Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sightseek
If you look at it from a historical perspective, yes they won "big" races, but look at the horses who won those races before them:
http://www.pedigreequery.com/index.p...ld=view&id=288
Tale of Ekati and Harlem Rocker would have barely been on the screen if they were up against some of those horses. Macho Again lost to Bullsbay - the same Bullsbay who is probably one of the worst Whitney winners ever. Court Vision has burned more of my money than any horse who ever ran so I won't go there.  My point was, the quality of the horses running in last years triple crown races and up to this year as older horses is markedly poor. While they may have won this race and that race, it doesn't make them any more talented.
We forgot to mention the wonderful Mambo In Seattle in this conversation.  Last year's Travers was exciting because it was the first in a long time where it wasn't either a super horse cantering to victory or a small field, but it wasn't that talented of a field.
Personally I don't like how Colonel John was campaigned from the Travers to his turf victory so seeing him win that last race was neat. |
Comparing eras...that's a wide open discussion open to intrepetation, there are alot of mediocre races nowadays, I said earlier the days of campaigning a Cigar like horse are almost extinct, the better horses retire and are sent off to the farm. Which is a reason why we get horses beating each other now, this is probably what we have to look fwd to, if a horse is so good there is little chance of seeing them past their 3 yr old season, if we are lucky some run as a 4 yr old like Curlin, and even with him I can't say he was in the class of Cigar.
Colonel John may be Pacific Classic bound, if he wins that then what? He will have beaten Rail Trip and Informed. It probably won't get him a huge amount of respect but that's racing today. Thanks for the thoughtful response.