I obviously don't hold the fact that Azeri wasn't beating tough fields against her - I just don't think she was on the same level as the other superstars from a decade and two prior.

She was very good and very consistant - and didn't run for hop trainers - but being the best filly or mare of this decade is a lot like being the prettiest girl at the fat camp.

She's trained by Heady Lamarr.

1:45 4/5th is an insane time. Go for wand was awesome!

2/5's off of Secretariat's track record. And this came after a Saratoga meet where she won the Test in 1:21 and came back nine days later to win the Alabama in 2:00 4/5.

lakeway went 145.4 going 9f both earlier in her 3yo season and on a track that was a 2 turn 9f race.

She went 1:46 4/5 in the Hollywood Oaks. She went 1:46 2/5 in the Mother Goose. That Hollywood race was brilliant.

I'm 31, for the record. I never saw any of the above in person. Nor was I a fan of the sport then.

oops! thanks for the correction. are you sure it was only 46.4 for the oaks though?

and yeah, her hollywood oaks win was electrifying.

I'm almost positive. I was there. I had bet Sardula, another really underrated filly. It takes a pretty talented filly to be able to run fast enough to go 1:21 and change and win a grade two race (now grade one) and also be able to win the Kentucky Oaks.

that's headley!:D

"I didn't get a harrumph from that guy!"

harrumph!:D

well this debate will never end but i think elliot made the right choice that day, he couldnt just sit out wide all the way around, smarty woulda been beaten by more had he done that

The Triple Crown offers a myriad of challenges to any horse and that is the real reason why it is so elusive and difficult to win. Inevitably in a challenging three race series even the best horse will be faced with situations that prevent it from overcoming the obstacles. More often than not the Derby is the toughest race due to the extreme field size. Smarty Jones's Derby was dramatically compromised by the thunderstorms that turned the track into a quagmire and prevented a true race from being run. But, ultimately he was unable to succeed in all three races, whether it was rider error or a more fairly run race that eventually did him in. Much like Afleet Alex and Point Given, Smarty Jones was most likely the best horse of his generation, but not good enough to win the Triple Crown. That doesn't diminish his talents....it is merely the reality of the situation.

IMO, compared to the rest of their crops, all three of them were easily good enough to win the triple crown, they just didn't do it.

They didn't " just not do it. " They lost becuase they weren't so vastly superior to their opposition to overcome all the obstacles the Triple Crown presented.

Sure each could have won the race they lost if they ran it ten times....but each would have lost another leg had they run that one ten times.

I hear ya.

But, each of them were good enough to do it. In one case (PG Derby) a horse just didn't fire - and in two cases (AA Derby & and SJ Belmont) I think they both clearly ran the best race of anyone - albiet in losing efforts.

You look at a horse like Real Quiet - who was smoked by Indian Charlie in the SA Derby and had embarassing losses in Northern California and at Santa Fe Downs earlier on....with a highly criticized Belmont ride, he came within a nosebob of a triple crown sweep.

I do understand your point, however, contrary to recent history and all the stats, I'm not really sure you have to be so vastly superior to your opposition to sweep the series. It just seems that way.

Same with Silver Charm. A lot of people speculated that, because of the type of heart he had, if he had seen Touch Gold coming up on him in the Belmont, he might have dug in and held him off. What people forget is that had it not been for horrible racing luck in the Preakness, Touch Gold would have won that race too and he, not Silver Charm would have been the dual classic winner. Instead it was SC that got the honors. I think in his case, not only was he not vastly superior, I don't even think he was superior at all.

To me the key to the '04 TC has always been that on a dry surface going 12f, Smarty Jones was simply not that much better than Birdstone....if he was even better at all under those particular conditions.
Clearly Smarty was the superior animal overall. Smarty was, I believe, vastly superior to Birdstone at any distance up to and including 10f. He was also vastly superior to Birdstone on an off track. But at 12f on a dry track, he was NOT vastly superior.
Therfore, when Smarty was faced with an unfavorable pace and position scenario like he was that day, he couldn't defeat Birdstone.
When people that say that JB "cost Smarty the TC" with his ride on Eddington that day, I think they are really simplifying what happened to the point of absurdity.

I think the pre-mature inside bid by Rock Hard Ten had a lot more to do with Smarty Jones coming off the bridle in the stretch - than the fact that Bailey used up Eddington a little bit real early in order to try and keep Smarty Jones honest.

Had Rock Hard Ten been ridden competently - SJ wins the race.

I was very skeptical a son of Elusive Quality out of a Smile mare would be effective at 12 furlongs going into that race - however, he had every right to spit the bit late the way that race was run.

If Touch Gold had been able to stay healthy, I'm not sure that Silver Charm would have shown he was superior. The end result is clearly that SC accomplished more. But when both horses were at their best, I'd take Touch Gold over him every time.

I completely agree with King Glorious....when both horses were at their best Touch Gold was a superior horse to Silver Charm. However, Silver Charm accomplished more as Touch Gold was sound for about 12 minutes. But, he was some racehorse during those 12 minutes.

Hell, he acted as his own rabbit in the Belmont, and still won.

Yes, I think he was the best horse from that crop. In fact, I think when he was sound he was one of the better horses since then. I think a healthy Touch Gold was better than Bernardini, Invasor, Saint Liam and this year's entire 3YO crop. The only horse in the last ten years I'm reasonably confident he couldn't beat is Ghostzapper.

TG is from the same tail female family as the always sound Discreet Cat.

The only other race I can think of that you are missing is the Lexington. He won easily that day over Smoke Glacken. Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...&search=Search
Touch Gold was a good horse when on his game, but he remains one of my least favorite horses of the last ten years.

While it is obviuosly unusual (and impressive) to see a horse go from first, to fourth, and then back to first in a race, he did go the opening half mile in :49.1, so I don't know that I would use the term "rabbit."

Yes, Touch Gold got good for a short period of time, but this is the same horse who was 1-for-4 in Canada as a 2YO, and only 6-for-15 lifetime. One can argue that he may have been the most "talented" horse from his generation but that is a far different thing from being the "best" which I equate with being "accomplished." I know I'm walking into a hornet's next with this question, but by that way of thinking, where do we put Discreet Cat?

Discreet Cat's running in the Vosburgh as a prep for the Breeders' Cup. I can't believe that you're skeptical of his ability to make both races.

Discreet Cat runs when he wants to run.

He's the Randy Moss of horse racing.

You can never have enough Randy Moss's

I don't remember the race exactly, but wasn't Wild Rush, another Stronach runner (different trainer), on the lead that day?

Sort of....and I was actually joking. Touch Gold went to the lead early, in a reasonably slow pace, then dropped back a bit, and rallied to win.

I think Wild Rush was up front though I think the field was pretty compact.