Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
Perfect Drift actually made $4.7 million. He made over double what Commentator made. Commentator only made $2 million. Not only that, but 6 of Commentator's 14 wins were against New York breds.
In addition, I don't think it's fair to judge Perfect Drift off his last few years of racing. He was running as a 9 year old. He wasn't nearly as good of a horse during his 7,8, and 9 year old seasons as he was as a 4 and 5 year old.
Don't get me wrong, I think Commentator was a better horse. When he ran his best race, he was not going to lose to Perfect Drift. But if we are going to compare them, we need to compare them when they were both in top form. Who cares what Perfect Drift did as an 8 and 9 year old when he was over the hill.
Lava Man made $5.2 million. My big knock on him was that he couldn't win anywhere but Southern California. But when he was in top form in Southern California, there weren't too many horses that could beat him. Plus he did it on every surface- regular dirt, synthetic, and grass. He won a total of 7 grade I races. Commentator only won two. You guys like to look at speed figures. How many graded stakes wins did Lava Man have where he ran a 105 Beyer or higher? The answer is 9. How many did Commentator have? The answer is 3.
It's pretty hard to knock Lava Man's overall stats. When you look at the amount of money he won, the number of grade I races he won, how fast he ran, and all the different surfaces he did it on, it's pretty hard to knock him.
|
so, by using the logic of money won, curlin is the best horse ever?
perfect drift was more lucrative over his career, doesn't mean he was better. to say otherwise would be the same as saying mark rypien was a better QB than dan marino, because rypien won a super bowl.