You missed Tiznow, Invasor and most importantly Ghostzapper who is probably the best horse since Spectacular Bid

I don't need to see a lot of races to know what I see a couple of times. For me, I think great horses do one of two things. Either they beat really good horses or they run really fast races. I like horses that do it on more than one surface but so many aren't given the chance to show if they could or not that I don't think it's fair to give horses that were given a chance extra credit. For that same reason, I don't give extra credit to the names of the races the horses run in. That simply has no bearing on their ability. I wouldn't punish Zenyatta for her connections not allowing her to run against the boys. I wouldn't give Rachel extra credit for facing older males in the Woodward when facing 3yos in the Travers would have been the tougher race.

Ability as a 2yo
Ability as a 3yo
Ability as an older horse
I only judge them by when they actually run. I wouldn't downgrade Curlin because he didn't run as a 2yo. My only requirement is that in whatever years they run, they run great.

Ability as a sprinter
Ability as a miler
Ability as a router
A lot of people only judge them by how well they do at 10f. I don't think that's the only distance that we run races at. In fact, the majority of races in this country are under 8f. It's my feeling that it's tougher to be dominant over a more inclusive group than it is to be dominant over a select group. There's only 10 horses that can run 10f in any given year. There's 10000 that can run 6f. Whatever you do, whether it be sprints, miles, 16f, grass, dirt, whatever it is, be the best at it.

Ability as a dirt horse-important
Ability as a synthetic horse-completely 100% not important
Ability as a turf horse-important

Ability to win major races-not important
Ability to beat good horses-extremely important
Ability to run fast figures-very important
Ability to win with dominance-slightly important

Ability to stay sound and race often without big time gaps between starts-not important
Ability to carry high weight or give weight away to good horses-important
Ability to have success as a stallion or broodmare-completely unimportant
Ability to be consistant and not go in and out of top form-very important

Ability to handle different surfaces-not important
Ability to handle a wide range of distances-not important
Ability to handle tough trips, bad rides, and unfavorable circumstances-important
Ability to ship and consistantly run near top form away from home circuit-slightly important
Ability to have participated in a lot of major races-not important

Ability of the trainer.-not important although the example you mentioned makes me reevaluate that opinion some.

Ability of the jockey.-completely irrelevant

Competence of the management.-usually not important unless they are putting their horse in position to fail, ala Arazi.

Visual likability.-not important

I agree about Tiznow, and Invasor " I think Bernardini was much better though" Giants Causeway was also great.

Yep, Skip Away was another great tough one. I was a big admirer of both, but a bigger fan of Cigar.

I made the pilgrimage to NY to see that JCGC with Cigar and Skip Away. My almost 3-yr-old son had become a fan of Skip Away from watching Thoroughbred Digest with me for the previous 6 months. We got some good photos of my son at the walking ring with Skip Away and Cigar in the background.

Skip Away did beat Cigar by a nose that day, but maybe the 5 lb weight break had something to do with it!

--Dunbar

This a point that isn't brought up enough in my opinion, Skip Away beat Cigar by a head that day while getting a 5lb advantage. If that is the best he could do with a Cigar probably past his prime, one must wonder how he would have fared against Cigar when he was at his best. Not as well, one would surmise.

Well wasnt Skip Away 3 years old? Try having Skip Away at HIS prime and Cigar at his prime if you want to make this kind of comparison.

But I know you always think the 2nd place finisher is better than the first place finisher ;) ;) :p

In a 5 race series all things equal, I would take Cigar over Skip Away whether it's 1 1/8 or 1 1/4. Skip Away at his best was very good but in terms of consistency Cigar would be my choice, You knew he would always run his race. I do know Bailey in his book was emphatic that he was the best horse he had ever ridden and he would know, but I understand the interest in comparing horses. I'm actually more interested how Cigar would have matched up with Holy Bull, that is the rivalry that for unfortunate reasons never materialized.

Yes, I knew I was opening a can of worms with the weight comment. I agree that Skip Away had yet to reach his peak ability. The flip side is that Cigar had already been to Dubai that year and was pretty clearly past his prime.

Since we can't have each at his prime, we can only look at the race we did get. I don't think the 3-yr-old Skip Away would have beaten the 6-yr-old Cigar at equal weights that day.

--Dunbar

I would give Skip Away a slight edge over both Holy Bull and Cigar.

