Mineshaft - am I losing my mind?

[Betsy]

I have no idea why he's looked upon as an average to mediocre HOY - I go onto this other board and you couldn't believe the arguments being made as to what an overrated horse he was. Look, I freely admit to being a HUGE Seattle Slew/AP Indy line fan, but I think I'm being unbiased when I say that he was an exceptional racehorse. I'm not putting him up against Cigar, Ghostzapper or anyother horse - I can't make those comparisons and I wouldn't dare to try. Just looking at what he did as a racehorse, he won the Pimlico Special, Woodward, Suburban, JCGC - those are big races, old time races with gobs of prestige. He won them practically being eased up, and in brilliant time. I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone, but I'm having a hard time on this other board. There are two points against him over there: 1) he beat garbage and 2) he wimped out on the Classic.

As to point 1, is it really fair to hold Mineshaft (or any horse) up to the standard of, say, Slew beating Affirmed, who beat Spectacular Bid? Great horses don't come along very often, so I don't understand the argument that Mineshaft was mediocre because he didn't beat true champions. Medaglio D'Oro was a very good horse, and Bobby Frankel chose to ship out West to face Candy Ride rather than face Mineshaft; Harlan's Holiday ducked him, too. I don't get how it's his fault that traineres didn't want to run their horses against him.

As to point 2, I refuse to believe that Will Farish, who adored this colt (best he ever bred, he's said), would be as unsportsmanlike as all that. Of course, I have no proof, but then....those claiming Mineshaft ducked the big boys have no proof, either.

I guess what I don't understand is how racing fans complain that the stars don't run as 4 year olds, that we haven't had a great horse in a long time, etc........When a really good horse comes along, then, they complain, too? It's really hard to please fans. I gave up on the argument on the other board; it pleases me to know that, as far as racing performances, Mineshaft is pretty highly regarded (again, not ranking him or anything).

Thoughts?

[ateamstupid]

I concur.

The main knock on Mineshaft is that he didn't beat anyone, but it wasn't Farish's fault everyone decided to duck him. At the same time, Farish didn't help matters by not sending him to the BCC..

[Danzig]

there will always be doubters, always people who enjoy nothing so much as being the devils advocate. or there are those who just aren't willing/able to see things. one convoluted bit of logic i always get a chuckle from, are the arguments that mineshaft beat 'nothing' and then you see praise heaped onto perfect drift (for example) who beat mineshaft from the same person who just criticized the HOY winner! i mean, if mineshaft was nothing, beat nothing, why would they think it's a big deal that PD beat mineshaft??? haven't quite figured that one out as yet.

mineshaft had a really good campaign that year--i have to say i would take a horse like mineshaft over some of the far more lightly raced champs we've had....
as for ducking, his schedule was out there for all to see--bobby frankel for one freely admitted ducking HIM.
as for the bcc, mineshaft didn't go due to a problem with one of his legs( a chip maybe? horses sometimes run with them til they become a real problem)--and why would you run a horse with a leg problem in cali of all places? everyone had a chance all year to run against him--they didn't. and then critics pop up accusing the mineshaft team of ducking. um, yeah, ok.

i do think it's a shame that when a horse has a great year he still has his detractors. but it happens in all areas of society, not just in horse racing! just a fact of life.

[Betsy]

Great points Danzig, and thanks, too, Ateam - I was getting tired of banging my head against the wall. I'm not expecting or asking people to say he was the greatest horse in the world, either......just hoping for the horse to get credit.

LOL about Perfect Drift-that's so true. Oh, that's another point against Mineshaft - he lost a race (on dirt)! As for his injury, I have to assume Farish and Howard were telling the truth - I don't know why there is so much suspicion around Farish when the man has been a sportsman all his life. All I know is that if Mineshaft WAS injured and he ran in the BC.....and then it was discovered that Farish, etc..knew about the injury, what do you think the fans' reaction would have been? They would have been in an uproar on the boards, screaming about the cruelty to animals, etc.....It actually makes me want to laugh!

