All of a sudden the editors from Bloodhorse...

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Look like the sharpest collection of analytical and thoroughbred handicapping minds ever assembled.

I know this appeared in another thread ... but it truly deserves its own thread...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200.../horse.racing/

Look who is #20.

[Indian Charlie]

I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned page 2 of the article.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned page 2 of the article.

Decace?

NT

[Indian Charlie]

I didn't even notice that typo.

The whole of page two is pretty insipid.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

While the article was extremely funny in a very sad way - being Insipid and having an obvious typo in a title are among the kindest things you can possibly say about it.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

19. BIRDSTONE
He's here not just for his stunning upset that denied Smarty Jones the 2004 Triple Crown (after which trainer Nick Zito said to Smarty's John Servis, "I'm sorry'"), but for his impact in the breeding shed. In 2009, Birdstone's progeny won two legs of the Triple Crown, as Mine That Bird stunned the field in the Kentucky Derby and Summer Bird won the Belmont.

Madaglia D' Oro and Street Cry were both clearly better horses and have been better sires than Birdstone .. and they didn't make his list.

However, the fact that anyone would rate race horses on the basis of how well they've done as stallions is extremely sad.

Spectacular Bid was 24-for-24 between the distances of 7fs and 1 1/4 miles - he won 14 Grade 1's - set a slew of track records and not only had ran the fastest ragozin sheet figure on record ... but his fastest rag number stood for over 20 years.

Bid was an absolutely terrible sire. Is that supposed to diminish him as a race horse?

Even though Distorted Humor got obliterated against Skip Away and Formal Gold ... is he somehow better than them as a race horse because he's been a super stallion and they've sired a bunch of turds?

[VOL JACK]

I do agree on one award they gave out.

Worst Invention: Synthetic tracks.
Although I don't think they were invented this decade....maybe mandated.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by VOL JACK

I do agree on one award they gave out.

Worst Invention: Synthetic tracks.
Although I don't think they were invented this decade....maybe mandated.

I think this guys top 20 list deserves to win the award for worst invention of the decade.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned page 2 of the article.

oops, didn't realize that tripe had more than a page devoted to it...

[philcski]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Look like the sharpest collection of analytical and thoroughbred handicapping minds ever assembled.

I know this appeared in another thread ... but it truly deserves its own thread...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200.../horse.racing/

Look who is #20.

worst list EVARRRRRR

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Look like the sharpest collection of analytical and thoroughbred handicapping minds ever assembled.

I know this appeared in another thread ... but it truly deserves its own thread...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200.../horse.racing/

Look who is #20.

Tough crowd here at DT. Aside from 19 & 20, I think it's a decent list. And if you stretch "Top Horse" to something beyond "Fastest Horse", even #20 is acceptable.

Any list that puts the Derby-hyped horses below non-household-name older horses like Invasor, Tiznow and Ghostzapper is fine with me, especially one that leaves Bernardini off the list.

Page 2 was also okay, IMO, though Borel's honorable mention was a big stretch, to say the least. I didn't even mind being reminded of my near miss on Closing Argument at 72-1. (it's not a redboard if you don't collect, is it?).

I'd be interested in your own answers to the various categories on page 2, and how far down you'd put the answers in SI's list.

--Dunbar

[Sightseek]

Bellamy Road deserves the Honorable mention for Best Runaway Performance behind Rachel Alexandra's Kentucky Oaks.

Afleet Alex's Preakness deserves the Holy Mackeral! How Did He Do That Award.

[Linny]

High Chaparral deat heated with Johan? No wonder Mill Ridge wont take my calls.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

if you stretch "Top Horse" to something beyond "Fastest Horse", even #20 is acceptable.

If you stretch it to mean something other than a horse that was fast.....or won a meaningful race.....or faced a horse that ran as if it possessed 4 legs....then.....let me think............nope. There are STILL dozens of other horses more deserving.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by miraja2

If you stretch it to mean something other than a horse that was fast.....or won a meaningful race.....or faced a horse that ran as if it possessed 4 legs....then.....let me think............nope. There are STILL dozens of other horses more deserving.

