|
|
 |
|
#1
11-16-2006, 02:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Definition of Great Horse
Stop cheapening the word "greatness" with these frauds like Ghostzapper.
Here is a horse that was great. 2yr old Eclipse Winner 3yr old of the Year Horse of the Year as a 3yr old Undefeated Triple Crown Winner Eclipse for Older Male as 4yr old Track Record at Belmont Winner of 10 straight races Hall of Fame Look at this career and the frequency of his races Date Track Event Distance Time Finish Margin Sep 20, 1976 Belmont 2yr Old Maiden 6 Fl. 1:10 1/5 1st 5 L Oct 5, 1976 Belmont Belmont Allowance 7 Fl. 1:22 1st 3 1/2 L Oct 16, 1976 Belmont Champagne Stakes 1 M 1:34 2/5 1st 9 3/4 L Mar 9, 1977 Hialeah Hialeah Allowance 7 Fl. 1:20 3/5 1st 9 L Mar 26, 1977 Hialeah Flamingo Stakes 1 1/8 M 1:47 2/5 1st 4 L Apr 23, 1977 Aqueduct Wood Memorial Stakes 1 1/8 M 1:49 3/5 1st 3 1/4 L May 7, 1977 Churchill Downs Kentucky Derby 1 1/4 M 2:02 1/5 1st 1 3/4 L May 21, 1977 Pimlico Preakness Stakes 1 3/16 M 1:54 2/5 1st 1 1/2 L Jun 11, 1977 Belmont Belmont Stakes 1 1/2 M 2:29 3/5 1st 4 L Jul 3, 1977 Hollywood Park Swaps Stakes 1 1/4 M 1:58 3/5 4th 16 L back May 14, 1978 Aqueduct Aqueduct Allowance 7 Fl. 1:22 4/5 1st 8 1/4 L Aug 12, 1978 Saratoga Saratoga Allowance 7 Fl. 1:21 3/5 1st 6 L Sep 5, 1978 Meadowlands Paterson Handicap 1 1/8 M 1:48 2nd Neck back Sep 16, 1978 Belmont Marlboro Cup 1 1/8 M 1:45 4/5 1st 3 L Sep 30, 1978 Belmont Woodward Stakes 1 1/4 M 2:00 1st 4 L Oct 14, 1978 Belmont Jockey Club Gold Cup 1 1/2 M 2:27 1/5 2nd Nose back Nov 11, 1978 Aqueduct Stuyvesant Handicap 1 1/8 M 1:47 2/5 1st 3 1/4 L 
|
|
#2
11-16-2006, 02:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#3
11-16-2006, 02:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
So what exactly makes Ghostzapper a fraud? Because he didn't run enough?
News flash: Horses don't run every two weeks anymore. If your definition of great is going to be so rigid that a horse has to run thirty times and win a million stakes races to be great, you should just quit watching racing, because the "great" horse, by your criteria, is dead.
|
|
#4
11-16-2006, 02:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
And how about his impact on the breed as a sire! I adore him and always will. He has brought so much joy to me over the years. I was lucky enough to see him numerous times at the track and then at Three Chimneys. Seattle Slew is my equine hero.
|
|
#5
11-16-2006, 02:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't know. I am always hesitant to call any horse "GREAT" nowadays. I understand what you are saying Revolution. Don't know if I agree with it. I guess we should have some sort of definition for the use of the word. I think we now have more of "GREAT PERFORMANCES" over "Great horses".
Can we just call Ghostzapper "Awesome"? Will that make everyone happy?
__________________
"Until one has loved an animal, part of their soul remains unawaken. 
|
|
#6
11-16-2006, 03:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Of course the word "great" is going to mean different things to different people, and because of that will be the cause of debate over and over again. One guy says "Ghostzapper was a great horse" and the other guy says "No he wasn't because he only raced X times and didn't beat anybody" and so on. Chocolate icecream is great. No it's not. My dad can beat up your dad. See my point.
However, in my eyes there is a very distinct difference between a "great horse" as it relates to his/her talent, potential, ability, and so forth -- and a horse who accomplished great things (or is considered great because of his accomplishments). They are seperate and distinct. Personally, I can see using the word "great" even if a horse didn't accomplish many things, greatness, numerous notches on the belt, have an extensive resume, etc. I also think people tend to collapse great performances with "greatness" or automatically making the horse "great". This also happens when some people just don't know what they are looking at and aren't a good judge of horses, thus, they tend to fall into the trap of sitting in judgement of who a horse beat (or didn't beat), the visual aspect (visually impressive, or not), the resume, the record, times, etc. Don't get me wrong, those things can be important, but need to be looked at in the big picture. The myopic view doesn't offer validation in my mind. Eric
|
|
#7
11-16-2006, 03:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
11-16-2006, 03:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As I said, I tend to look at these types of situations more globally. I would not penalize a horse for not being able to race more than he/she did. I would penalize a horse for ducking, avoiding, being able to race and not, etc. Eric
|
|
#9
11-16-2006, 04:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wouldnt call running 7 times in a year doing something great. You also have to remember that they didnt have the Breeders Cup and stud fees werent sky high either. It doesnt make sense to run a top horse more than 6 times these days. In fact, if I had a top horse (4 year old) I would run him 4 times.
|
|
#10
11-16-2006, 04:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
You're acting like Seattle Slew was a super durable iron horse. Newsflash, he wasn't. The Bid, that was a horse who ran a lot, same with Affirmed. If you're going to use somebody's stats to tell us how Ghostzapper doesn't deserve to be called "great," use those two examples.
__________________
The world's foremost expert on virtually everything on the Redskins 2010 season: "Im going to go out on a limb here. I say they make the playoffs."
|
|
#11
11-16-2006, 04:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
And flashes of greatness are pretty much all you're gonna get these days. You say it's the 2.7 races per year that makes him not great, but if Bernardini had won the Classic, would you have called him great? I doubt it, because he only ran eight times. My point is that there's a cap on how many times a special horse runs these days, and it's at about fifteen races tops. If Ghostzapper ran all eleven of his races in one year, would he have been great to you? I also love how Ghostzapper gets so much grief for his light schedule, but I see people annointing CANDY RIDE as great. The horse ran SIX TIMES. Granted, they were unbelievable races, but there's no way Candy Ride is great if Ghostzapper wasn't.
|
|
#12
11-16-2006, 04:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#13
11-16-2006, 04:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ouija Board was most assuredly a GREAT horse, no?
__________________
The world's foremost expert on virtually everything on the Redskins 2010 season: "Im going to go out on a limb here. I say they make the playoffs."
|
|
#14
11-16-2006, 05:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'm with you.. There's no sport like NCAA basketball.. Thanks for reading!
|
|
#15
11-16-2006, 05:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm stoked for the Johnnies-Maryland game tonight. Big barometer game for SJU.
__________________
The world's foremost expert on virtually everything on the Redskins 2010 season: "Im going to go out on a limb here. I say they make the playoffs."
|
|
#16
11-16-2006, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rock Shock Jayhawk?
|
|
#17
11-16-2006, 05:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
definitely!! there are a lot of good racers who run pretty often. shame that the top dirt classic colts can't do the same. money talks tho. it's not durability, it's not soundness in many cases--altho with GZ and candy ride that was the case. but then, easy goer was known to have rotten ankles, he's exterminator-like compared to some of these other horses in # of races run. oh, and it's just GREAT that GZ and CR were babied along for their few wins--now they have all that press, all the hype, so they can make more unsound horses just like dear old dad. if they're too unsound to race, you would think that breeding would be out of the question.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#18
11-16-2006, 05:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#20
11-16-2006, 06:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
Linear Mode
