|
|
 |
|
#1
08-23-2006, 10:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Defining a "GREAT" horse
In your opinion what makes a horse great? Does the horse need to win multiple Grade I's? Does the horse need to beat older horses? If a female, does she need to beat males? It seems that us board members determine the critera for greatness based on who the horse is. For example, people will not call Bernardini GREAT because he hasnt faced older horses. Why does he need to face and beat older horses? Lets look at Funny Cide, he has multiple Grade I wins and has beaten older horses. He has won three of the most prestigious races out there. Do we consider him GREAT!!!! If Bernardini had that resume he would be deemed GREAT by some board members. Smarty Jones never beat older horses and only lost 1 race. Is he GREAT!!! If YES then why and if NO then why. Basically lets determine what makes a horse great. Please, lets not argue and just set some criteria as to what makes a horse GREAT.
|
|
#2
08-23-2006, 10:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've posted this before ... but it's always worth doing it again ...
A great horse is one who is a champion every year he/she races ... or who narrowly loses a championship to another great horse ... AND ... ... whose performances are reasonably comparable to those of past great horses. It's pretty easy to tell when a horse is great. If you have any doubts ... then the horse isn't great.
|
|
#3
08-23-2006, 10:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
08-23-2006, 10:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thats a very hard thing to describe. In the Smarty case its hard to say that he wasnt great because he never had the chance to face older, we don't know.
A great horse to me runs very fast numbers on the sheets, he wins more stretch battles than he loses, he wins at different tracks in different places, and he beats the best of his contemporaries. To me thats what makes a great horse.
|
|
#5
08-23-2006, 10:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
2. It isn't difficult for a great horse to win both the 2YO and 3YO championship ... many have done it. 3. A "great" horse must have a great career ... not simply one or two unusually good performances. Horses who shine brightly ... but flame out quickly ... for whatever reason ... are not great.
|
|
#6
08-23-2006, 10:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
... it isn't hard to describe ... you and I both did it very succinctly.
|
|
#7
08-23-2006, 10:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
08-23-2006, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
why does a three year old need to beat older? well, a race such as the derby is restricted...so when meeting older horses, that's an open field, anyone can enter. kind of like a horse who beats all comers in a stakes would be considered better than a horse who only races in a restricted race, such as ny-breds only facing fellow ny-breds....
and yes, a filly would be given more props for beating colts, rather than just other fillies. open comp is one key. setting/tying records is another. ruffian for example..beat all comers, as well as the clock, and never headed. that's greatness. round table, excelled on turf and dirt, 17 tied or new records, the most ever. great horse! personal ensign, undefeated. beat colts and fillies. she was great. azeri, a nice win streak, but didn't win in open competition...very good, but not great. of course back in 'the day' a win while carrying far more weight was something, as was a narrow loss while giving a lot of weight....that doesn't happen much these days...however, congaree got a lot more praise in his very narrow nose loss to milwaukee brew than MB did for winning! congaree was giving weight... also, dr fager set the mile record while carrying 137 pounds(if memory serves...) that's GREAT. najran tying the record years later....mmm, not so great. horses have dazzled with great performances...GZ in the bcc, candy rides win over MDO...but a great performance doesn't make a great horse. they need to back it up. smarty could have been great...so could alex. to really know tho, if a horse was great. come back in 20 years and see how many of todays horses still get press. those are the great ones.
|
|
#9
08-23-2006, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
08-23-2006, 10:51 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Guideline, not rules:
- Doesn't need to carry racetrack with - Speed/stamina combo - Wins/narrowly misses after not getting desired trip - 5 grade 1's - Won grade 1's at different distances - Multiple Eclipse awards I'd list these as the great horses of the last 30 years: Affirmed, Spectacular Bid, Cigar, John Henry, Personal Ensign, Silverbulletday. Forego is the greatest to have raced in the past 30 years, imo.. Last edited by SentToStud : 08-23-2006 at 10:53 AM.
|
|
#11
08-23-2006, 10:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
... so how can a horse fail to win it?
|
|
#12
08-23-2006, 10:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
If a horse needs to face open company then a triple crown horse could never be considered great. We all know that once a horse does that, that horse is off to the shed. Again, let go back to Smarty--his only loss is a 2nd in the Belmont. He had plenty of races and beat everyone he faced. So we dont deem him great because he didnt beat older horses.
|
|
#13
08-23-2006, 10:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#14
08-23-2006, 10:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#15
08-23-2006, 11:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
... which causes me to hesitiate a bit to even call Count Fleet and Ruffian "great" ... because they never won again after their respective Triple Crown victories. Their "greatness" is based more on the fact that they were champions as 2YOS and 3YOS ... and the quality of their performances ... rather than on the scope of their careers. Yes ... it is a problem.
|
|
#16
08-23-2006, 11:04 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You should have stayed in school.
|
|
#17
08-23-2006, 11:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#18
08-23-2006, 11:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#19
08-23-2006, 11:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
For me, I want to see a few things:
1. Wins in the top races of their class. 2. Carrying the highest weights in their races. 3. Running fast times/figures. 4. Winning percentage at 60% or more. 5. In the money percentage at 80% or more. 6. At least being a champion in one season. 7. Winning outside of your division. All of these things don't have to be accomplished but most of them should be. If I were to create a hall of fame, I'd say that a couple of those rules would be absolutely required. U'd have to have been a champion in more than one season. U'd have to meet the winning/ITM %. If u don't, u don't make it. I agree with Bold in that if there is doubt, a horse doesn't belong. I don't like the current rules that say u only need to be named on 75% of the ballots. That still means that 25% of the people don't think u belong. That, to me, is not a hall of famer. When horses like Bid and Secretariat came up for inductment, I doubt anyone hesitated on them. That is what the hall should be for. The very best of the best. Not just those that had a good season or won a couple of big races.
__________________
The real horses of the year (1986-2020) Manila, Java Gold, Alysheba, Sunday Silence, Go for Wand, In Excess, Paseana, Kotashaan, Holy Bull, Cigar, Alphabet Soup, Formal Gold, Skip Away, Artax, Tiznow, Point Given, Azeri, Candy Ride, Smarty Jones, Ghostzapper, Invasor, Curlin, Zenyatta, Zenyatta, Goldikova, Havre de Grace, Wise Dan, Wise Dan, California Chrome, American Pharoah, Arrogate, Gun Runner, Accelerate, Maximum Security, Gamine
|
|
#20
08-23-2006, 11:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Generally speaking ... I'd say no ... .... because greatness requires both more versatility than just sprinting ... as well as meeting/defeating the best horses of the day ... who are running on the dirt. Was Ta Wee great? Was Manila great? They were great at what they did ... but what they did was very limited. More scope is needed for true greatness.
|
Linear Mode
