it. Yeah, they were both tall, heavy-set white men. There the resemblance begins and ends, in my opinion. I'm beginning to wonder if, given Dandrea's wince-inducing descriptions and his obsession with color, he is blind and all of his reports in the book were via an interpreter...in which case I will feel bad.
Now for the research I did, which sort of gives some context to all of this....
This book was published by 'Acanthus Publishing', which, according to their website, 'provides professional publishing support to subject-matter experts by providing a hybrid alternative to self-publishing and publication through a trade imprint'. They say a lot more, too, but I'm not going to reprint it all here. Basically, it means they're a self-publishing company, but they help you make your book look more professional than the average self-publish, to help make it sell better. This essentially means that there was no editor involved at all. ...That explains a lot, doesn't it?
In the end, I felt as though Dandrea missed the 'meat' of Sham's story, just as he missed it with all of his many, many unnecessary side stories. Still, I felt that this book and the other Sham book both had a good message, earning them that second star--because it's true, without Sham, we would have no yardstick by which to measure Secretariat, would we? He was never again pressed as hard as he had been by Sham. And Sham really was a great horse in his own right.
Nonetheless, I think many Secretariat books give a lot of detail about Sham, and generally give him his due, if only so you can have a better picture of Secretariat, so you can simply read one of those books instead, and you'll get just as much out of it.
June 20, 2017
4.5 Stars for this one. I truly loved reading about horse racing when horse racing still mattered. I also loved the idea of writing a story about a great horse that was a perennial loser. Sham story is not only interesting, but the author, Phil Dandrea, writes the book as if Sham is a human being and not a horse. I really liked that choice. Horses can be almost mythical creates (see: Shadowfax), and they are given the attention they deserve in this book. If I can find a fault it is that I didn't need to know about each horse in Sham and Secretariat's lineage nor every single horse Sham raced in his 12 races. That being said, this book is fantastic. There were parts that induced chills and almost tears for me, for it puts in context how perfect a creature Secretariat was and how tragic it must've been to be in love with Sham.
You don't need to love horses or horse racing to enjoy this book.
You don't need to love horses or horse racing to enjoy this book.
April 7, 2015
I loved the book. I like he side view of Shams story of Secretariats journey. Very good, definitely want to read it again.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews