Question about the Ruffian movie?

Question

Actually i have 2

1. Why were all of the horses who played her colts/geldings instead of real fillies?

2. I've done some research and why did they say that Foolish Pleasure was a such a great horse when he really wasn't. He was good but not great and definitely not at Ruffian's level. He lost races even after he "won" the match race!

Answer 1

Generally fillies are a little more high strung.  Especially young fillies.  They can get upset easily.  When filming, they didn't want to deal with any temperamental horses.  Geldings are usually the calmest horses because they don't have the hormones that colts or fillies would have.  For practical reasons when filming a horse movie, they often will use colts even when they're playing fillies.

Foolish Pleasure was a great horse, especially as a 2 year old.  He and Ruffian were both undefeated.  Foolish Pleasure didn't lose until his prep right before the Derby.  Then he won the Derby and finished 2nd in both the Preakness and Belmont.  That is a really good horse.  He did go on to lose some more after the great match, but in all the hype leading up to the match, they couldn't have known that Foolish Pleasure would turn out to lose later on.  When they were both two year olds, people were pushing to see them race each other already.  They probably would have met in the Champagne had Ruffian not broken her leg.  Then she probably would have gone on the next year to race in the Derby.  But since she broke her leg late in her 2 year old year, she had to recover until spring of her 3 year old year and couldn't really be ready to face colts at 10 furlongs by May.  Even though Foolish Pleasure only came 2nd in both the Preakness and Belmont, people considered him to be a great horse on Ruffian's level... because 2nds in 2 triple crown races against colts must equal romping wins in races against fillies!  It's just the old gender card showing its face again.  Even though Foolish Pleasure could only win the Derby, he had been a consistently good horse leading up to that point... it's not like a one hit wonder like Giacomo.  I think Ruffian would have run Foolish Pleasure into the ground, but I can see that people would think Foolish Pleasure was a pretty decent horse.  

I am kind of annoyed that he "won" the match race... had I been riding Foolish Pleasure, I would have pulled him up instead of letting him cross the finish line.  Of course, then the owners couldn't collect their money and have a winners circle celebration, but I really don't think there should have been any celebrations on that dark day.  I think it's hilarious though that Bill Nack almost got himself run over by running out there in front of Foolish Pleasure!