[disappearingdan_akaplaya]

yes the almighty mineshaft was ducked and ducked and ducked but funny how they ducked the BCC with the horse.........hmmmmmm maybe because hed actually have to run against a full field and the last time the horse did that he lost, not to mention the almighty mineshaft was defeated by balto star on the DIRT ....... as ive said numerous times a very nice horse but can you truly put the label"great" on him?

[bogeydaman]

Here are the last 9 horse of the years since Cigar (Saint Liam, Ghostzapper, Mineshaft, Left Bank, Tiznow, Lemon Drop Kid, Victory Gallop, Skip Away (2X)). You can take shots at Mineshaft losing to PD (by a neck with a horrible ride), but GZ lost to Valid Video, Tiznow lost to most G1 horses on the West Coast for 2 years, etc, etc.

IMO Mineshaft 2003 (6 grades stakes wins, 4 grade ones) is favorable to the years that each of these horses HOY records.

IMO opinion he is one of the top 2 horses of the last 10 years (1A and 1B with Ghostzapper) regardless of whether either of these horses beat "anything".

It's a shame he did not get a chance to prove his brilliance in the BC, but then again he woud have been knocked for not running against anything since nothing of "consequence" ran in that race.

[Thunder Gulch]

Mineshaft had some great days, but prevailing opinion these days is so heavily influenced by the biggest of stages in the Breeders Cup where we never had the opportunity to see Mineshaft. Look at the case of Ghostzapper: His figures were amazing, but there were many questions surrounding him as he went into the BC Classic. Off that single outstanding performance, he went from a sheet freak to a horse considered by novices to be the best since Cigar.

You aren't insane, there are a lot of ignorant folks out there Betsy, and they don't represent the majority who actually understand the game.

[Seattleallstar]

defintely a good horse but you cant label a horse great, when he really never faced the best that year.

Beating up on Volponi, Perfect Drift, Evening Attire, Quest, Hold That Tiger, Puzzlement..lol...lol, hell I even think he ran in a race with Dollar Bill in it and a great sprinter in Aldebaran hardly makes him great.

No Congaree, no Plesantly Perfect, Medaglia

Originally Posted by Seattleallstar

defintely a good horse but you cant label a horse great, when he really never faced the best that year.

Beating up on Volponi, Perfect Drift, Evening Attire, Quest, Hold That Tiger, Puzzlement..lol...lol, hell I even think he ran in a race with Dollar Bill in it and a great sprinter in Aldebaran hardly makes him great.

No Congaree, no Plesantly Perfect, Medaglia

Thats kinda like saying Larry Holmes wasn't great because during his reign there wasn't anyone around worth a damn to fight. You could tell from watching the guy that he coulda beat greats, they just werent around in his time.
I'm a sheet guy, and Mineshaft's sheet numbers match up with anyone in history. He was truly great.
I hear the same **** about Cigar from time to time as well, but I just dont buy it. You can see greatness in a horse even if its beating noone, so long as its beating noone the right way.

[bogeydaman]

defintely a good horse but you cant label a horse great, when he really never faced the best that year.

Beating up on Volponi, Perfect Drift, Evening Attire, Quest, Hold That Tiger, Puzzlement..lol...lol, hell I even think he ran in a race with Dollar Bill in it and a great sprinter in Aldebaran hardly makes him great.

No Congaree, no Plesantly Perfect, Medaglia

If Mineshaft is not great, then please give me a list of great horses who have raced over the last 10 years?

Originally Posted by bogeydaman

defintely a good horse but you cant label a horse great, when he really never faced the best that year.

Beating up on Volponi, Perfect Drift, Evening Attire, Quest, Hold That Tiger, Puzzlement..lol...lol, hell I even think he ran in a race with Dollar Bill in it and a great sprinter in Aldebaran hardly makes him great.

No Congaree, no Plesantly Perfect, Medaglia

If Mineshaft is not great, then please give me a list of great horses who have raced over the last 10 years?

