Mineshaft - am I losing my mind?

Originally Posted by Seattleallstar

defintely a good horse but you cant label a horse great, when he really never faced the best that year.

Beating up on Volponi, Perfect Drift, Evening Attire, Quest, Hold That Tiger, Puzzlement..lol...lol, hell I even think he ran in a race with Dollar Bill in it and a great sprinter in Aldebaran hardly makes him great.

No Congaree, no Plesantly Perfect, Medaglia

Thats kinda like saying Larry Holmes wasn't great because during his reign there wasn't anyone around worth a damn to fight. You could tell from watching the guy that he coulda beat greats, they just werent around in his time.
I'm a sheet guy, and Mineshaft's sheet numbers match up with anyone in history. He was truly great.
I hear the same **** about Cigar from time to time as well, but I just dont buy it. You can see greatness in a horse even if its beating noone, so long as its beating noone the right way.

[bogeydaman]

defintely a good horse but you cant label a horse great, when he really never faced the best that year.

Beating up on Volponi, Perfect Drift, Evening Attire, Quest, Hold That Tiger, Puzzlement..lol...lol, hell I even think he ran in a race with Dollar Bill in it and a great sprinter in Aldebaran hardly makes him great.

No Congaree, no Plesantly Perfect, Medaglia

If Mineshaft is not great, then please give me a list of great horses who have raced over the last 10 years?

Originally Posted by bogeydaman

defintely a good horse but you cant label a horse great, when he really never faced the best that year.

Beating up on Volponi, Perfect Drift, Evening Attire, Quest, Hold That Tiger, Puzzlement..lol...lol, hell I even think he ran in a race with Dollar Bill in it and a great sprinter in Aldebaran hardly makes him great.

No Congaree, no Plesantly Perfect, Medaglia

If Mineshaft is not great, then please give me a list of great horses who have raced over the last 10 years?

Hes doesnt get it pal. He mentions Congaree as a great(and he was, up to a certain distance, one of the best milers of all time, ever!) but he was beaten at times by Scorpion and Milwaukee Brew. I guess this poster feels that both those horses should go down in history as all time greats right?
You can't judge a horse by any one criteria. Afleet Alex beat NOTHING last year, and I mean NOTHING!!!!! He actually lost to Giacomo(ouch) and beat Scrappy T in the Preakness and then beat Andromedas Hero and Nolans Cat in the Belmont( go ahead and try to find a horse in tri crown history who beat worse) but that doesnt mean Alex wasnt great. Fact is he really shredded them with enough authority that you could make the case that he may have beaten greats if they were around. That argument simply doesnt hold water from a pure common sense standpoint. This poster would have us believe that a rule exists in the universe that a horse can only truly be great if there is another great horse that year to beat.Thats not always possible. For every year with Affirmed and Alydar we have many more years where two great horses dont exist in the same year. Its nonsense to use that as a sole criteria.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Hes doesnt get it pal. He mentions Congaree as a great(and he was, up to a certain distance, one of the best milers of all time, ever!) but he was beaten at times by Scorpion and Milwaukee Brew. I guess this poster feels that both those horses should go down in history as all time greats right?
You can't judge a horse by any one criteria. Afleet Alex beat NOTHING last year, and I mean NOTHING!!!!! He actually lost to Giacomo(ouch) and beat Scrappy T in the Preakness and then beat Andromedas Hero and Nolans Cat in the Belmont( go ahead and try to find a horse in tri crown history who beat worse) but that doesnt mean Alex wasnt great. Fact is he really shredded them with enough authority that you could make the case that he may have beaten greats if they were around. That argument simply doesnt hold water from a pure common sense standpoint. This poster would have us believe that a rule exists in the universe that a horse can only truly be great if there is another great horse that year to beat.Thats not always possible. For every year with Affirmed and Alydar we have many more years where two great horses dont exist in the same year. Its nonsense to use that as a sole criteria.

What I dont understand is that a horse is only great if that horse only loses 1 or less races a year. But then people bitch because he didnt run against anyone....well, if he beat everyone then he was so good that no one else had a chance. That is called greatness.

Mineshaft was an unreal horse. To me a great horse is a horse who crosses the wire first time after time after time. This is what Mineshaft did.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

What I dont understand is that a horse is only great if that horse only loses 1 or less races a year. But then people bitch because he didnt run against anyone....well, if he beat everyone then he was so good that no one else had a chance. That is called greatness.

Mineshaft was an unreal horse. To me a great horse is a horse who crosses the wire first time after time after time. This is what Mineshaft did.

