Best 2 year old ever POLL!!!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

Thanks Phalaris and I agree with your assessment of Favorite Trick compared to the past 2 yr old greats...but my feeling stands that in the last 10 or even 15 years what Favorite Trick did at 2 stands alone in this day of 2, 3 or 4 race campaigns for 2 yr olds. His 8 for 8 year winning some of the biggest races offered to 2 yr olds, including the biggest one is very unique in today's racing industry.

If you can find me a better more accomplished 2 yr old since 1990, go ahead. And that is some people's here only frame of reference.

He should be applauded for his accomplishments as a 2 yo but this thread was about the best ever not just the last 15 years.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

He should be applauded for his accomplishments as a 2 yo but this thread was about the best ever not just the last 15 years.

Of course, he isn't the best 2 yr old ever...but in all honesty, I would have no trouble with anyone placing him on a top 20 of all time juvy list. He certainly needs to be in this discussion of all time best 2 yr olds even if not the ultimate number 1.

[somerfrost]

Interesting thread and lots of good horses mentioned but really, only one mention of the greatest horse of all...Secretariat??? He has to be number one at two...certainly Colin, Native Dancer and many others were special but Secretariat is the gold standard! Favorite Trick was a wonderful two year old and deserves mention...and another one who has to be on any list...Count Fleet!

[Danzig]

colins perfect 12 for 12 season, including a record of .58 for 5 f, would be the gold standard.
count fleet and native dancer also deserve mention.

Originally Posted by Danzig188

colins perfect 12 for 12 season, including a record of .58 for 5 f, would be the gold standard.
count fleet and native dancer also deserve mention.

Throw in Man O'War and you've got the all-time Superfecta for 2 year olds.

[Phalaris1913]

Note that I haven't really offered my own opinions on this subject. There's more than one question at hand, really.

"Best (whatever)" is translated by different people as "Most talented" or "Most dominant" but the truth is, that's not always the same thing. A truly talented horse will dominate the opposition, but dominating opposition does not necessarily equate to extremely high talent. In fact, the less talented the opposition, the less talented you need to be to dominate it.

Therefore, looking at traditional measures of dominance (win record, winning margins, etc) is a start, not the end, of answering the question. If that's all it were, one could say, for example, that since Hindoo won 19 straight races at 3 in 1881 (counting a walkover), he must be the best US 3YO ever. Or that by beating one rival by whatever extreme margin that it really was, Man o' War proved in the Lawrence Realization that he was the best US 3YO ever. Of course these were both pretty good 3YOs, but IMHO as a racing observer and historian, that's barely the beginning of answering the question of "who was the best US 3YO?"

A lot of people seem to have real trouble dealing with the truth that winning many races or winning races by large margins is, in itself, not proof of greatness. All it is is proof that said horse is better than what walked into the gate next to him. Beating them a lot means that he's consistently better than these; winning by a lot means that he's much better than these. But there's a huge question being begged that as far as I'm concerned means as much as, if not more, than merely noting that this horse is better than the opposition and that is, how good IS the opposition?

Horse racing is inherently subjective, every race affected by countless variables, so there's never going to be answers that are 100 percent definitive, 100 percent provable, 100 percent reproducible - that is, answers that will satisfy the scientist in me. And that's why I shy away from declaring "best evers" and creating "top x" lists, because - honestly - the moment you rank two horses that didn't run against each other a number of times, what you're ranking is your opinion, not the relative talent of the horses.

That's not to say that it's not worth wondering and debating "best evers." Beyond the gambling aspect, that's one of the great purposes of horse racing - to experience horses so good that they must find their comparison in history, not in flesh-and-blood rivals. But I have to point out that if you're going to do that with any sort of validity, as soon as you think about what a horse accomplished, you have to do what you can to put it in perspective by asking yourself what it was accomplished against. How good was the opposition? What did they win, and against whom? When did they do it? Did a given rival horse put forth a credible effort on the meeting in question? When you find a horse competing against rivals who themselves won many comparable races over similar conditions in a reasonably close time frame and which offered a representative effort on the day they met, it changes everything. A narrow margin against high-class, in-form opposition means a lot more, IMHO, than a large winning margin against vastly inferior rivals. A few decent losses against really good rivals makes for a better race record than one with virtually no defeats compiled against utter nonentities.

That's the view I choose to take. I admit that I have exacting standards, and my standards, based upon horses doing enough to actually have worthwhile established form, are increasingly archaic, but this is where I stand.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Note that I haven't really offered my own opinions on this subject. There's more than one question at hand, really.

