SmileysWorld I was and never have been an avid horse race watcher,but when I was ten years old,while looking for something to watch on television,I stumbled across a race consisting of two horses,one of which was named Ruffian.I remember the name because of the tragic event that took place and recall very little else about it.I remember Ruffian being badly injured and eventually having to be put down.I remember thinking how sad this was,and over the years,having heard next to nothing about it,have recalled it from time to time over the next thirty or so years.When I saw that a movie was made about her and that tragic day,I had to see it.Details that had been vague to me were brought to light.If the story told here was accurate,this was obviously a much loved,very majestic animal destined for greatness.To think that her life was cut short by some insignificant,over-hyped battle of the sexes mishmash is not only sad,it's infuriating.If anything good has come from that day,it's that challenge races no longer exist,thank goodness.

bsmith3366 More annoying to me than the horse racing inaccuracies were the portrayals of journalists who covered Ruffian. This was 1975 -- not 1935. Snap-brim hats with "Press" cards stuck in them were long gone by the 1970s. And the newsroom at Newsday, Nack's employer, was a joke. The place looks like it's a weekly, with perhaps five people working in it, rather than a major paper with a circulation of several hundred thousand and hundreds of reporters and editors. And there's always only one editor around. Moreover, Nack's desk, which for some crazy reason has an adding machine on it, is nearly empty and spotless -- which could never happen. And he has a 1950s vintage manual typewriter. Even in 1975, most big newspapers had electric typewriters. Getting the little stuff right always helps to make the big picture better.

vchimpanzee I had just gotten interested in the Triple Crown races for colts when the famous "Battle of the Sexes" aired, and I do remember what happened to Ruffian. If you are not familiar with the story, I won't give away the ending, but the events in the last few minutes of this movie may be upsetting to some people.Sam Shepard did an outstanding job as the horse's trainer. Some of his reactions were not what I expected, but since the characters in this movie were supposedly real, perhaps he really did what was depicted. In that case, Frank Whiteley was an amazing man. He cared about his horses and about doing the right thing, but at some point he had to say yes, it's terrible, but life goes on.Frank Whaley did a very good job as a leading sports reporter. His personality didn't appeal to me personally, but he was quite a character. Vladimir Diaz did well as Jacinto Vasquez, the jockey who rode Ruffian on several occasions, a man depicted as having high moral standards despite all that was happening.The track announcers were excellent. And most of the leading actors gave good performances.The horse action was well done. We saw numerous unusual camera angles of the races. Every win by Ruffian was shown in slow motion.I liked the joke played on the reporters at Ruffian's stall. All this hype was seen as ridiculous by certain characters, as well it should have been. And this was 30 years before Paris Hilton!Effective use was made of what appeared to be real footage of fans of both Ruffian and Foolish Pleasure as horse racing's answer to Billie Jean King vs. Bobby Riggs approached. And of course extras wore the t-shirts and cheered for their horse. This all drove home the point that this event was kind of silly. Several times it was suggested Ruffian could have just competed against the guys--Rags to Riches did just that the day I saw this--but if that never happened, then it couldn't have been in the movie. Displayed on the screen was a reminder that some events in the movie were fictional. Included among these was the specific event--shown in slow motion--that may have caused what I'm not giving away. Also shown on screen at the movie's end was the fact that no one really knows WHAT happened.The only weakness I saw was the fact that Ruffian's early career was rushed. The big event in her life was given so much time that the only way to adequately show her progress would have been to make this a three-hour movie (commercials included) rather than two. Perhaps two and a half would have been enough.But for the time allotted, this was a fine effort.

qatmom Movies hardly ever get horse racing right. Seabiscuit was the closest approach I have seen, but even that movie had problems. Ruffian is loaded with problems.WHY WHY WHY do movies with racing invariably confabulate odd little human subplots that anyone with any knowledge of the sport knows are pure hokum? I do KNOW the sport, having raised, handled, and raced my own horses, and having written about the sport professionally. The actual history of Ruffian was compelling enough without the make-believe elements of this movie.The horses used to portray the title character were some of the coarsest, plainest beasts imaginable. Ruffian--the real one--was a tall, nearly 17 hand filly, quite leggy and graceful. With all the cast-off TBs available for purchase on a per-pound meat price basis, couldn't at least one been found for close shots that did not look like a chunky pony??? I am sure that many people in racing would have cheerfully advised the movie's makers on details, gratis, just to be sure things were not gotten laughably wrong. The notion that Claiborne Farm, in the 1970s, shipped horses in a rusty beige trailer with "CF" on the side is silly. Claiborne was and is one of the last remaining family, multi-generational outfits, and has been involved not just with foaling and raising good horses, but in shaping and influencing the breed globally. It is not a marginal operation without presence or reputation. Go to the farm, and note that the gates, the (very large) water tower, the trim on the main stallion barn--are all painted Cadmium Yellow, the farm colors. Rusty beige trailers? Pulled by aged pickup trucks? I think not.This was a FICTIONAL movie appropriating the name of a real filly, and beyond that, not much more. It was never really explained why Ruffian was extraordinary--the movie makers seemed confused between stakes record time and track record time--or that she had an average winning margin of 7 lengths after 10 races, or that there has never been anything like her since, and in what seems a glaring omission, there was no hint of all the advances in caring for catastrophic breakdowns since 1975. Foolish Pleasure's reputation was inflated beyond what it was at the time--he was a good 3-y-o, but not a great one, and he finished his days in obscurity, pasture-breeding mares somewhere out west.No wonder Frank Whiteley and Jacinto Vasquez sought to legally block the airing of this movie without adequate disclaimers.