Euro its the younger know it all guys who seem to make these arguments. Its a generational thing called what have you done for me lately. And its quite comical. A few posters on here are always calling horses "rats". You know, the kind of rats who have already banked 600g- 1 million bucks. They generally make these statements after one sub par outing. Earlier this year(I have your names, I have your posts) peopel were railing on about Sun King being a "rat". All hes done since then is win the Commonwealth and get beat a head in the Met. Man would I LOVE and DREAM to own 10% of a rat like that. All that cash and a liscense to go to stud now and make some more cash.
The guys who make these statements know NOTHING about horses and the physical problems or form cycles they get into. They think they are cars and the concepts of popped splints, entrapping, quarter cracks, etc. mean nothing to them. All they say is, hes a rat, because the horse lost. The fact that they know nothing about horses themselves is besides the point, they truly feel qualified to judge a horse a rat.
The new generation of horsefan seems to have teh following criteria for greatness: 1) You must never lose(especially a race that they bet)
2) You must never have an off day or sub par day(which basically means you must never bleed, entrap, jam up a foot, grab a quarter, pop a splint, buck shins, or suffer a fracture)
3) You must run your races in track record or near track record times.
4) You must never duck who they "say" is the main competition in their division. You must always face the very best you can find even if it makes no sense to do so due to time contraints betwen races or traveling to a strange place.

How maniacal is that?

Originally Posted by oracle80

Euro its the younger know it all guys who seem to make these arguments. Its a generational thing called what have you done for me lately. And its quite comical. A few posters on here are always calling horses "rats". You know, the kind of rats who have already banked 600g- 1 million bucks. They generally make these statements after one sub par outing. Earlier this year(I have your names, I have your posts) peopel were railing on about Sun King being a "rat". All hes done since then is win the Commonwealth and get beat a head in the Met. Man would I LOVE and DREAM to own 10% of a rat like that. All that cash and a liscense to go to stud now and make some more cash.
The guys who make these statements know NOTHING about horses and the physical problems or form cycles they get into. They think they are cars and the concepts of popped splints, entrapping, quarter cracks, etc. mean nothing to them. All they say is, hes a rat, because the horse lost. The fact that they know nothing about horses themselves is besides the point, they truly feel qualified to judge a horse a rat.
The new generation of horsefan seems to have teh following criteria for greatness: 1) You must never lose(especially a race that they bet)
2) You must never have an off day or sub par day(which basically means you must never bleed, entrap, jam up a foot, grab a quarter, pop a splint, buck shins, or suffer a fracture)
3) You must run your races in track record or near track record times.
4) You must never duck who they "say" is the main competition in their division. You must always face the very best you can find even if it makes no sense to do so due to time contraints betwen races or traveling to a strange place.

How maniacal is that?

According to that citeria, Azeri wouldnt have been a rat. Man, I miss that horse. She was just something that made me speechless. But to the young people she lost to Mayo On The Side--lost in the Classic so she is a rat--ha ha.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

According to that citeria, Azeri wouldnt have been a rat. Man, I miss that horse. She was just something that made me speechless. But to the young people she lost to Mayo On The Side--lost in the Classic so she is a rat--ha ha.

Yep, and Congaree was a rat because he lost to Scorpion. OH!! And Ghostzappper was a rat also because he lost the Kings Bishop. Hmm, I guess the only horse in the last 80 years or so who wasnt a rat was Personal Ensign. Secretariat definitely was a rat because he lost to Onion. Well, I think you get the point.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

According to that citeria, Azeri wouldnt have been a rat. Man, I miss that horse. She was just something that made me speechless. But to the young people she lost to Mayo On The Side--lost in the Classic so she is a rat--ha ha.

I miss Azeri too. It broke my heart the way she tried to go with the boys in the 2004 Classic. She was trying with everything she had and just couldn't do it. Even though she finished 5th, she still beat some very, very good horses. You couldn't have had a stronger Classic field than you did that year. It was was one for the ages. I thought Azeri's performance in the BCC was outstanding even though she didn't win. It showed just how much courage, heart, and try she had in her. In any other year, she would have definitely finished in the money.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Euro its the younger know it all guys who seem to make these arguments. Its a generational thing called what have you done for me lately. And its quite comical. A few posters on here are always calling horses "rats". You know, the kind of rats who have already banked 600g- 1 million bucks. They generally make these statements after one sub par outing. Earlier this year(I have your names, I have your posts) peopel were railing on about Sun King being a "rat". All hes done since then is win the Commonwealth and get beat a head in the Met. Man would I LOVE and DREAM to own 10% of a rat like that. All that cash and a liscense to go to stud now and make some more cash.
The guys who make these statements know NOTHING about horses and the physical problems or form cycles they get into. They think they are cars and the concepts of popped splints, entrapping, quarter cracks, etc. mean nothing to them. All they say is, hes a rat, because the horse lost. The fact that they know nothing about horses themselves is besides the point, they truly feel qualified to judge a horse a rat.
The new generation of horsefan seems to have teh following criteria for greatness: 1) You must never lose(especially a race that they bet)
2) You must never have an off day or sub par day(which basically means you must never bleed, entrap, jam up a foot, grab a quarter, pop a splint, buck shins, or suffer a fracture)
3) You must run your races in track record or near track record times.
4) You must never duck who they "say" is the main competition in their division. You must always face the very best you can find even if it makes no sense to do so due to time contraints betwen races or traveling to a strange place.

How maniacal is that?

