Non-winners of an Eclipse or Championship

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by FairPlay

You were piling on with that poster so I presume that you endorse everthing that was said therein. Good to see that you're distancing yourself. Maybe you should distance yourself from the "Not so aFleet Alex" genius statement?

More distortion I see. Much appreciated.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

More distortion I see. Much appreciated.

Hey, you made the "Not so aFleet Alex" statement. Show me the distortion there?

[cmorioles]

Afleet Alex was a good horse, nothing more, nothing less. He beat very little in the Preakness, and even less in the Belmont. Maybe he would have been competitive against older later in the year if he stayed healthy, but his figures say he would have struggled.

Smarty Jones I think was a very good horse. He was obviously best in the Belmont, and should have been undefeated. He most likely could have held his own later in the year against older, but you never know.

The problem with horses that retire like them is you just don't know if they would have been true stars. Beating 3yos in May and early June only means the horse was the best 3yo at that time. Most horses fail when facing older, yet fans of these horses make it out to be a foregone conclusion they would have excelled. Thus, I say they are probably both overrated.

As a frame of reference, War Emblem ran similar winning races figure wise in the Derby and Preakness as these two, yet was a total non factor against older later in the year. The same with Funny Cide. People were drueling over his Preakness. We know how that turned out.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Afleet Alex was a good horse, nothing more, nothing less. He beat very little in the Preakness, and even less in the Belmont. Maybe he would have been competitive against older later in the year if he stayed healthy, but his figures say he would have struggled.

Smarty Jones I think was a very good horse. He was obviously best in the Belmont, and should have been undefeated. He most likely could have held his own later in the year against older, but you never know.

The problem with horses that retire like them is you just don't know if they would have been true stars. Beating 3yos in May and early June only means the horse was the best 3yo at that time. Most horses fail when facing older, yet fans of these horses make it out to be a foregone conclusion they would have excelled. Thus, I say they are probably both overrated.

As a frame of reference, War Emblem ran similar winning races figure wise in the Derby and Preakness as these two, yet was a total non factor against older later in the year. The same with Funny Cide. People were drueling over his Preakness. We know how that turned out.

Considering Flower Alley ran second in the Classic I don't think it is too much of a stretch to suggest that Alex would have had a shot. He definitely benefited from a weak crop crippled by MRLS but he was a nice horse at 2 and 3 and it's a shame we never got to see if he would have been any better at 4.

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Afleet Alex was a good horse, nothing more, nothing less. He beat very little in the Preakness, and even less in the Belmont. Maybe he would have been competitive against older later in the year if he stayed healthy, but his figures say he would have struggled.

Smarty Jones I think was a very good horse. He was obviously best in the Belmont, and should have been undefeated. He most likely could have held his own later in the year against older, but you never know.

The problem with horses that retire like them is you just don't know if they would have been true stars. Beating 3yos in May and early June only means the horse was the best 3yo at that time. Most horses fail when facing older, yet fans of these horses make it out to be a foregone conclusion they would have excelled. Thus, I say they are probably both overrated.

As a frame of reference, War Emblem ran similar winning races figure wise in the Derby and Preakness as these two, yet was a total non factor against older later in the year. The same with Funny Cide. People were drueling over his Preakness. We know how that turned out.

I agree, but only to a point. Count Fleet never raced after the Belmont but consistently ranks as one of the Top 10 horses of the 20th Century. True, he won the Triple Crown, but never ran past the Belmont, and I don't believe ever ran against older, but I could be wrong. Of course, in that era, he had a real foundation as a 2 year old - running something like 15 times and setting a couple of track records I believe. I just think that we know excellence when we see it and, Beyer speed figures aside, there are many 3 year olds who never faced older who were pretty terrific horses. Point Given is one of the prime examples.

[cmorioles]

Flower Alley improved a lot after Afleet Alex beat him a couple times. I don't think Afleet Alex would have beaten him in the Travers myself. He was a heavily raced horse that probably wasn't going to do much more developing. We'll never really know though.

I think when people rate a horse, they should base it on what the horse actually accomplished, not what he *might* have accomplished. Therefore, AA and SJ were just not great horses. Had SJ won the Belmont, sure, but he didn't. He Afleet Alex not lost to Giacomo and Closing Argument, sure.

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Flower Alley improved a lot after Afleet Alex beat him a couple times. I don't think Afleet Alex would have beaten him in the Travers myself. He was a heavily raced horse that probably wasn't going to do much more developing. We'll never really know though.

I think when people rate a horse, they should base it on what the horse actually accomplished, not what he *might* have accomplished. Therefore, AA and SJ were just not great horses. Had SJ won the Belmont, sure, but he didn't. He Afleet Alex not lost to Giacomo and Closing Argument, sure.

The debate over "greatness" is far different than someone else calling a horse "not so afleet" with an intent to denegrate. I agree with you on the "great" debate in general. But as stated earlier, Count Fleet is universally regarded as a great horse and he never set foot on the track after the Belmont. And the Triple Crown isn't an end all and be all for greatness as Omaha is generally considered the worst horse to ever win the Triple Crown and in Beyer's columns of today would likely be called "undeserving."

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Flower Alley improved a lot after Afleet Alex beat him a couple times. I don't think Afleet Alex would have beaten him in the Travers myself. He was a heavily raced horse that probably wasn't going to do much more developing. We'll never really know though.

I think when people rate a horse, they should base it on what the horse actually accomplished, not what he *might* have accomplished. Therefore, AA and SJ were just not great horses. Had SJ won the Belmont, sure, but he didn't. He Afleet Alex not lost to Giacomo and Closing Argument, sure.

I disagree on the first paragraph but agree on the second one.

[horseofcourse]

With the careers today, you never know...because they stop running. I used to have the detailed discussion with King glorious on another forum comparing the careers of Funny Cide and Smarty Jones through the Belmont Stakes and how speed figure wise they were very similar, both ran similar races in the Preakness and then Belmont Stakes in losing. Since FC was a gelding we actually got to see him continue. He was a very good 4 year old, and even had a decent 6 year old season, but he never came close to running as well as he did in the Wood, Ky Derby, and Preakness in my opinion. Or at least he never improved from then. He certainly never became a superstar. Which is why I discount much speculation on Smarty Jones or Afleet Alex continuing and what they really would have done as older horses. I guess the speculation makes for good conversation on these boards, but little else.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by FairPlay

The debate over "greatness" is far different than someone else calling a horse "not so afleet" with an intent to denegrate. I agree with you on the "great" debate in general. But as stated earlier, Count Fleet is universally regarded as a great horse and he never set foot on the track after the Belmont. And the Triple Crown isn't an end all and be all for greatness as Omaha is generally considered the worst horse to ever win the Triple Crown and in Beyer's columns of today would likely be called "undeserving."

i think the horses who were unable to continue on, count fleet and majestic prince for example, get more of a break when you consider where they fit in...smarty and point given could have returned from their injuries, alex as well had they not tried to rush him back in the fall, with every intention of retiring after the bcc--so there will be less of a rush to proclaim them as being all time greats(personally i don't think they fit into that group)because there are hard feelings about how they left.

and altho count fleet had an impressive career, i think he is rated far too high in the top 100 list. a top two and three year old, yes. one of the best ever? no.

[mark2061mn]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Of these five horses, I actually belive Barbaro may have slightly been the worst of them on dirt. However, Barbaro was so freakish on turf, that he very likely would have won this years Breeders Cup turf, and probably could have gone down as all-time great on that surface, if never tried on dirt.

i know you are probably aiming this ludicrious comment at me mr wopS, but that's just too ridiculous to let pass by.

barbaro was only getting better as he got more experience running on the main track. while yeah, he was obviously an all time great (would have been) on turf, he was only making his 4th start on dirt in the derby, which as you know, is the first time he ever ran (turf or dirt) completely professionally and without any stretch goofyness. maybe in his first or second dirt race, he wouldnt have beaten smarty in the derby, but by the time he had put together his derby race, he'd have slaughtered at least afleet alex and smarty, and most definitely would have beaten bernardini.

how's emily?

I've always felt that the one that got really "jobbed" was Perrault in 1982. Even though he did win the Eclipse for turf for that year, there's no way in my mind that he shouldn't have been Horse Of The Year.

That beast finished first in 3 GI's at 10 furlongs, 2 on dirt and 1 on turf, in sub-2minute time, and annexed another GI at 12 furlongs on turf in 2:23 flat........beating John Henry in the process! Granted, John pulled a hip muscle in that race (The San Luis Rey) and was out for a considerable time afterward, but I was there that day, and trust me, no horse in the world would have beaten Perrault in that race, not even a 100% John Henry.

His 1-1/4 races, for the record, were the Santa Anita Hcp (nose in first but controversially DQ'd), the Hollywood Gold Cup (back when it really meant something), and the Arlington Million (in stakes record time that still stands).

Conquistador Cielo was a brilliant colt...........for 5 days! His enormous feat of beating elders in the Met Mile in track record time, and then romping in the 12f Belmont Stakes over a sloppy track by 14 (beating that great Derby winner Gato Del Sol) just 5 days later is nothing that can ever be taken away from him. But let's face it. He was a GII winner at two, won a GII and a GIII at 3 in addition to his Met and Belmont victories, could only manage a third in the Travers against Runaway Groom, and never raced again.

