Defining a "GREAT" horse

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by ezrabrooks

Could this be the same King Glorious who nailed the 2004 Stephen Foster with a 60/1 shot by the name of Colonial Colony? Some picks stay with me..and that was one.

Ez

That was luck. I really didn't think Southern Image could lose that race. Just looked for the best of the rest and that was CC in my opinion.

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

That was luck. I really didn't think Southern Image could lose that race. Just looked for the best of the rest and that was CC in my opinion.

Oh yea King! You posted CC's name in the great horses thread!

Sorry..... you know i love him. Couldn't resist.

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

So Bold..... say you have a 2YO who wins her first 9 outta 10, goes on to win the Vagrancy carrying 137 pounds. Wins the Top Flight, the Toboggan..... I know you know where I'm going.

Admit it once and for all..... she was a great.

Don't tell Dixie ... but ... even though "she" was a fantastic filly who deserved immediate induction into the Hall Of Fame ...

... "she" lost 24 of "her" 52 races .... 46% ... and "she" wasn't even the best female sprinter of her era ... because ...

... Tosmah beat "her" three out of three ... twice crushingly.

Did I say "Tosmah" ... the champion 2YO and 3YO filly who was lapped on Hedevar when he equalled the world record for a mile ... while spotting him eight pounds ... and who was still winning G1 handicaps while spotting weight to colts as a 5YO?

Yeah ... I guess I did.

Originally Posted by moodwalker

...... The only place that a turfer is considered a "specialty" horse, is in the USA. Are you suggesting that a turf running horse is somehow less great than a dirt horse? Or that a dirt champion is better than a turf champion?

Turf is where most all champions run.

When the subject is American racing ... yes ... it's quite evident that the most talented horses are trained for the dirt ... and ...

... and only when they disappoint there ... are they tried on the lawn.

As far as "turf is where most all champions run" ... that's patent nonsense ... since 7 of the 10 Eclipse Awards are given to horses which race on dirt ... and I'm being generous by considering jumpers to be turf horses.

You're not one of those Euroweenies .. are you?

[horseofcourse]

I certainly think a turf specialist can be great. IF for example, Showing Up stays on turf and wins the rest of his races through his 4 year old year including 2 BC Turf races, he would certainly be considered a great horse...but then of course he would have 2 turf championships under his belt so he would meet criteria set by BB.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

When the subject is American racing ... yes ... it's quite evident that the most talented horses are trained for the dirt ... and ...

... and only when they disappoint there ... are they tried on the lawn.As far as "turf is where most all champions run" ... that's patent nonsense ... since 7 of the 10 Eclipse Awards are given to horses which race on dirt ... and I'm being generous by considering jumpers to be turf horses.

You're not one of those Euroweenies .. are you?

For the most part what you say is true. The only issue i have is the use of the phrase "only when they dissapoint"...or more specifically the word "only".

Lava Man, at very least an HOY candidate, was tried on the turf this year. In recent years, so have dirt successes such as Peace Rules and Congaree.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

For the most part what you say is true. The only issue i have is the use of the phrase "only when they dissapoint"...or more specifically the word "only".

Lava Man, at very least an HOY candidate, was tried on the turf this year. In recent years, so have dirt successes such as Peace Rules and Congaree.

Of course the horse I mentioned...Showing Up as well. HE wasn't exactly chopped liver on dirt winning his 1st 3 including the grade 2 Lexington and then running a decent 6th in the Ky Derby before going to the lawn.

[somerfrost]

A couple points...I do think there have been American raced horses who ran only on the turf that I would consider great...Manila, for example, I rank #74. Regarding the statement that a Triple Crown winner isn't necessarily great...I disagree! I think a TC winner is great by definition...of the 11 winners, the lowest ranking I give any is Sir Barton at #50. So many wonderful horses have failed to capture the TC...Native Dancer, Spectacular Bid, Risen Star, Sham to name just a few...all ranking in my top 50 yet failing to capture the TC. As others have said, winning the TC requires much more than 3 good races...a horse has to perform throughout the fall and winter of his/her 2 year old campaign and through to the first Saturday in May and then come back on two weeks rest and again on three to the most grueling races of his/her career...only a great horse does that!

