I think that the thing people need to do is understand the difference between what you THINK is great or could be great and what's PROVEN as great. On the first list, I have horses like Java Gold and King Glorious. They wouldn't make the second list though.

I also believe that it's unfair to compare horses of different eras because so many things that are out of the horses control have changed. It's not fair, for example, to give a horse from the 60's more credit for carrying high weights when a horse in today's era never gets that same chance. I feel like to assume that they COULDN'T do it is not fair at all. It's not right to downgrade a Bernardini or Curlin (maybe) because they didn't race as 4yo's. Many of the greats of the past, if they ran in today's era, would not race at the age of four either. I think that in order to properly judge them, one has to look at how they fare against the other horses in their era and not the ones from past ones.

Look at baseball for example.
1968 Bob Gibson led the league in ERA at 1.12
Second place was 1.60
The top 10 were all at 2.08 or better.
Seven guys under 2.00
League ERA was 2.98

1994 Greg Maddux led in 1.56
Second place was 2.65
There were only eight players under 3.00
League ERA was 4.51

2000 Pedro Martinez led at 1.74
Second place was 2.58
There were only four players under 3.00
League ERA was 4.77

Looking at it based solely on raw numbers, one would see Gibson's 1.12 and figure he had the best season. But when you look deeper, you see that in comparison to their peers, Maddux and Martinez had far more dominant years.

Same goes with these horses. They've got to be judged under the conditions of their times and not against others. If they go above and beyond what is normal for good horses of their time, they've done all they can do and deserve some consideration for that.

I'm not sure King that you don't make a better argument against your point by using your baseball stats. What it shows to me is that Maddox and Pedro are great and the others aren't. If horses want to prove they are great then they need to do it on the racetrack....not in our minds and in our hopes. The simple fact is that King Glorious and Java Gold, while perhaps showing flashes of greatness, didn't prove it even close to conclusively on the racetrack. That's what really matters.

Silver Charm is actually an interesting example. He raced a full career and danced a zillion dances. He was a wonderful racehorse but by racing as much as he did he also proved conclusively that he wasn't " great. " But, at least he gave us a full resume with which to evaluate him. These other horses just leave us with conjecture. Because they have rewritten the rules doesn't mean evaluation should adapt. It shouldn't.

" Great " is a poorly used term these days in many fields. It needs to be reserved for the very few that rise way above even the extraordinarily talented.

You see that I did (grudgingly) admit that horses like KG and JG would not be included in my list if I had to list those that had proven their greatness. I understand that difference.

The way the game is currently going, there won't be very many horses that are top of their class at three that get to continue racing till they are four or five. The racing secretaries will never put 135 lbs on their backs anymore. With so many racetracks and races around the country, actually the world nowdays, the chances for top horses to meet each other are becoming increasingly rare. The way the industry is now, it's unlikely that any horse will ever even have a chance to reach the standards of greatness that the horses of the past had. Does that mean that none of them have it in them? I don't think that's true.

I do absolutely agree with you that the term is overused these days. I saw someone say that this Lecomte field is great and I wanted to throw my computer out of the window. I do also agree with you that it needs to be reserved for those that rise far above the level of good and reach extraordinary. The key is in deciding what's ordinary and what's extraordinary for any given era. It's not going to be the same for every era. I talked about home runs earlier. If next year, the league average is four and one guy hits 20, he will have had a great year. Those 20 will look like nothing compared to 73 and 70 and 60, etc but when taken in it's context, it will look like 200 in comparison.

Silver Charm was an outstanding racehorse, one of my all time favorites and definitely worthy of his place in the Hall of Fame, but I also don't consider him "great". He had some spectacular races in his career, but too many clunkers to forget. A true great only gets a few mulligans.

This is interesting. I have a hard time putting anyone into any hall of fame if I don't think they were great.

You're not the only one, those two races you mentioned speak for themselves. Holy Bull needs no defending, he was...and forever will be..a great one...

His Woodward victory was brilliant....one of the best fields in the 90's

Was Cougar II great? No, but he's in the Hall. I can give plenty more examples as such.

I didn't mean examples of who you specifically didn't think were great but are in the hall. From your post, I took it to mean that you didn't think Silver Charm was great but if you had a vote, you would have voted for him because he was deserving.

There are plenty in there that I don't think were great horses and therefore, I wouldn't have voted for them because I don't think they were deserving. A lot of horses that I think were great horses (Java Gold, KG, Smarty, Lammtarra, GZ, and Candy Ride, for example), if I had a vote, they would not be in. Would you have voted Silver Charm in?

You intepreted me correctly, and my answer is without a doubt.

He won 2 legs of the TC, 11 graded stakes, and danced all the dances, and ended up I believe the 2nd highest earning thoroughbred of all time (at the time). He was one of my all time favorites, and the '98 BC was one of my all time favorite races. He was just somewhat inconsistent... the truly great ones don't run inexplicable races like he did on occasion. I believe the terms I would use are "outstanding" and a "horse I would love to own".

If he raced against last years handicap division they would be writing songs about his greatness...

If I ran against last year's handicap division they'd be writing songs about me.



You going to be around the sale tomorrow?

You have done enough...


Yes, but pretty early 10am to 12

We will see you there then...

Congrats! It will be a great edition to your library. :D

Nope. I too think Holy Bull deserves to be called great. His ability from 7f to 10f was very impressive.
It is just too bad that two of the big "rivalries that could have been," in the last decade or so - Cigar vs. Holy Bull, and Barbaro vs. Bernardini - ended mere seconds before began.