Defining a great horse

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Skip Away did beat Cigar by a nose that day, but maybe the 5 lb weight break had something to do with it!

--Dunbar

This a point that isn't brought up enough in my opinion, Skip Away beat Cigar by a head that day while getting a 5lb advantage. If that is the best he could do with a Cigar probably past his prime, one must wonder how he would have fared against Cigar when he was at his best. Not as well, one would surmise.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by CSC

This a point that isn't brought up enough in my opinion, Skip Away beat Cigar by a head that day while getting a 5lb advantage. If that is the best he could do with a Cigar probably past his prime, one must wonder how he would have fared against Cigar when he was at his best. Not as well, one would surmise.

Well wasnt Skip Away 3 years old? Try having Skip Away at HIS prime and Cigar at his prime if you want to make this kind of comparison.

But I know you always think the 2nd place finisher is better than the first place finisher

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Well wasnt Skip Away 3 years old? Try having Skip Away at HIS prime and Cigar at his prime if you want to make this kind of comparison.

But I know you always think the 2nd place finisher is better than the first place finisher

In a 5 race series all things equal, I would take Cigar over Skip Away whether it's 1 1/8 or 1 1/4. Skip Away at his best was very good but in terms of consistency Cigar would be my choice, You knew he would always run his race. I do know Bailey in his book was emphatic that he was the best horse he had ever ridden and he would know, but I understand the interest in comparing horses. I'm actually more interested how Cigar would have matched up with Holy Bull, that is the rivalry that for unfortunate reasons never materialized.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Well wasnt Skip Away 3 years old? Try having Skip Away at HIS prime and Cigar at his prime if you want to make this kind of comparison.

Yes, I knew I was opening a can of worms with the weight comment. I agree that Skip Away had yet to reach his peak ability. The flip side is that Cigar had already been to Dubai that year and was pretty clearly past his prime.

Since we can't have each at his prime, we can only look at the race we did get. I don't think the 3-yr-old Skip Away would have beaten the 6-yr-old Cigar at equal weights that day.

--Dunbar

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I would give Skip Away a slight edge over both Holy Bull and Cigar.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I would give Skip Away a slight edge over both Holy Bull and Cigar.

I'd give Awesome Again a slight edge over all three.

And a chasm advantage in the shed.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by philcski

I'd give Awesome Again a slight edge over all three.

And a chasm advantage in the shed.

Awesome Again was not even close to those three when you look at overall body of work.

He's like A.P. Indy both as a race horse and sire.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by CSC

This a point that isn't brought up enough in my opinion, Skip Away beat Cigar by a head that day while getting a 5lb advantage. If that is the best he could do with a Cigar probably past his prime, one must wonder how he would have fared against Cigar when he was at his best. Not as well, one would surmise.

The problem with this is that Cigar was just as good at the end of 1996 as he was at the end of 1995. His races in the Woodward, JCGC, and BC Classic were every bit as good the seconed time as the first. The difference was the competition. Whereas in 1995, he was facing the likes of Unaccounted For and L'Carriere, the next year it was Skip Away, Louis Quartorze, and Alphabet Soup. Had he had the same comp in 1996 as he did the previous years, he would have won the races again.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

The problem with this is that Cigar was just as good at the end of 1996 as he was at the end of 1995. His races in the Woodward, JCGC, and BC Classic were every bit as good the seconed time as the first. The difference was the competition. Whereas in 1995, he was facing the likes of Unaccounted For and L'Carriere, the next year it was Skip Away, Louis Quartorze, and Alphabet Soup. Had he had the same comp in 1996 as he did the previous years, he would have won the races again.

I've heard that before, but that is inconclusive, we can wish for Holy Bull and Skip Away all to have run in the same era also, but that's not going to happen. The only thing I go by is visually watching his races and using an experienced eye to analyze it, I don't subscribe to the beyer comparison's as definitive as many do here, but after the Pacific Classic you can hear it it Bailey's interview afterward as much as he didn't wanted to say it, I think his quote was " I didn't think there was any scenario in a race that Cigar couldn't overcome" until today. He took the heat for laying down impossible fractions 1:09 and change for 6 furlongs in the Pacific where he may have survived that battle in 95 but not 96, but more importantly he was intimating this was not the same Cigar after the race. In my opinion this was most likely the case also.

[CSC]

Post Race Pacific Classic Mott & Bailey Interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgZ-x...eature=related

And The Race itself: Geeze whatever happened to racing...What a race. Look at Dramatic Gold pulled up before the 1/4 pole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDJD_jjvqRk

[smuthg]

I don't know that there is any way to define "great"... I realize its apples to oranges, but Bo Jackson is by open lengths the "greatest" human athlete I have ever seen... but does that make him a "great" baseball player or an all-time "great" NFL player? When you compare Bo to Emmitt Smith, Terrell Davis, LDT, etc., on numbers alone he doesn't compare, but I think most people would say I'll take a healthy Bo over any of those "All-time Greats". Does that make Bo "Great"? I think so. I think there are three types of Greatness... your "compliers"- the Emmitt Smiths and the Cigars of the world, who are consistently outstanding performers, but don't necessarily give you the "holy sh*t, did I just see that" performance; your "freaks"- the Bo Jacksons and [insert equine athlete of your choice] of the world, that either due to injury or unforeseen circumstances don't get to produce for extended periods of time, but leave the indelible impression on you from those few dramatic and overly impressive performances; and the rarest of all, the ones who are both... the Secretariats, the Bids, the Jordans and the Tigers, of the world, who are "Great" no matter the definition.