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

When the subject is American racing ... yes ... it's quite evident that the most talented horses are trained for the dirt ... and ...

... and only when they disappoint there ... are they tried on the lawn.

As far as "turf is where most all champions run" ... that's patent nonsense ... since 7 of the 10 Eclipse Awards are given to horses which race on dirt ... and I'm being generous by considering jumpers to be turf horses.

You're not one of those Euroweenies .. are you?

I tell you what, if you consider the Eclipse awards the only type of organization that names "champions," then you can kiss my ass.

Let's round up all the awards from every country that has racing, and then see how many "champions" run exclusively on the turf versus our 7 Eclipse awards.

When I said "turf is where most all champions run," I was right.

It is probably 100+ to 7.

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Don't tell Dixie ... but ... even though "she" was a fantastic filly who deserved immediate induction into the Hall Of Fame ...

... "she" lost 24 of "her" 52 races .... 46% ...

It's funny how we can look at the same thing and see it so differently.

Why choose to look at her losses and not her wins? 28 and (I believe) Affectionately hit the board 42 times total.....

Stop finding the negative Bold..... turn it around, open your eyes and embrace the positive.

Oh and admit that she was A CHAMPION.

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by moodwalker

Then let's retitle the thread "Defining a GREAT American horse"

Fair enough, though I would have to suggest that, given the context, it's understood.
----------------------------------------------------
On a different tangent ...

I have never been a big fan of efforts to rank international/all-time competitors in all-inclusive best-ever/great lists.

We ("we" defined as "posters on this board") could easily sit at our computers all day and argue relative merits of two US-based horses that were running in the last year or so, maybe even against each other, in races that we saw (on TV or otherwise) against competitors that we know well. And given that that's true, the idea of reliably producing lists of "greats" or "best-evers" from vastly different places and times with which we have little to no familiarity is difficult.

First, there's the inevitable effect of the dulling edge of time and space. There could be a really great horse running right now in South Africa, but chances are, no one on this board voraciously follows the everyday minutiae of racing in South Africa sufficiently to properly appraise said horse's efforts. Likewise, there were great horses running 75, 100 years ago that many people on this board (including me) have never even heard of. This is simply a truth, not an indictment. After all, many of us learned - and continue to learn - about racing from the media, and the basic elements of news dictate that news media concentrates on the here and now. That's great when you're reading today's news, but that's not so great when you're undertaking an effort to identify greatness in all places and times. Unless your knowledge of racing is entirely founded in old books, ancient yellow newspapers, or material imported from other countries, it is almost impossible to avoid the effect of having lesser knowledge of places and times other than your own.

But really, this problem is surmountable. Information exists if you care enough to go looking for it. The problem is, when you find it, you will judge it by your standards of greatness. Therein lies the biggest issue in trying to judge horses from different eras and places.

What ultimately ends up being debated is less the greatness of the horses involved but of the various ways in which racing observers from different places and times defined greatness. Some contemporary horses that are considered "great" would not be considered thus by observers who had different expectations of greatness, whether that expectation was based upon lengthy careers, weight-carrying, running against open company, racing over a distance of ground, etc. Likewise, we may not consider some great of the past to be as great as his or her contemporaries did simply because our measures of greatness have changed. How great does the general modern population of racing fans think Gallorette - who lost more than two-thirds of her races - is now? Fifty years ago, many reasonable observers thought she was the best female in US racing history.

High-class horses are generally campaigned in a manner to demonstrate greatness by their contemporary standards. Gallorette did not have a 10- or 15-race career, limited to filly/mare opposition, as would a good filly today; if she had, her race record would be more impressive to modern viewers but of course she would not have impressed observers of the 1940s. Likewise, Ghostzapper did not have to run more than four times a year in order to impress his contemporary observers. Perhaps he might have been great by standards of some other day, but he never had to prove it. Ghostzapper would've looked much less great to the modern eye if he'd lost some races because he raced a lot and gave gobs of weight to stakes-class horses, just as Gallorette would've looked much less great to eyes of her time if she'd been raced infrequently against inferior competition but had retired with a higher win percentage. (I'm not, BTW, picking on either of these horses here, merely using them as examples of products of very different standards of greatness.)

