:zz:

[NTamm1215]

Hey, even so called experts have a hard time with rankings. Hasn't anyone seen the first round of the Watchmaker Watch?

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Hey, even so called experts have a hard time with rankings. Hasn't anyone seen the first round of the Watchmaker Watch?

The problem with this poll is that at least experts know about and have heard about the majority of horses listed. You would think that many of the other people voting probably haven't seen or even heard of at the least %20 of the field. Hence it becomes a popularity contest for many of the people voting.

[FGFan]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

The problem with this poll is that at least experts know about and have heard about the majority of horses listed. You would think that many of the other people voting probably haven't seen or even heard of at the least %20 of the field. Hence it becomes a popularity contest for many of the people voting.

I agree with this.
I don't think there's anything wrong in holding polls for fans to vote in if it's realistically titled. Alot of people like to do that kind of thing, look at all the polls we have here.
BUT, maybe it should be retitled Top 250 Most Popular Thoroughbreds of All-Time voted on by the fans...Who do you love?
It would be more realistic that way.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Feel free to log on and vote... it's a process. The rankings are sent through a statistical formula to help regulate those who received loads of votes versus those who didn't... much like the Top 250 on IMDB. So since it's early in the voting (very early, some horses don't even have a vote), it'll take a while to get everything in somewhat logical order.

We're not finding horses for the Hall of Fame with this list, we created something new and hopefully ultimately pretty cool for horse racing fans to enjoy the sport more now and into the future.

In the case of an IMDB Top 250 - people have a lot better access to viewing movies than they do access to the needed information and material to make any kind of educated guess on the rating of horses from different generations.

It's much easier for a fan of movies to critique Lawrence of Arabia than it is for a fan of racing to critique Tom Fool.

It is a neat concept. I realize it's probably too much work to do a page write-up on the thousand or so most worthy horses - however, why not use that box on the right to put in your sites own brief comment? Why rely on dopey readers to put down moronic garbage?

If I ever stumble across this IMDB Top 250 thing you talk about - I'd rate 'I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell' and 'Trailor Park Boys' the two greatest movies of all-time ... because, in my opinion, they are.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

t is a neat concept. I realize it's probably too much work to do a page write-up on the thousand or so most worthy horses - however, why not use that box on the right to put in your sites own brief comment? Why rely on dopey readers to put down moronic garbage?

This is a good point... I'll bring it up with the others. Thanks!

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Travis, I don't care how long people have been "ranking" these horses, the fact that Barbaro and Zenyatta are working their way towards the top 10 and Count Fleet is mired in the 80's, not to mention I still can't find Twilight Tear anywhere, says pretty much all I need to know about the average idiot who votes on online polls.

She's 61.

Coaltown is 256, Ouija Board is 208, Hail to Reason at 112. Sunline is 272 and Makybe Diva isn't there at all.

I couldn't find Pride but I punched in Pepper's Pride just to see...

#160.

(There's a search thing and these are a few of the names I was curious about as far as "rankings").

I understand what both Travis and FG Fan are saying.

You mention the average idiot who spends times with online polls and yeah I would think it's the newer fans who have voted thus far but really... is it such a tragedy?

The newer fans... how are they supposed to learn about the past if they're not exposed to thing like names, replays, etc?

It's pretty silly, it's not like I don't agree, but then in a way it's like maybe we don't need to be so smug.

Some of these people are the future players or some of them might be the future players.

You're not born knowing all these names, right?

If they're spending a little part of their day doing stuff like voting for Zenyatta then at least they're showing a continued interest.

Sorry - just trying to find or see the positive side of this.

I remember having to ask what pp's were, what distaff meant and why there were so many different races at the Breeders Cup.

I will never forget how no one laughed at me. Not ever.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

She's 61.

Now she's 52... these things won't settle down and will update by the minute until we have lots of votes at which point we should hopefully be somewhat closer to reality and it'll be harder for horses to make sudden moves.

[Linny]

I think that the book Champions should be required reading for new fans of the game. All I ask for is perspective.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Now she's 52... these things won't settle down and will update by the minute until we have lots of votes at which point we should hopefully be somewhat closer to reality and it'll be harder for horses to make sudden moves.

All of the females in the top 100 - even including Twilight Tear - are seriously overrated.

Ruffian as the 5th best horse of all-time is simply nonsense.
Zenyatta as the 14th best horse of all-time is lunacy.
Personal Ensign is very overrated at #16.
Miesque - Great turf miler - no business at #18.
Goldikova - Great turf miler - simply too high at #32
Gamely is way too high at #33
Susan's Girl is way too high at #34
Lady's Secret way too high at #36
And there are about a dozen more.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

All of the females in the top 100 - even including Twilight Tear - are seriously overrated.

Ruffian as the 5th best horse of all-time is simply nonsense.
Zenyatta as the 14th best horse of all-time is lunacy.
Personal Ensign is very overrated at #16.
Miesque - Great turf miler - no business at #18.
Goldikova - Great turf miler - simply too high at #32
Gamely is way too high at #33
Susan's Girl is way too high at #34
Lady's Secret way too high at #36
And there are about a dozen more.

Do you disagree with Blood-Horses Top 100?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Do you disagree with Blood-Horses Top 100?

Of course I disagree with a lot of the rankings on that list - but it was still a very respectable list.

[VOL JACK]

Any list that doesn't have Jazil, Pioneer of the Nile and, Zenyatta on the podium; is simply laughable....

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

If I ever stumble across this IMDB Top 250 thing you talk about - I'd rate 'I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell' and 'Trailor Park Boys' the two greatest movies of all-time ... because, in my opinion, they are.

