Come to think of it---an actual case could be made that Candy Ride was as impressive through the first six races of his career.



Running a mile in a world record 1:31 flat while winning a 15 runner Group 1 on turf by a city block. Running a mile and a quarter in 1:59 flat while winning a Grade 1 on dirt. And getting a two-turn mile in 1:35 2/5ths in a workout.

The horse he beat in his only American turf start came back to win a Grade 1 race, by five lengths, in course record time at Del Mar next out.

He seems like a 1st ballot lock with Discreet Cat in your "lightly raced paper-champion" Hall of Fame.

Candy Ride was an awesome horse.

Discreet Cat also might be pretty good.

I was thinking of the ridiculously overhyped Smarmy Jones and the even more ridiculously overrated Not So aFleet Alex.

I'll agree with your last 2 sentences. But I'll close my end of the discussion by saying I think a Kentucky Derby-Preakness-SuperDerby-BC Classic resume would have out trumped the Whitney-Travers-Marlboro-JCGC.

--Dunbar

"ridiculoulsy overrrated Not so aFleet Alex"? Let's see, he goes to his knees at the top of the stretch in the Preakness and finds a way to win and then puts up the fastest final 1/4 in the Belmont Stakes since Arts and Letters. Yeah, he sucked.:rolleyes:

[quote=blackthroatedwind]Candy Ride was an awesome horse.

Discreet Cat also might be pretty good.

I was thinking of the ridiculously overhyped Smarmy Jones and the even more ridiculously overrated Not So aFleet Alex.[/QUOTE


I think Candy Ride falls into that whole Bernardini scenerio. What could have been. he got hurt I do believe but we'll never know how awesome Candy Ride could have been.

Thank you for helping prove my point.

When did I say Afleet Alex " sucked " or anything even REMOTELY close? He was a very terrific horse who ran one exceptionally good race ( the Preakness ). He did nothing on the racetrack to earn the accolades he received on internet boards.

But didn't their stories warm your heart? :p

Couldn't read the English language part about the Belmont? :rolleyes:

In the Belmont he dominated a bunch of mediocre horses while running a very mediocre final time. If somehow you think his performance in that race defends him as a special horse I will have to disagree.

Alex I agree on. Way overrated. Like I always say about Easy Goer, when Alex faced the two biggest tests of his career, the Juvenile and the Derby, he lost them both. At least EG lost to horses of quality. Alex lost to Wilko and Giacomo. Negative.

Now, Smarty Jones. I agree that the media added a lot to the hype with him being undefeated and all. But I don't think the hype was totally unjustified. There were racing industry people that also had jumped on the bandwagon, people with considerable experience and knowledge. I remember Bobby Frankel saying he was as good as we'd had since either Secretariat or Bid. When u've got a guy like Frankel saying it, and I grudgingly concede that he's been around a few more great horses than I have, it takes on more meaning than when I say it or some reporter says it. There were others that joined in also, in particular I remember Gary Stevens and Kent Desormeaux. The point is, I think there was some merit to his hype.

Point Given is way overrated, too, because he lost the Juvenile and KY Derby? How about Native Dancer since he lost the Derby? Didn't know that the Juvenile and the Derby were the only quality tests. :rolleyes:

KG
 

Gary Stevens AND Kent Desormeaux loved Smarty Jones?

I must have missed that MENSA gathering.

He may have been pretty good, and his Preakness was spectacular, but he needed at least one more terrific race to justify anything close to the praise he received.

From a handicapping standpoint, Blackthroatedwind is right, as Afleet Alex and Smarty Jones are no better than the top three 3-year-olds of this season on form.

AA and SJ both had a lot of things to like about them though. Both were outstanding horses who outran their pedigrees. In Afleet Alex's case, I remain convinced that he ran the best race in three of his four career losses. Smarty Jones clearly ran the best race, albeit in defeat, in the Belmont Stakes.

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.

Here are the past performances anyway. Not very much seperates these five horses at all on form. Interestingly enough, of these five, only Discreet Cat will be around to see a 4-year-old season.

I've searched throughout my posts and don't see where I ever said those were the ONLY quality tests. I said they were the BIGGEST for those horses. Do u dispute that?

Accurately responding to posts is not a strongsuit of that poster.

Misrepresenting what you have posted, however, is.

First of all you can eat my shorts. Second, explain to me where I am inaccurate or have misrepresented? I state facts and ask questions. Because you or others may not like the conclusions that those facts and questions may lead you to is not an excuse to attack my character.

The issue raised by someone other than me is whether Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex are "way overrated." So I have raised some other horses who failed at major races during their juvenile or three year old season and ask if you feel that they are similarly overrated? Smarty Jones was essentially Majestic Prince of this generation record-wise so he (MP) must be overrated, too? It's fair game to ask questions such as this without impugning me for asking them. Unless you are all so wise and knowledgeable that your opinions cannot be challenged. If so, then you'd have done great during the middle ages when the earth was considered to be both flat and the center of the universe. Ta Ta.

When you make a post like this.....

You join the list of posters that skew people's words to fit their own agendas. I never said Afleet Alex " sucked ", nor did I imply it, but to further your agenda you suggested I did.

You have furthered your postition of poster to be ignored with your continued smart azz responses like the most recent one. For a poster with only a handful of posts you have hardly left anyone wanting more.

The sandbox is full of your ilk....and nobody is playing with you there either.

If you're paranoid and read meanings into my posts, then the issue is with you, not with me. I am the only person who raised the "suck" word to make a sarcastic point about Alex's peformance on the track. Because you associate that phrase with your assessment of Alex's career is your problem and probably a function of your own egocentricity.

And to answer your questions: The Kentucky Derby and BC Juvenile should not be the biggest indicators of a horse's career performance. In my view those are indicators that are easily rebutted. Would any one here take Wilko and Giacomo over Afleet Alex as racehorses during the course of their racing careers? Cigar and John Henry never raced in a juvenile race of meaning or the Triple Crown and yet they're great horses. Holy Bull flopped in the Derby and he was a great horse. People here have short memories about the impact of both Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex: Smarty Jones was the first horse to make the cover of Sports Illustrated in a generation and Alex was a serious candidate for SI's Sportsman of the Year Award. So I will end sarcastically: "Yeah, they were real overrated." And look who's casting stones about twisting their words: He who says "Not so aFleet Alex." What a bunch of b.s you're cultivating.

I never said anything about the Kentucky Derby or BC Juvenile in this thread regarding Smarty Jones or Afleet Alex so I really have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry if when someone disagrees with you it throws you into such a frenzy that you can't even differentiate among posters and are forced to make pathetic character judgements.

And furthermore, I really don't use Sports Illustrated as my guide to whether or not a horse is talented. But, hey, to each his own.

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

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!:mad:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

This should work....


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