The seeming answer would be to assign greatness, or rank horses, by the standards of their day rather than one's own, but this is a tricky exercise since a human being, with preferred standards of greatness, has to make command decisions. I, for example, realize intellectually that a Ghostzapper should be measured by standards of greatness of the early 21st century, but my standards are based on a different paradigm and I find greatness, by early 21st century standards, to be unpalatable and inferior. If I were to make a "great" list, it's very unlikely that a Ghostzapper would be on it. But truthfully, what's being judged is not the horse but the standard that made a career like his not just acceptable, but desirable.

The problem is, greatness is pretty much impossible to quantify objectively or judge fairly.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Suck it up, Mike ...

... don't let that dude grab the lead.

But watch this guy King Glorious ... he's got a posting kick like you wouldn't believe ... a tremendous machine.

that would be Mr. That Dude to you.

[sham]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Fair enough, though I would have to suggest that, given the context, it's understood.
----------------------------------------------------
On a different tangent ...

I have never been a big fan of efforts to rank international/all-time competitors in all-inclusive best-ever/great lists.

We ("we" defined as "posters on this board") could easily sit at our computers all day and argue relative merits of two US-based horses that were running in the last year or so, maybe even against each other, in races that we saw (on TV or otherwise) against competitors that we know well. And given that that's true, the idea of reliably producing lists of "greats" or "best-evers" from vastly different places and times with which we have little to no familiarity is difficult.

First, there's the inevitable effect of the dulling edge of time and space. There could be a really great horse running right now in South Africa, but chances are, no one on this board voraciously follows the everyday minutiae of racing in South Africa sufficiently to properly appraise said horse's efforts. Likewise, there were great horses running 75, 100 years ago that many people on this board (including me) have never even heard of. This is simply a truth, not an indictment. After all, many of us learned - and continue to learn - about racing from the media, and the basic elements of news dictate that news media concentrates on the here and now. That's great when you're reading today's news, but that's not so great when you're undertaking an effort to identify greatness in all places and times. Unless your knowledge of racing is entirely founded in old books, ancient yellow newspapers, or material imported from other countries, it is almost impossible to avoid the effect of having lesser knowledge of places and times other than your own.

But really, this problem is surmountable. Information exists if you care enough to go looking for it. The problem is, when you find it, you will judge it by your standards of greatness. Therein lies the biggest issue in trying to judge horses from different eras and places.

What ultimately ends up being debated is less the greatness of the horses involved but of the various ways in which racing observers from different places and times defined greatness. Some contemporary horses that are considered "great" would not be considered thus by observers who had different expectations of greatness, whether that expectation was based upon lengthy careers, weight-carrying, running against open company, racing over a distance of ground, etc. Likewise, we may not consider some great of the past to be as great as his or her contemporaries did simply because our measures of greatness have changed. How great does the general modern population of racing fans think Gallorette - who lost more than two-thirds of her races - is now? Fifty years ago, many reasonable observers thought she was the best female in US racing history.

High-class horses are generally campaigned in a manner to demonstrate greatness by their contemporary standards. Gallorette did not have a 10- or 15-race career, limited to filly/mare opposition, as would a good filly today; if she had, her race record would be more impressive to modern viewers but of course she would not have impressed observers of the 1940s. Likewise, Ghostzapper did not have to run more than four times a year in order to impress his contemporary observers. Perhaps he might have been great by standards of some other day, but he never had to prove it. Ghostzapper would've looked much less great to the modern eye if he'd lost some races because he raced a lot and gave gobs of weight to stakes-class horses, just as Gallorette would've looked much less great to eyes of her time if she'd been raced infrequently against inferior competition but had retired with a higher win percentage. (I'm not, BTW, picking on either of these horses here, merely using them as examples of products of very different standards of greatness.)

The seeming answer would be to assign greatness, or rank horses, by the standards of their day rather than one's own, but this is a tricky exercise since a human being, with preferred standards of greatness, has to make command decisions. I, for example, realize intellectually that a Ghostzapper should be measured by standards of greatness of the early 21st century, but my standards are based on a different paradigm and I find greatness, by early 21st century standards, to be unpalatable and inferior. If I were to make a "great" list, it's very unlikely that a Ghostzapper would be on it. But truthfully, what's being judged is not the horse but the standard that made a career like his not just acceptable, but desirable.