Hes doesnt get it pal. He mentions Congaree as a great(and he was, up to a certain distance, one of the best milers of all time, ever!) but he was beaten at times by Scorpion and Milwaukee Brew. I guess this poster feels that both those horses should go down in history as all time greats right?
You can't judge a horse by any one criteria. Afleet Alex beat NOTHING last year, and I mean NOTHING!!!!! He actually lost to Giacomo(ouch) and beat Scrappy T in the Preakness and then beat Andromedas Hero and Nolans Cat in the Belmont( go ahead and try to find a horse in tri crown history who beat worse) but that doesnt mean Alex wasnt great. Fact is he really shredded them with enough authority that you could make the case that he may have beaten greats if they were around. That argument simply doesnt hold water from a pure common sense standpoint. This poster would have us believe that a rule exists in the universe that a horse can only truly be great if there is another great horse that year to beat.Thats not always possible. For every year with Affirmed and Alydar we have many more years where two great horses dont exist in the same year. Its nonsense to use that as a sole criteria.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Hes doesnt get it pal. He mentions Congaree as a great(and he was, up to a certain distance, one of the best milers of all time, ever!) but he was beaten at times by Scorpion and Milwaukee Brew. I guess this poster feels that both those horses should go down in history as all time greats right?
You can't judge a horse by any one criteria. Afleet Alex beat NOTHING last year, and I mean NOTHING!!!!! He actually lost to Giacomo(ouch) and beat Scrappy T in the Preakness and then beat Andromedas Hero and Nolans Cat in the Belmont( go ahead and try to find a horse in tri crown history who beat worse) but that doesnt mean Alex wasnt great. Fact is he really shredded them with enough authority that you could make the case that he may have beaten greats if they were around. That argument simply doesnt hold water from a pure common sense standpoint. This poster would have us believe that a rule exists in the universe that a horse can only truly be great if there is another great horse that year to beat.Thats not always possible. For every year with Affirmed and Alydar we have many more years where two great horses dont exist in the same year. Its nonsense to use that as a sole criteria.

What I dont understand is that a horse is only great if that horse only loses 1 or less races a year. But then people bitch because he didnt run against anyone....well, if he beat everyone then he was so good that no one else had a chance. That is called greatness.

Mineshaft was an unreal horse. To me a great horse is a horse who crosses the wire first time after time after time. This is what Mineshaft did.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

What I dont understand is that a horse is only great if that horse only loses 1 or less races a year. But then people bitch because he didnt run against anyone....well, if he beat everyone then he was so good that no one else had a chance. That is called greatness.

Mineshaft was an unreal horse. To me a great horse is a horse who crosses the wire first time after time after time. This is what Mineshaft did.

Euro its the younger know it all guys who seem to make these arguments. Its a generational thing called what have you done for me lately. And its quite comical. A few posters on here are always calling horses "rats". You know, the kind of rats who have already banked 600g- 1 million bucks. They generally make these statements after one sub par outing. Earlier this year(I have your names, I have your posts) peopel were railing on about Sun King being a "rat". All hes done since then is win the Commonwealth and get beat a head in the Met. Man would I LOVE and DREAM to own 10% of a rat like that. All that cash and a liscense to go to stud now and make some more cash.
The guys who make these statements know NOTHING about horses and the physical problems or form cycles they get into. They think they are cars and the concepts of popped splints, entrapping, quarter cracks, etc. mean nothing to them. All they say is, hes a rat, because the horse lost. The fact that they know nothing about horses themselves is besides the point, they truly feel qualified to judge a horse a rat.
The new generation of horsefan seems to have teh following criteria for greatness: 1) You must never lose(especially a race that they bet)
2) You must never have an off day or sub par day(which basically means you must never bleed, entrap, jam up a foot, grab a quarter, pop a splint, buck shins, or suffer a fracture)
3) You must run your races in track record or near track record times.
4) You must never duck who they "say" is the main competition in their division. You must always face the very best you can find even if it makes no sense to do so due to time contraints betwen races or traveling to a strange place.

How maniacal is that?