You should have heard the things being said about Aptitude when he was finishing 2nd in so many big races. Someone actually said he should be sent to the glue factory! That is a kind of horse most people would kill for - finishing 2nd in the Derby? He should have won the Belmont, too........Ok, he developed a huge finishing kick later in his career, but even had he not....wow. I suspected at the time it's because he was by AP Indy -as if there was a resentment against a horse (Indy) that was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and was handed great broodmars on a silver platter. It's interesting - fans like Storm Cat and other sires who've had to work their way up to greatness, but they hate Indy, who they claim is only good because of the mares he gets.

[Seattleallstar]

**** you oracle and your sanctimonious bs.

Jerrys TOp horses in the last 10 years

1.Dubai Millennium---GHOSTZAPPER
2.Rock Of Gibraltar
3.Candy Ride
4.Point Given
5.Fusaichi Pegasus
6.Mineshaft--see there he is
7.Azeri
8.High Chapparal
9.Dalakhani
10.Cigar

Originally Posted by Seattleallstar

**** you oracle and your sanctimonious bs.

Jerrys TOp horses in the last 10 years

1.Dubai Millennium
2.Rock Of Gibraltar
3.Candy Ride
4.Point Given
5.Fusaichi Pegasus
6.Mineshaft--see there he is
7.Azeri
8.High Chapparal
9.Dalakhani
10.Cigar

LOL!!!! Candy Ride at number three!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And no Personal Ensign. Point Given at 4, but genius boy, he beat Touch Tone, Ap Valentine, and E Dubai, how could he be great when he never beat anyone great? LOL!!!!!! This list is a train wreck. And FuPeg? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yeah, ok, sure. And Ghostzapper isn't in the top ten? You are embarassing yourself Seattle.

Originally Posted by Seattleallstar

**** you oracle and your sanctimonious bs.

Jerrys TOp horses in the last 10 years

1.Dubai Millennium---GHOSTZAPPER
2.Rock Of Gibraltar
3.Candy Ride
4.Point Given
5.Fusaichi Pegasus
6.Mineshaft--see there he is
7.Azeri
8.High Chapparal
9.Dalakhani
10.Cigar

That list is a bit odd. How can you not have Ghostzapper or Deep Impact on it? How can you put Candy Ride at 3? How is Cigar 10? Fu-Peg--ha ha.

Originally Posted by Seattleallstar

**** you oracle and your sanctimonious bs.

Jerrys TOp horses in the last 10 years

1.Dubai Millennium---GHOSTZAPPER
2.Rock Of Gibraltar
3.Candy Ride
4.Point Given
5.Fusaichi Pegasus
6.Mineshaft--see there he is
7.Azeri
8.High Chapparal
9.Dalakhani
10.Cigar

Nice edit!!! Glad I could be of some assistance, of course this then becomes a top 11 list, and you now have Cigar not in the top ten but do include Fu Peg(LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and Candy Ride(LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). Go find me two sane human beings that think that Candy Ride and FuPeg rate above Cigar and get back to me.

[Seattleallstar]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Nice edit!!! Glad I could be of some assistance, of course this then becomes a top 11 list, and you now have Cigar not in the top ten but do include Fu Peg(LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and Candy Ride(LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). Go find me two sane human beings that think that Candy Ride and FuPeg rate above Cigar and get back to me.

sorry azzhole, it was thunder gulch's post that reminded me. I should probably take off Cigar and put in Left Bank instead

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by Seattleallstar

**** you oracle and your sanctimonious bs.

Jerrys TOp horses in the last 10 years

1.Dubai Millennium---GHOSTZAPPER
2.Rock Of Gibraltar
3.Candy Ride
4.Point Given
5.Fusaichi Pegasus
6.Mineshaft--see there he is
7.Azeri
8.High Chapparal
9.Dalakhani
10.Cigar

Jerry Brown is a clown (is it Jerry Brown) if he thinks Point Given or Fusaichi was anywhere as good as Mineshaft. And I still can't account for Candy Ride being up there when Mineshaft is #6 - because CR beat MDO? Well, MDO ducked Mineshaft for Candy Ride, so that tells you what Bobby Frankel thought.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Betsy

Jerry Brown is a clown (is it Jerry Brown) if he thinks Point Given or Fusaichi was anywhere as good as Mineshaft. And I still can't account for Candy Ride being up there when Mineshaft is #6 - because CR beat MDO? Well, MDO ducked Mineshaft for Candy Ride, so that tells you what Bobby Frankel thought.

Betsy, he is not Jerry Brown....And if you talk to Brown like I have about Minehsaft he will tell you just how fast his numbers are compared to the rest of the lot.

Originally Posted by bogeydaman

If Mineshaft is not great, then please give me a list of great horses who have raced over the last 10 years?

I think the word "great" should be used very sparingly.

I only use it to describe horses who were champions every year that they raced ... or who just missed out being champion to another great horse ... especially starting as a 2YO ... and hopefully going through to 4YO.

By this definition ... Spectacular Bid was the last great American race horse.

There have been some very successful, high-quality race horses since then ... including Mineshaft ... who deserve to be in the Hall Of Fame ... but none to whom I would apply the pantheon word "great."