The problem is, greatness is pretty much impossible to quantify objectively or judge fairly.

Very insightful post. Thank you for revealing these observations.

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

I certainly think a turf specialist can be great. IF for example, Showing Up stays on turf and wins the rest of his races through his 4 year old year including 2 BC Turf races, he would certainly be considered a great horse...but then of course he would have 2 turf championships under his belt so he would meet criteria set by BB.

But first ...

... he'd have to beat After Market ... and that's not likely.

Could the undefeated multiple-champion After Market be considered "great" ... hmmm ... since I've already predicted big things for him ... I'd have to recuse myself as a judge in the matter.

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

It's funny how we can look at the same thing and see it so differently.

Why choose to look at her losses and not her wins? 28 and (I believe) Affectionately hit the board 42 times total.....

Stop finding the negative Bold..... turn it around, open your eyes and embrace the positive.

Oh and admit that she was A CHAMPION.

There's no doubt "she" was a champion ... the votes were counted over 40 years ago.

And unlike you ... I saw "her" run ... in person ... many times ... as I did with all Jacobs horses ... just to get a glimpse of my darlin' Patrice ... the only decent human to look at in the paddock in those days.

I had a great deal of affection for "her" ... and many fond memories ... her 137-pound trick was spectacular ... but as good as "she" was ... Tosmah was better ... not to mention Smart Deb, What A Treat, Terentia, Discipline, Steeple Jill, and Destro.

Those were the days when there were lots and lots of professional fillies and mares around ... not just a bunch of "fresh" "spaced-out" runway models.

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

The problem is, greatness is pretty much impossible to quantify objectively or judge fairly.

No ... it's much simpler than that ... all anyone has to do ...

... is ask me.

[Damascus '67]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

There's no doubt "she" was a champion ... the votes were counted over 40 years ago.

And unlike you ... I saw "her" run ... in person ... many times ... as I did with all Jacobs horses ... just to get a glimpse of my darlin' Patrice ... the only decent human to look at in the paddock in those days.

I had a great deal of affection for "her" ... and many fond memories ... her 137-pound trick was spectacular ... but as good as "she" was ... Tosmah was better ... not to mention Smart Deb, What A Treat, Terentia, Discipline, Steeple Jill, and Destro.

Those were the days when there were lots and lots of professional fillies and mares around ... not just a bunch of "fresh" "spaced-out" runway models.

And while you're in that era, don't forget the great race mare Open Fire.

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

I have never been a big fan of efforts to rank international/all-time competitors in all-inclusive best-ever/great lists.

There's a cornucopia of wisdom in that little sentence ... especially the "international" part.

Here's a question I'd like to see answered ...

How did The Blood-Horse panel include Phar Lap on the list of 20th Century American greats ... off a single race in Mexico ... but exclude Whisk Broom ... who won the three most difficult races then run in America ... packing weight as high as 139 pounds ... in his three races here?

[Byebyemermaid]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

It's also a problem you think Ruffian won a triple crown race.

You should have stayed in school.

STS she did win the triple crown for Fillies.At that time it was known as the Triple Tiara.To me Forego was one of the greatest horses i've ever seen.He won having to carry a house on his back,lost to one of the best 3 year olds by only 2 length Wajima spotting 14 lbs.He also won at every distance imaginable whether it was 7 furlongs or 2.25 miles when the Jockey club gold cup was that distance and he had longevity.You haven't seen many horses like him around for a long time and might never again.And if anyone thinks Best Pal being a gelding like Forego should be mentioned in the same breath as THE MIGHTY FOREGO you are mistaken.

Originally Posted by Damascus '67

And while you're in that era, don't forget the great race mare Open Fire.

I originally had her on the list ... but took her off ... because ...

... she didn't really face the best of those years ... 1964 & 1965 ... very much ... and the few times she did ... she was crushed.

When she came to life in 1966 ... the others were mostly gone.

The most underrated filly of those days was Terentia ... who experienced horrible racing luck in the big showdown races ... causing her to lose them ... and the championships .. by the scantest of margins.