[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

As I have stated many times in the past, I'm not sure who is calling Curlin this great horse, but it has never been me. I don't personally believe he was among the best of the last 25 years. What I have maintained is he was a very good horse on dirt. He was consistent, accomplished a hell of a lot in a short amount of time and was a very good horse in a time when that is rare.

Frankly, I could care less how he stacks up with champs of the past. Like I said earlier in this thread, there is no speed figure for his World Cup win, but if i had to take a guess, I think it would be closer to the 115-119 range you guys were looking for. You follow the game, do horses progress like they used to? Horses that run for trainers that take their time seem to. But I just don't think that a horse that wins the Preakness in his 5th start, 3 months after his career began is going to take the big step forward like some do as a 4 year old. Maybe if Curlin was a superhorse he would have, but he clearly is not. I'm not sure who says he is, but he is not. I could really care less what Asmussen says, because you know well enough to take trainerspeak as what it is.

I guess the arguement here is because Curlin wasn't running beyers in the 120 range that it somehow diminishes what he did. Sorry, I disagree. It's 2008. The game has changed, and for the worse. but, I know you know that. The days of the champs of the past are over.

I did acknowledge in my post that I know you don't subscribe to all that talk about him being some superhorse. And the argument here, at least not from me, isn't about trying to diminish what he did accomplish this year. Without question, he was the best older male to compete in the U.S this year. I don't think anyone is disputing that. His accomplishments are what they are. The only thing I'm arguing is that if a horse has established that he can run at the 114-119 level then he's set his par there. If he comes back and goes 110, 111, 112, that's below the par he's set for himself. My part of the argument has nothing to do with what he did this year or how good he was this year in comparison to what he had to face. He's not running below the par for the competition but he's below his personal par.