I'd give Awesome Again a slight edge over all three.

And a chasm advantage in the shed.

Ability to win major races
Ability to beat good horses
Ability to run fast figures
Ability to win with dominance

Ability to handle different surfaces
Ability to handle a wide range of distances
Ability to handle tough trips, bad rides, and unfavorable circumstances
Ability to ship and consistantly run near top form away from home circuit
Ability to have participated in a lot of major races


These two groups of criteria 'define' a great race horse for me. I had the fortune to see the great groups of horses in the 70's and 80's and still believe these decades of thoroughbreds were far superior to what we are seeing now.

I think to be a great horse you have to be able to run at least a 115 BSF twice in a row.

The problem with this is that Cigar was just as good at the end of 1996 as he was at the end of 1995. His races in the Woodward, JCGC, and BC Classic were every bit as good the seconed time as the first. The difference was the competition. Whereas in 1995, he was facing the likes of Unaccounted For and L'Carriere, the next year it was Skip Away, Louis Quartorze, and Alphabet Soup. Had he had the same comp in 1996 as he did the previous years, he would have won the races again.

I've heard that before, but that is inconclusive, we can wish for Holy Bull and Skip Away all to have run in the same era also, but that's not going to happen. The only thing I go by is visually watching his races and using an experienced eye to analyze it, I don't subscribe to the beyer comparison's as definitive as many do here, but after the Pacific Classic you can hear it it Bailey's interview afterward as much as he didn't wanted to say it, I think his quote was " I didn't think there was any scenario in a race that Cigar couldn't overcome" until today. He took the heat for laying down impossible fractions 1:09 and change for 6 furlongs in the Pacific where he may have survived that battle in 95 but not 96, but more importantly he was intimating this was not the same Cigar after the race. In my opinion this was most likely the case also.

Post Race Pacific Classic Mott & Bailey Interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgZ-x...eature=related

And The Race itself: Geeze whatever happened to racing...What a race. Look at Dramatic Gold pulled up before the 1/4 pole.

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

I don't know that there is any way to define "great"... I realize its apples to oranges, but Bo Jackson is by open lengths the "greatest" human athlete I have ever seen... but does that make him a "great" baseball player or an all-time "great" NFL player? When you compare Bo to Emmitt Smith, Terrell Davis, LDT, etc., on numbers alone he doesn't compare, but I think most people would say I'll take a healthy Bo over any of those "All-time Greats". Does that make Bo "Great"? I think so. I think there are three types of Greatness... your "compliers"- the Emmitt Smiths and the Cigars of the world, who are consistently outstanding performers, but don't necessarily give you the "holy sh*t, did I just see that" performance; your "freaks"- the Bo Jacksons and [insert equine athlete of your choice] of the world, that either due to injury or unforeseen circumstances don't get to produce for extended periods of time, but leave the indelible impression on you from those few dramatic and overly impressive performances; and the rarest of all, the ones who are both... the Secretariats, the Bids, the Jordans and the Tigers, of the world, who are "Great" no matter the definition.

Ability to be consistant and not go in and out of top form
Ability to handle a wide range of distances
Ability to handle tough trips, bad rides, and unfavorable circumstances
Ability to carry high weight or give weight away to good horses
Ability to run fast figures

thats funny, because invasor made bernardini look like a plow horse when they raced each other. just like he did to discreet cat. if you beat the best, you are the best. thats my problem with zenyatta, she beat leathal heat last out a horse that can't win diddly but is in zenyttas pp's a few times. to be great you have to travel around, beat the best and do it when things don't go your way. watch invasor win the witney when the pace was crawling, he closed anyway, or rachel winning the preakness and woodward. they dogged her all the way around and she held off the finishers. winning HARD races under HARD conditions makes you great. any horse can run 4 jumps and win against hopelessly lower comp! the great ones take all comers and goes any where to find them!

Awesome Again was not even close to those three when you look at overall body of work.

He's like A.P. Indy both as a race horse and sire.

Discreet Cat beat Invasor into a pulp when they first met in Dubai - and DC was a 3yo and Invasor a 4yo.

The 2nd time they met was in the Dubai World Cup ... Discreet Cat reportedly had all kinds of health problems and was last the whole way.. getting beat like 30 lengths and finishing well behind a Sauadi horse.

I think Da Tara would have smacked around the version of DC we saw at age 4.