How can anybody look at that, Met Mile/Belmont double in 5 days or not, and say that he accomplished more than Perraut over the course of the year?

That's all 25 years ago now, and it still rankles me!

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

i know you are probably aiming this ludicrious comment at me mr wopS, but that's just too ridiculous to let pass by.

barbaro was only getting better as he got more experience running on the main track. while yeah, he was obviously an all time great (would have been) on turf, he was only making his 4th start on dirt in the derby, which as you know, is the first time he ever ran (turf or dirt) completely professionally and without any stretch goofyness. maybe in his first or second dirt race, he wouldnt have beaten smarty in the derby, but by the time he had put together his derby race, he'd have slaughtered at least afleet alex and smarty, and most definitely would have beaten bernardini.

how's emily?

She is well.

You might be putting far to much emphasis on the obvious upside Barbaro had....when evaluating those three races of his.

He beat Great Point in the first of his three dirt races, wore down the mighty Sharp Humor in the other. (I strongly defended his performance in the FLA Derby on these boards---it wasn't nearly as bad as some made it out to be---but, it was hardly that impressive) and, in the Kentucky Derby--he fell into the dream stalk-n-go trip and made the best of it. Beating such stars as the talent deficiant Bluegrass Cat, the hopepless plotter Steppenwolfer, and a pair of immortals named Jazil and Brother Derek.

He might have been developing rapidly, and I know how much you liked him before the Derby, but, I just never saw him run a dirt race that was truly better than Smarty Jones Preakness, or Afleet Alex's Preakness, or any of Discreet Cat's races, or Bernardini's career best effort in the Breeders Cup Classic.

[Pedigree Ann]

The real miscarriage of justice was 1978. Exceller won 6 G1 races on turf and dirt that year - the Hollywood Gold Cup, the Jockey Club Gold Cup, the San Juan Capistrakno, the Hollywood Invitational Turf H, the Sunset H, and the Oak Tree Invitational. In the championship race, the JC Gold Cup, Seattle Slew ran off to a long lead on one of those speed-favoring wet-fast Belmont tracks; he was so far ahead on the far turn, it didn't look like anyone would finish in the same furlong with him. But Exceller came rolling like a freight train and ran down Slew AGAINST the track bias and all anybody could write about was how game Slew was in hanging close at the finish.

Moreover, despite winning 4 G1 turf races, he was stiffed for the turf championship, too; that went to the 3yo Mac Diarmida, who won a string of 3yo stakes races before taking two late fall G1s in the fall in the East.

So despite winning the championship race, winning more G1s than any other horse that year, on both dirt and turf, Exceller was denied even one Eclipse award. Only the most egregious case of East Coast bias against West Coast raced horses. Don't get me going about 1965's champion older horse voting!

I'd say With Anticipation was pretty deserving of the Turf Male Eclipse back in 2002, but High Chapparal won the BC Turf, which automatically garnered the award for him.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

...In the championship race, the JC Gold Cup, Seattle Slew ran off to a long lead on one of those speed-favoring wet-fast Belmont tracks; he was so far ahead on the far turn, it didn't look like anyone would finish in the same furlong with him. But Exceller came rolling like a freight train and ran down Slew AGAINST the track bias and all anybody could write about was how game Slew was in hanging close at the finish.

While I agree the horse should have won an Eclipse on turf, you have completely distorted what happened in the JCGC.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

While I agree the horse should have won an Eclipse on turf, you have completely distorted what happened in the JCGC.

No kidding.

However, not that it changes Slew's incredible performance, Exceller actually did move up a dead rail.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

While I agree the horse should have won an Eclipse on turf, you have completely distorted what happened in the JCGC.

I know what I saw. Did you see the race as it occurred or only after you had read published accounts?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

I know what I saw. Did you see the race as it occurred or only after you had read published accolades?

I saw it live, and bet Exceller, and have seen it numerous times since, and as the other poster said, you completely distorted what took place that day. Seattle Slew's performance was one of the bravest, if not THE bravest, in defeat in the history of the game. Not only did Affirmed's rabbit Life's Hope attack him in blistering fractions ( 22 and change, 45 and change and 1:09 and change ) but Affirmed also engaged the pace as his saddle slipped. While the two Harbor View horses were basically eased, Seattle Slew fought back against the very talented Exceller, who save foolishly moving inside took advantage of the greatest setup of all time, and was even coming back to that one at the wire to lose by a slim nose. Suggesting in any way that Seattle Slew was not MUCH the best horse that day was, yes, a complete distortion of reality. Your " interpretation " of the race completely belies what actually took place. Hopefully someone will put up a link to the race on Youtube and everyone can see this magnificent performance, by Seattle Slew, for themselves.

[blackthroatedwind]

This should work....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNjPPoLdAdM