Non-winners of an Eclipse or Championship

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Flower Alley improved a lot after Afleet Alex beat him a couple times. I don't think Afleet Alex would have beaten him in the Travers myself. He was a heavily raced horse that probably wasn't going to do much more developing. We'll never really know though.

I think when people rate a horse, they should base it on what the horse actually accomplished, not what he *might* have accomplished. Therefore, AA and SJ were just not great horses. Had SJ won the Belmont, sure, but he didn't. He Afleet Alex not lost to Giacomo and Closing Argument, sure.

The debate over "greatness" is far different than someone else calling a horse "not so afleet" with an intent to denegrate. I agree with you on the "great" debate in general. But as stated earlier, Count Fleet is universally regarded as a great horse and he never set foot on the track after the Belmont. And the Triple Crown isn't an end all and be all for greatness as Omaha is generally considered the worst horse to ever win the Triple Crown and in Beyer's columns of today would likely be called "undeserving."

[horseofcourse]

With the careers today, you never know...because they stop running. I used to have the detailed discussion with King glorious on another forum comparing the careers of Funny Cide and Smarty Jones through the Belmont Stakes and how speed figure wise they were very similar, both ran similar races in the Preakness and then Belmont Stakes in losing. Since FC was a gelding we actually got to see him continue. He was a very good 4 year old, and even had a decent 6 year old season, but he never came close to running as well as he did in the Wood, Ky Derby, and Preakness in my opinion. Or at least he never improved from then. He certainly never became a superstar. Which is why I discount much speculation on Smarty Jones or Afleet Alex continuing and what they really would have done as older horses. I guess the speculation makes for good conversation on these boards, but little else.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by FairPlay

The debate over "greatness" is far different than someone else calling a horse "not so afleet" with an intent to denegrate. I agree with you on the "great" debate in general. But as stated earlier, Count Fleet is universally regarded as a great horse and he never set foot on the track after the Belmont. And the Triple Crown isn't an end all and be all for greatness as Omaha is generally considered the worst horse to ever win the Triple Crown and in Beyer's columns of today would likely be called "undeserving."

i think the horses who were unable to continue on, count fleet and majestic prince for example, get more of a break when you consider where they fit in...smarty and point given could have returned from their injuries, alex as well had they not tried to rush him back in the fall, with every intention of retiring after the bcc--so there will be less of a rush to proclaim them as being all time greats(personally i don't think they fit into that group)because there are hard feelings about how they left.

and altho count fleet had an impressive career, i think he is rated far too high in the top 100 list. a top two and three year old, yes. one of the best ever? no.