Defining a "GREAT" horse

In your opinion what makes a horse great? Does the horse need to win multiple Grade I's? Does the horse need to beat older horses? If a female, does she need to beat males? It seems that us board members determine the critera for greatness based on who the horse is. For example, people will not call Bernardini GREAT because he hasnt faced older horses. Why does he need to face and beat older horses? Lets look at Funny Cide, he has multiple Grade I wins and has beaten older horses. He has won three of the most prestigious races out there. Do we consider him GREAT!!!! If Bernardini had that resume he would be deemed GREAT by some board members. Smarty Jones never beat older horses and only lost 1 race. Is he GREAT!!! If YES then why and if NO then why. Basically lets determine what makes a horse great. Please, lets not argue and just set some criteria as to what makes a horse GREAT.

I've posted this before ... but it's always worth doing it again ...

A great horse is one who is a champion every year he/she races ... or who narrowly loses a championship to another great horse ... AND ...

... whose performances are reasonably comparable to those of past great horses.

It's pretty easy to tell when a horse is great. If you have any doubts ... then the horse isn't great.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I've posted this before ... but it's always worth doing it again ...

A great horse is one who is a champion every year he/she races ... or who narrowly loses a championship to another great horse ... AND ...

... whose performances are reasonably comparable to those of past great horses.

It's pretty easy to tell when a horse is great. If you have any doubts ... then the horse isn't great.

Why do we have to measure a horse from today to horses of the past. We all agree that today's racing is vastly different from racing of the past. Why does the horse need to win championships in every year the horse races? That would mean that they need to win the 2 year old and 3 year old award. That is hard to do even for the greatest of the great. Since Smarty didnt win the award as a 2 year old, he doesnt deserve to be great?

Thats a very hard thing to describe. In the Smarty case its hard to say that he wasnt great because he never had the chance to face older, we don't know.

A great horse to me runs very fast numbers on the sheets, he wins more stretch battles than he loses, he wins at different tracks in different places, and he beats the best of his contemporaries. To me thats what makes a great horse.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Thats a very hard thing to describe. In the Smarty case its hard to say that he wasnt great because he never had the chance to face older, we don't know.

A great horse to me runs very fast numbers on the sheets, he wins more stretch battles than he loses, he wins at different tracks in different places, and he beats the best of his contemporaries. To me thats what makes a great horse.

Correct ... same concept I outlined in different words ... except ...

... it isn't hard to describe ... you and I both did it very succinctly.

[SentToStud]

Guideline, not rules:
- Doesn't need to carry racetrack with
- Speed/stamina combo
- Wins/narrowly misses after not getting desired trip
- 5 grade 1's
- Won grade 1's at different distances
- Multiple Eclipse awards
I'd list these as the great horses of the last 30 years:
Affirmed, Spectacular Bid, Cigar, John Henry, Personal Ensign, Silverbulletday.

Forego is the greatest to have raced in the past 30 years, imo..

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Why do we have to measure a horse from today to horses of the past. We all agree that today's racing is vastly different from racing of the past. Why does the horse need to win championships in every year the horse races? That would mean that they need to win the 2 year old and 3 year old award. That is hard to do even for the greatest of the great. Since Smarty didnt win the award as a 2 year old, he doesnt deserve to be great?

1. Since "great" is a relative term ... there must be something to relate it to ... hence the comparison to past performers in similar races. The same applies to other sports.

2. It isn't difficult for a great horse to win both the 2YO and 3YO championship ... many have done it.

3. A "great" horse must have a great career ... not simply one or two unusually good performances. Horses who shine brightly ... but flame out quickly ... for whatever reason ... are not great.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

1. Since "great" is a relative term ... there must be something to relate it to ... hence the comparison to past performers in similar races. The same applies to other sports.

2. It isn't difficult for a great horse to win both the 2YO and 3YO championship ... many have done it.

3. A "great" horse must have a great career ... not simply one or two unusually good performances. Horses who shine brightly ... but flame out quickly ... for whatever reason ... are not great.

So there will never be a great turf horse again since it is impossible to win or even narrowly miss winning the 2yo championship if you are running on the turf?

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

So there will never be a great turf horse again since it is impossible to win or even narrowly miss winning the 2yo championship if you are running on the turf?

Tooks the words right out of my mouth. A horse like Hurrican Run or Deep Impact--would they be considered great? What about Kittens Joy?

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

So there will never be a great turf horse again since it is impossible to win or even narrowly miss winning the 2yo championship if you are running on the turf?

There is no 2YO turf championship ...

... so how can a horse fail to win it?

why does a three year old need to beat older? well, a race such as the derby is restricted...so when meeting older horses, that's an open field, anyone can enter. kind of like a horse who beats all comers in a stakes would be considered better than a horse who only races in a restricted race, such as ny-breds only facing fellow ny-breds....
and yes, a filly would be given more props for beating colts, rather than just other fillies.

open comp is one key.
setting/tying records is another. ruffian for example..beat all comers, as well as the clock, and never headed. that's greatness.
round table, excelled on turf and dirt, 17 tied or new records, the most ever. great horse!

personal ensign, undefeated. beat colts and fillies. she was great.
azeri, a nice win streak, but didn't win in open competition...very good, but not great.

of course back in 'the day' a win while carrying far more weight was something, as was a narrow loss while giving a lot of weight....that doesn't happen much these days...however, congaree got a lot more praise in his very narrow nose loss to milwaukee brew than MB did for winning! congaree was giving weight...
also, dr fager set the mile record while carrying 137 pounds(if memory serves...) that's GREAT. najran tying the record years later....mmm, not so great.


horses have dazzled with great performances...GZ in the bcc, candy rides win over MDO...but a great performance doesn't make a great horse. they need to back it up.

smarty could have been great...so could alex.

to really know tho, if a horse was great. come back in 20 years and see how many of todays horses still get press. those are the great ones.