|
Defining a great horse
I'd be interested to know the most important common factors that people prefer when defining a great horse.
Rate the following factors as either... very important, important, not that important, or doesn't matter at all. And pick the 3-to-5 which you think are most important. Ability as a 2yo Ability as a 3yo Ability as an older horse Ability as a sprinter Ability as a miler Ability as a router Ability as a dirt horse Ability as a synthetic horse Ability as a turf horse Ability to win major races Ability to beat good horses Ability to run fast figures Ability to win with dominance Ability to stay sound and race often without big time gaps between starts Ability to carry high weight or give weight away to good horses Ability to have success as a stallion or broodmare Ability to be consistant and not go in and out of top form 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 Ability of the trainer. (for instance ... would you downgrade a horse like Saint Liam because he was 2-for-8 with all failed stakes attempts before getting transferred from a solid trainer to a miracle worker? Or to a more extreme, Would you upgrade the early form of horses like Rachel Alexandra and Rock Hard Ten because they were trained by guys with dismal stats?) Ability of the jockey. Competence of the management. (would you upgrade a horse because he was placed in illogical spots? Or to a greater extreme, would you downgrade a horse because he was placed in clever and calculated spots?) Visual likability. (would you upgrade or downgrade a horse based on flashiness? Flashy type of horses being like an Easy Goer or Arazi. Unflashy types being like a Skip Away .. who was often best when moved prematurely and would grind out steady wins with odd action) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
1. Ability as a dirt horse 2. Ability to beat good horses 3. Ability to run fast figures 4. Ability to be consistant and hold form 5. Ability to handle tough trips, bad rides, and unfavorable circumstances |
Ability as a sprinter
Ability as a miler Ability as a router Ability to win major races Ability to win with dominance Ability to handle different surfaces Ability to handle a wide range of distances For me a great horse really there are few must have the ability to dominate as a youngster & carry through it's carrier not all 2 year olds go on as some are breed to run early & the rest catch up,being able to handle various conditions are a must i reckon & i do have a weak spot for horses with the Ability to handle a wide range of distances as there are very few like that, I reckon we give the word champion to easily & although i get voted out in arguments about older legends like Phar Lap etc Ability to run fast figures is a must for me if a horse from the past dosnt run the times of current great horses how can it be claimed better ? |
One thing I look for that isn't addressed enough in my opinion is a horse's ability to handle regular racing or the longevity in a career. I do believe sporadic or one off performances can disguise weaknesses, as we touched upon if Arazi had retired after the BC he might have gone down as one of the greats of all time, time and racing are a great indicator in exposing a horse's weaknesses.
|
Arazi's Beyer for his BC Juvenile win was about the same as Jackson Bend's Beyer for his latest Calder win. For him to have gone down as a great horse if he retired at 2... the person defining what a great horse is would have to have these as his top four factors...
Ability as a 2yo Visual likability Ability to handle different surfaces Ability to win with dominance He would also have to have several factors on the list answered with doesn't matter at all. Vindication never was beaten as a 2yo - and won the BC Juvenile with a slightly higher fig than Arazi ... he retired at 2 and he's been pretty much forgotten. |
Quote:
those five....plus add in 'if people compare other horses to you in future, you were a great horse'. |
See Spectacular Bid. The whole freaking package.
|
Quote:
I am going to make a list of the great horses I have saw. Not that I have read our herd about, but that I have actually watched. Im 24 now and have been following for about 10 years. Clearly I might miss someone.... Bernardini Point Given Mineshaft Barbaro Rachel Alexandra Azeri Sightseek Zenyatta Curlin Street Sense Medaglia D Oro Candy Ride Midnight Lute |
Who have the popular Internet horses been?
Basically all the Fox Hill Farm horses right? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Street Sense broke the Juvy-Derby Jynx... Also added the Jim Dandy and Travers to it... Second in the Preakness and Second to a great form Hard Spun in the Turfway race. I think he was great. I |
Quote:
He basically pulled off a Mine That Bird twice ... and was otherwise nothing speical. |
Quote:
So the Juvy-Derby does not define Greatness? |
Street Sense was so not great.
NT |
Quote:
Remembering Giacomo as a 2yo ... I think he would have beaten Wilko had he run in the Juvie. To answer your question .. hell no! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
--Dunbar |
Quote:
NT |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It doesn't tilt the greatness scale in any way for me but, watching a horse win easily is a beautiful thing, and I prefer front-runners to closers. |
Quote:
It's one thing to say she isn't the best ever, but to say that she was 0-5 at Santa Anita is sort of conveniently forgetting to mention some pretty fabulous races she ran. |
Quote:
Especially now with the # of synthetic surfaces, if a horse demonstrated tremendous ability on turf and synthetic, for example, I could classify the horse as "great" even if it never performed on dirt, or performed poorly in a couple of attempts. Other than that I basically agree. 1. Ability to beat good horses 2. Ability to handle tough trips, bad rides, and unfavorable circumstances 3. Ability to run fast figures 4. Ability to win major races 5. Ability to handle a wide range of distances |
Quote:
I hear ya - but I never really understood why almost everyone seems to most associate Cigar with the toughness and consistentcy traits instead of Skip Away... considering they were both from about the same time period. I always thought Skip Away was clear cut the toughest and most consistant SOB of the 90's. Skip Away was stakes placed four times at age 2 - twice just missing in Graded Stakes races. At age 3, he won the Blue Grass by 6 lengths in his final Ky Derby prep, the eventual Preakness winner finished 2nd. The eventual Belmont winner finished 3rd. He ran in all 3 triple crown races .. as well as the Ohio Derby, Haskell, Travers, and Woodbine Million, before defeating the older Cigar in the Jockey Club Gold Cup. At age 4, he made 11 starts - 10 times running a Beyer of 112 or better - 9 times running a 115 or better and capped off the season with a 6 length Breeders Cup Classic win. At age 5, he won 7 of his 9 starts - 5 of which at the Grade 1 level. Carried as much as 131 pounds and raced in all the different major regions of the country. Cigar was extremely tough and consistant ... but it lasted a little less than 2 years... and he certainly didn't see anything like the brilliant level of competition Skip Away had to put up with throughout his entire career. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Look at the record Euro's have had against our best turf horses. A horse like Manila may have struck out with my #1 factor ... but he hit almost all of the important ones out of the ball park .. he's a no-brainer great horse... and look at all the trouble he had getting into the Hall of Fame. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
She had great ability and was an awesome figure horse for sure ... but her case for greatness is a cut or two below Lava Man and two or three cuts above Rock Hard Ten. |
Quote:
Her last two races at SA were horrible for her, but her earlier 3 races received beyers of 101, 105 and 108 - that is like freak figures in this day and age! Speaking of Lava Man...for me, he sort of fits into the latter part of your first post where your judgment on a particular horse can depend on circumstances and connections. |
Where would you put a horse like Formal Gold?
|
1. Smart Strike as your sire
2. Belva as your damn 3. Be foaled on April 10, 2002 |
Quote:
1. Ability as a dirt horse (Elite) 2. Ability to beat good horses (beat super horses with ease) 3. Ability to run fast figures (Elite) 4. Ability to be consistant and hold form (Fail) 5. Ability to handle tough trips, bad rides, and unfavorable circumstances (Never faced any major adversity in his big races) Probably too many flaws to consider a great horse ... but certainly an all-time great talent. |
Ability of a horse that can run and win at sprints as well as routes.
Ability of a horse that can run and win as a closer, stalker or front runner. Ghostzapper |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.