Defining a great horse

[magic_idol]

Ability as a sprinter
Ability as a miler
Ability as a router
Ability to win major races
Ability to win with dominance
Ability to handle different surfaces
Ability to handle a wide range of distances

For me a great horse really there are few must have the ability to dominate as a youngster & carry through it's carrier not all 2 year olds go on as some are breed to run early & the rest catch up,being able to handle various conditions are a must i reckon & i do have a weak spot for horses with the Ability to handle a wide range of distances as there are very few like that, I reckon we give the word champion to easily & although i get voted out in arguments about older legends like Phar Lap etc Ability to run fast figures is a must for me if a horse from the past dosnt run the times of current great horses how can it be claimed better ?

[CSC]

One thing I look for that isn't addressed enough in my opinion is a horse's ability to handle regular racing or the longevity in a career. I do believe sporadic or one off performances can disguise weaknesses, as we touched upon if Arazi had retired after the BC he might have gone down as one of the greats of all time, time and racing are a great indicator in exposing a horse's weaknesses.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Arazi's Beyer for his BC Juvenile win was about the same as Jackson Bend's Beyer for his latest Calder win. For him to have gone down as a great horse if he retired at 2... the person defining what a great horse is would have to have these as his top four factors...

Ability as a 2yo
Visual likability
Ability to handle different surfaces
Ability to win with dominance


He would also have to have several factors on the list answered with doesn't matter at all.

Vindication never was beaten as a 2yo - and won the BC Juvenile with a slightly higher fig than Arazi ... he retired at 2 and he's been pretty much forgotten.