Ravel, How good is he ?

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Sadly that is what a great number of people believe today. The fact that the horse has accomplished almost nothing except win a couple of weak stakes and break down is almost not even a factor. That he MAY have been a really good horse is good enough. The lightly raced horse at stud used to be the exception. Now it is the almost the rule.

The biggest problem with this type of thinking is really not the fact that talented horses are not having long careers. It is that a lot of mediocre horses who fill the day to day cards have enough soundness issues to keep them from racing on a regular basis. When the backbone horses who need to run alot in order to fill the daily races and pay their owners bills can't do it then where do you turn? When you keep breeding flash in the pan stallions to 150 mares, then run a good % of them through 2 yo in training sales, what will be left?

Exactly. Another effect of all of this is that with so many of the top level horses leaving us so early, it creates a void at the top that has to be filled somehow. The horses that fill these voids then suddenly become looked at as top horses themselves. Take for example Eddington. Now, don't get me wrong. Eddington was always a talented horse. But he was always a couple of notches below the best. He finally got his grade one win in the 2005 Pimlico Special. Great for him. He was retired shortly thereafter. Was he really finally good enough to win a grade one? Or had enough of his competition been retired/sidelined/laying off to make the race weak enough for him to win it? The top 3yo's from his class (the previous year.....Smarty Jones, Birdstone, The Cliff's Edge, Lion Heart), were all retired. Rock Hard Ten was out with injury. Southern Image hadn't made it back yet from injury. Ghostzapper was out with injury. Saint Liam wasn't there. Roses in May wasn't there. Commentator wasn't there. All he was left to beat was Pollard's Vision and Presidentialaffair. Of course, it's not Eddington or his connections' fault that this is the way things turned out and they shouldn't feel bad for winning the race. But does anyone honestly believe that had several of those horses been in there, Eddington would have won? If he hadn't, would he still have been retired at that point? So lesser horses start winning this bigger races and people mistakenly start to look at them as top horses. Then all of a sudden, they are whisked away and the process is then repeated later........with even lesser horses.