How about I just stretch it to mean a horse that raced 19 times without ever finding an excuse to not win? How many more deserving are there then?

Pepper's Pride wouldn't be in my own "Top 20", but I'm not offended by someone putting her at #20 in his own list.

--Dunbar

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Tough crowd here at DT. Aside from 19 & 20, I think it's a decent list. And if you stretch "Top Horse" to something beyond "Fastest Horse", even #20 is acceptable.

Any list that puts the Derby-hyped horses below non-household-name older horses like Invasor, Tiznow and Ghostzapper is fine with me, especially one that leaves Bernardini off the list.

Page 2 was also okay, IMO, though Borel's honorable mention was a big stretch, to say the least. I didn't even mind being reminded of my near miss on Closing Argument at 72-1. (it's not a redboard if you don't collect, is it?).

I'd be interested in your own answers to the various categories on page 2, and how far down you'd put the answers in SI's list.

1 through 18 is pretty damn bad. He opted to make a complete fool of himself with #20.

People who don't follow horse racing religiously will see a list like that and trust it - after all - we are talking about America's sports authority SI.

I don't care one bit that the writer and editor don't know Johar or that they think Saint Liam was unraced at age three - when in fact he made nine starts at age 3.

The real travesty is that you have a writer who specializes in fluff pieces and human interest stories trying his hand at something that requires hardcore analytical and handicapping skills. On top of that - you have the nations most trusted sports magazine willing to publish it.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

1 through 18 is pretty damn bad. He opted to make a complete fool of himself with #20.

I think 1-18 is a decent list. If you and say 10 other knowledgeable posters here independently put up "Top 18" lists, I'm guessing the SI list would not stick out as the odd-list-out.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

People who don't follow horse racing religiously will see a list like that and trust it - after all - we are talking about America's sports authority SI.

People who don't follow horseracing religiously will spend at most 10 seconds on that list, and they will immediately forget any horse whose name they don't recognize, which is all but maybe Funny Cide, Smarty Jones, Afleet Alex, Big Brown, and, possibly-but-I-doubt-it, this year's fillies.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I don't care one bit that the writer and editor don't know Johar or that they think Saint Liam was unraced at age three - when in fact he made nine starts at age 3.

I'm willing to forgive the mis-info on St. Liam. At least he INCLUDED St. Liam, a horse whose name less than 0.1% of sports fans outside of this board would even recognize.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

The real travesty is that you have a writer who specializes in fluff pieces and human interest stories trying his hand at something that requires hardcore analytical and handicapping skills. On top of that - you have the nations most trusted sports magazine willing to publish it.

Look, this isn't health care or climate change. "travesty" is a little strong. It's a Top 20 list. People make these lists at the end of a year or end of a decade. It gives us something to argue about. We should be delighted that SI even puts together a top 20 horse list.

--Dunbar

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Look, this isn't health care or climate change.

I know as much about those two topics as this SI writer does about handicapping.

[VOL JACK]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I know as much about those two topics as this SI writer does about handicapping.

Maybe you should learn more about politics....then see if you still vote for the Dem's.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I think 1-18 is a decent list. If you and say 10 other knowledgeable posters here independently put up "Top 18" lists, I'm guessing the SI list would not stick out as the odd-list-out.

I'd be VERY hard pressed to imagine anyone putting up a list with Curlin and Zenyatta first and second ... and Mineshaft, Bernardini, Medaglia D' Oro, and Congaree all not included in the top 17.

It's as if the author slept through the part of the decade when racing was better in the two glamour divisions (3yo males going long on dirt & older males going long on dirt)

However - it wasn't a top 18 list ... it was a top 20 list... and Pepper's Pride was included over several horses who would have beaten her by double digits lengths on their off day.

How do you think Medaglia D' Oro would do racing against nothing but New Mexico breds his entire career? How do you think he would do matched up against this ....