Quote:
Originally Posted by King Glorious
Some people need to see things and some want to see things. I definitely would have wanted to see him run more but I don't need to see it to know what I'm watching. Each subsequent race would have been more for the purpose of confirmation/validation than it would have been for proof. Let's say he didn't retire and came back next year with six races. Say he won all six but none of them were as brilliant as his first six races. How does that make him better? That's the part I don't get. He is what he is. I judge them based on how good I think they are at their best. If you want to talk about best career, that's a completely different argument. But most talented? I think we can determine that in just six starts. Maybe less.
There was a horse in Europe in the mid 1990s named Lammtarra. He broke his maiden in August of his 2yo season. Didn't run again for 302 days until the Epsom Derby. Won that race in course record time. Then won the King George and the Arc (over Freedom Cry and Swain). He retired with four starts, four wins.
Imagine what we would be saying about an American horse that breaks his maiden in August then doesn't race again until the Kentucky Derby. Wins that then comes back to win the Whitney in his next start then finishes with a win in the BC Classic.
|
We would be saying he was a fast laimo