Originally Posted by oracle80

Euro its the younger know it all guys who seem to make these arguments. Its a generational thing called what have you done for me lately. And its quite comical. A few posters on here are always calling horses "rats". You know, the kind of rats who have already banked 600g- 1 million bucks. They generally make these statements after one sub par outing. Earlier this year(I have your names, I have your posts) peopel were railing on about Sun King being a "rat". All hes done since then is win the Commonwealth and get beat a head in the Met. Man would I LOVE and DREAM to own 10% of a rat like that. All that cash and a liscense to go to stud now and make some more cash.
The guys who make these statements know NOTHING about horses and the physical problems or form cycles they get into. They think they are cars and the concepts of popped splints, entrapping, quarter cracks, etc. mean nothing to them. All they say is, hes a rat, because the horse lost. The fact that they know nothing about horses themselves is besides the point, they truly feel qualified to judge a horse a rat.
The new generation of horsefan seems to have teh following criteria for greatness: 1) You must never lose(especially a race that they bet)
2) You must never have an off day or sub par day(which basically means you must never bleed, entrap, jam up a foot, grab a quarter, pop a splint, buck shins, or suffer a fracture)
3) You must run your races in track record or near track record times.
4) You must never duck who they "say" is the main competition in their division. You must always face the very best you can find even if it makes no sense to do so due to time contraints betwen races or traveling to a strange place.

How maniacal is that?

According to that citeria, Azeri wouldnt have been a rat. Man, I miss that horse. She was just something that made me speechless. But to the young people she lost to Mayo On The Side--lost in the Classic so she is a rat--ha ha.

[Seattleallstar]

**** you oracle and your sanctimonious bs.

Jerrys TOp horses in the last 10 years

1.Dubai Millennium---GHOSTZAPPER
2.Rock Of Gibraltar
3.Candy Ride
4.Point Given
5.Fusaichi Pegasus
6.Mineshaft--see there he is
7.Azeri
8.High Chapparal
9.Dalakhani
10.Cigar

Originally Posted by eurobounce

According to that citeria, Azeri wouldnt have been a rat. Man, I miss that horse. She was just something that made me speechless. But to the young people she lost to Mayo On The Side--lost in the Classic so she is a rat--ha ha.

Yep, and Congaree was a rat because he lost to Scorpion. OH!! And Ghostzappper was a rat also because he lost the Kings Bishop. Hmm, I guess the only horse in the last 80 years or so who wasnt a rat was Personal Ensign. Secretariat definitely was a rat because he lost to Onion. Well, I think you get the point.

Originally Posted by Seattleallstar

**** you oracle and your sanctimonious bs.

Jerrys TOp horses in the last 10 years

1.Dubai Millennium
2.Rock Of Gibraltar
3.Candy Ride
4.Point Given
5.Fusaichi Pegasus
6.Mineshaft--see there he is
7.Azeri
8.High Chapparal
9.Dalakhani
10.Cigar

LOL!!!! Candy Ride at number three!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And no Personal Ensign. Point Given at 4, but genius boy, he beat Touch Tone, Ap Valentine, and E Dubai, how could he be great when he never beat anyone great? LOL!!!!!! This list is a train wreck. And FuPeg? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yeah, ok, sure. And Ghostzapper isn't in the top ten? You are embarassing yourself Seattle.

Who was that horse about 7-10 years ago that came up from South America and won like 11 races in a row and was totally hyped up and ended up flopping?

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

According to that citeria, Azeri wouldnt have been a rat. Man, I miss that horse. She was just something that made me speechless. But to the young people she lost to Mayo On The Side--lost in the Classic so she is a rat--ha ha.

I miss Azeri too. It broke my heart the way she tried to go with the boys in the 2004 Classic. She was trying with everything she had and just couldn't do it. Even though she finished 5th, she still beat some very, very good horses. You couldn't have had a stronger Classic field than you did that year. It was was one for the ages. I thought Azeri's performance in the BCC was outstanding even though she didn't win. It showed just how much courage, heart, and try she had in her. In any other year, she would have definitely finished in the money.