Hidalgo: Fact vs Slander?

More evidence than you could ever possibly want that the story is untrue:

http://www.thelongridersguild.com/hopkins.htm

There's thousands of movies that are 'based on a true story' that have a great deal of fabrication involved in the script. Hence, it never really mattered to me whether Hopkin's tale was real or false simply because, if it was real, the story presented in the movie was not.

This did not, however, stop the movie from entertaining the hell out of me.

It amused me, early on, when there was violent slashing at this movie because of it's association with Frank Hopkins and it's claims to be a true story. Of course some of those same people also criticized the film for portraying a Mustang in a light superior to that of a thoroughbred, which let me know exactly where most of those people were coming from.

Some people can just be so violently partisan.:)

Truth: there is not a single shed of historical evidence that the “Ocean of Fire” race, or any similar race, ever took place. The ONLY evidence that this race ever even existed (let alone Hopkins winning it) is Hopkins' own account. It is mindboggling to imagine that such a race could have existed for centuries, with members of some of the most important and influential Arabian families entering, without at least SOME historical evidence for it existing. If you are aware of any evidence for the race’s existence (other than Hopkins’ own account and material put out by the Disney marketing department) we would certainly all be interested in hearing it.

I have been overseeing a student group project on Hopkins that has been
fascinating. We've been given all of the materials in question as well as
contacts with some respected old-time horsemen who knew Hopkins personally.

You are correct: Hopkins was passionate about mustang preservation and inspired
several generations of conservators. He proved himself on horseback and could still handle horses in his 80's that young equestrians couldn't touch. There are first-hand accounts of him being summoned to the Rockefeller Estate on several occassions to train or doctor difficult horses.

The several old-timers who remember him speak of him with a sincere respect
and truly liked him as a person. A few of them were distance riders and express a pride in having learned from Hopkins. When told that some doubt that Hopkins was an accomplished distance rider, they either get offended or laugh. Lack of documentation doesn't faze them because they knew enough contemporaries of Hopkins' who validated him, and they were also witness to his character and skills.

You state, dismissively, in your post, that most people knew a lot about horses in the 1950's. Even if that was true (which it is not), Hopkins was fairly revered even in the most accomplished equestrian circles. It would be a stretch to believe that he achieved that purely with a gift for wonderful storytelling.

There is little doubt that your friend Mr. CuChullaine absolutely loves equestrian travel. I am sure that he has contributed a lot to the field. But as
far as him being "a pretty straight forward guy," on the subject at hand, you might consider some disturbing details:

Why did he debase Frank Hopkins' horsemanship knowledge and hide it from the public during his alleged search for Truth? Along with portraying the late Hopkins as a pathological liar, criminal, and "ghoul," he has stated boldly that
Hopkins didn't know the first thing about horses and never sat anything but a stool on his porch.

Yet, it was Mr. CuChullaine himself who discovered a lost box of Hopkins' materials in a university museum, a box which contained Hopkins' impressive
articles and notes on training, distance riding, saddle fit, etc, etc. This
box also contained photos of Hopkins on horseback, yet Mr. CuChullaine stated--even on the jacket of his book about the "hoax"--that there is "not even one known photograph of Hopkins on horseback!" (His exclamation point).

Meanwhile, some of the old-timers who unexpectedly came forward, have not only identified Hopkins in the photos, but took some of the photos themselves sixty years ago.

Your friend, being a horseman, knew the truth of this matter, but hid it and
defamed this facet of Hopkins in an apparent effort to wholly destroy the man's name. These materials were only accessed (your friend reportedly refused to share the materials with the filmmakers) when the university museum allowed every item in the box to be copied by members of a respected rancher family in the area.

Why, in his presentations to historians and the press did he state that Charles Roth, the man he claims started a hoax, "met Hopkins in a bar?"

Roth learned of Hopkins from veteran distance riders and travelled from Denver to meet him at his home. Why would someone twist the truth into "met him in a bar." I think the answer is pretty clear. The goal was to sully the man's reputation as much as possible.

If this was a prosecutor in a court of law, the case against Hopkins would be thrown out for obvious reasons. When someone goes that far, with such over-stated contempt, their entire position is suspect. No wonder the filmmakers wouldn't buckle.

This is not to say that Hopkins didn't add some miles to his telling as he got older, or maybe even ammended his recall with some color, but to portray him as
a criminal backfires on the accusers.