Your vote won't sway anything, but feel free to vote your conscience. They weight things so people can't go in there, say "OMG, Dude Where's My Car is the best film ever!! It's totally a 10 !!11!1!" and change the point average. You'd have to rank a lot of movies without lowballing a bunch of high-ranked classics or 10'ing a bunch of stinkers as previously ranked by frequent-voters.

Here's the list http://www.imdb.com/chart/top Some of the more recent movies get a bunch of fanboy ratings at once, then they start drifting down where they belong. I doubt Inception will always be above Casablanca or Black Swan above Lawrence of Arabia, for instance.

[Thunder Gulch]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

All of the females in the top 100 - even including Twilight Tear - are seriously overrated.

Ruffian as the 5th best horse of all-time is simply nonsense.
Zenyatta as the 14th best horse of all-time is lunacy.
Personal Ensign is very overrated at #16.
Miesque - Great turf miler - no business at #18.
Goldikova - Great turf miler - simply too high at #32
Gamely is way too high at #33
Susan's Girl is way too high at #34
Lady's Secret way too high at #36
And there are about a dozen more.

Sexist...I think most of them are too high, but what else would you have Miesque or Goldlikova do to move up? They stacked up G1 in open company and multi BC wins. I read that Goldlikova has beaten 60+ G1 winners (males and females) in her career, so I would argue she is too low unless you just want to discount her because of proficiency in specific surface and distance. There aren't very many multi surface champs out there, and I'd argue that Goldlikova could win Grade 1's at a little more distance if given a shot.

[slotdirt]

I think Twilight Tear definitely deserves to be in the top 100. Same with Busher and perhaps Galorrette among fillies of that era. 52 might be a little high though, that is true.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Seattle Slew at #2 and A. P. Indy at #22 are wildly overrated.

I'm not sure A. P. Indy belongs in the top 100. In fact, lets be honest, he doesn't.

The success both horses had as stallions is being factored in to the ratings.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Northern Dancer - currently #9 - is another example of an outstanding race horse being overrated because he was a very successful sire. Northern Dancer was 3rd by 6 lengths to Quadrangle in the Belmont Stakes at 4/5 odds in his final North American start.

Quadrangle did come back to win the Travers and a lot of good races that year - but was trounced by both 7-year-old Kelso and Gun Bow at 1 1/4 miles in the Woodward - albeit he was 25 lengths in front of the 4th and 5th place finishers. He was also 3rd to Kelso beaten 11.5 lengths in that years Jockey Club Gold Cup. That time he was 16 lengths clear of several beaten horses behind him.


More interestingly though

21. Zenyatta
22. Swaps

You talk about a blood bath? Zenyatta would be lucky if she could stay within a football field of Swaps. Swaps was an underrated great horse - unquestionably top 10 all-time in my opinion.

49. Barbaro
50. Easy Goer

Barbaro never won an eclipse award - and only ran a single lifetime race that puts him on the TV screen with Easy Goer's typical race.

[Thunder Gulch]

After watching things settle to some norm after the early voting distortions, it would still be interesting to see how many votes were cast for each. One of the real problems as others have noted, is that it's a popularity contest. New fans without historical perspective or familiarity of all (or most) of the horses vote for a handful and move on (the Zenyatta fans also throw in a 3 for Rachel Alexandra and Blame). If all you know is Barbaro, Curlin, Zenyatta, and Secretariat, you're likely to selectively vote for just those and give them all 10's. If you go through the list and try to rate each, you end up placing much lower numbers on the likes of Barbaro, Curlin, Bernardini, AP Indy when you compare them to Count Fleet, Citation, Bid, Forego, Damascus, and Dr. Fager who were all time greats from another generation.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

(the Zenyatta fans also throw in a 3 for Rachel Alexandra and Blame).

Yeah - on a list that has heavily overrated female horses - Rachel Alexandra and Go For Wand are getting no love .. both truly all-time great 3yo fillies.

Here is Swaps: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2poVTKZRq_k

Does anyone seriously believe Zenyatta ever gets within a football field of Swaps at 8.5 furlongs?

She has no chance in hell with him even at a 10 furlongs or beyond - but even in Zenyatta's two Breeders Cup Classsic races, she was being ridden along while still positioned behind dogs like Pleasant Prince after 8.5 furlongs. Horses like Anabaa's Creations and Rinterval - not even decent allowance females - forced her to photo finishes at 8.5fs in slower paced races.

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

After watching things settle to some norm after the early voting distortions, it would still be interesting to see how many votes were cast for each. One of the real problems as others have noted, is that it's a popularity contest. New fans without historical perspective or familiarity of all (or most) of the horses vote for a handful and move on (the Zenyatta fans also throw in a 3 for Rachel Alexandra and Blame). If all you know is Barbaro, Curlin, Zenyatta, and Secretariat, you're likely to selectively vote for just those and give them all 10's. If you go through the list and try to rate each, you end up placing much lower numbers on the likes of Barbaro, Curlin, Bernardini, AP Indy when you compare them to Count Fleet, Citation, Bid, Forego, Damascus, and Dr. Fager who were all time greats from another generation.

True but look (and these are just random things I was reading in the past half hour)...

1. Apparently horse racing disappeared...

http://www.cbssports.com/info/siteindex

2. Yeah I know the it's from the funny papers (oioops I mean the Los Angeles Times), but...

(Bowling did better???)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/spor...rris-poll.html

Numbers can be tweaked to say what you want them to, we all know it aint like it's as popular as football but this is why... these little indicators, these constant things...

The new fans are doing just as you say but it's their beginning and hopefully they'll see these names a few times and want to find out more... read up and see replays.

They

will

play.

If they're hoooked they will play in time so let's maybe gently nudge them into reality re the champions, etc., instead of being such azzholes about it (not you, just in general and I include myself. I have no patience if I'm at the track and the person in front of me is taking ******* forever so I need to work on that).