"Best (whatever)" is translated by different people as "Most talented" or "Most dominant" but the truth is, that's not always the same thing. A truly talented horse will dominate the opposition, but dominating opposition does not necessarily equate to extremely high talent. In fact, the less talented the opposition, the less talented you need to be to dominate it.

Therefore, looking at traditional measures of dominance (win record, winning margins, etc) is a start, not the end, of answering the question. If that's all it were, one could say, for example, that since Hindoo won 19 straight races at 3 in 1881 (counting a walkover), he must be the best US 3YO ever. Or that by beating one rival by whatever extreme margin that it really was, Man o' War proved in the Lawrence Realization that he was the best US 3YO ever. Of course these were both pretty good 3YOs, but IMHO as a racing observer and historian, that's barely the beginning of answering the question of "who was the best US 3YO?"

A lot of people seem to have real trouble dealing with the truth that winning many races or winning races by large margins is, in itself, not proof of greatness. All it is is proof that said horse is better than what walked into the gate next to him. Beating them a lot means that he's consistently better than these; winning by a lot means that he's much better than these. But there's a huge question being begged that as far as I'm concerned means as much as, if not more, than merely noting that this horse is better than the opposition and that is, how good IS the opposition?

Horse racing is inherently subjective, every race affected by countless variables, so there's never going to be answers that are 100 percent definitive, 100 percent provable, 100 percent reproducible - that is, answers that will satisfy the scientist in me. And that's why I shy away from declaring "best evers" and creating "top x" lists, because - honestly - the moment you rank two horses that didn't run against each other a number of times, what you're ranking is your opinion, not the relative talent of the horses.

That's not to say that it's not worth wondering and debating "best evers." Beyond the gambling aspect, that's one of the great purposes of horse racing - to experience horses so good that they must find their comparison in history, not in flesh-and-blood rivals. But I have to point out that if you're going to do that with any sort of validity, as soon as you think about what a horse accomplished, you have to do what you can to put it in perspective by asking yourself what it was accomplished against. How good was the opposition? What did they win, and against whom? When did they do it? Did a given rival horse put forth a credible effort on the meeting in question? When you find a horse competing against rivals who themselves won many comparable races over similar conditions in a reasonably close time frame and which offered a representative effort on the day they met, it changes everything. A narrow margin against high-class, in-form opposition means a lot more, IMHO, than a large winning margin against vastly inferior rivals. A few decent losses against really good rivals makes for a better race record than one with virtually no defeats compiled against utter nonentities.

That's the view I choose to take. I admit that I have exacting standards, and my standards, based upon horses doing enough to actually have worthwhile established form, are increasingly archaic, but this is where I stand.

All excellent points. For some reason, I think that horses who face the "inferior" or crap opposition (alledgedly!) get a bad rap as the old argument goes...the horse can't control who goes into the starting gate against him/her. And any horse that goes undefeated for a somewhat extended period be it Seattle Slew, Smarty Jones, Favorite Trick, Barbaro, will face that same argument of whom did they beat. And there is certainly legitimacy to it without question.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

All excellent points. For some reason, I think that horses who face the "inferior" or crap opposition (alledgedly!) get a bad rap as the old argument goes...the horse can't control who goes into the starting gate against him/her. And any horse that goes undefeated for a somewhat extended period be it Seattle Slew, Smarty Jones, Favorite Trick, Barbaro, will face that same argument of whom did they beat. And there is certainly legitimacy to it without question.

True...but measuring "who did they beat" with 2 year olds is even harder since so much changes between 2-3 (case in point of course was Favorite Trick). Anytime I print my list of "greatest ever" I get arguments on both my #1's...Secretariat because he did lose races, Kincsem cause she won 54 in a row but at a time when judging her competion is hard. Secretariat gets the ranking because I saw with my own eyes something I've never seen close to equaled, Kincsem cause...well, lots of reasons...54-54 lifetime, traveled all over Europe at a time when travel was extremely difficult, gave huge weight to the "best" male horses in Europe at the time, carried as much as 168 pounds over a distance...still, arguments can always be made! MOW's 100 length win in the Lawrence Realization was against one horse...a cheap horse named Hoodwink who was probably claiming level and entered as a favor to avoid the walkover so how can anyone even consider that win?

[Pedigree Ann]

I'm rather surprised that in discussing top 2yos that the name of Buckpasser hasn't come up. Won 9 of 11, including the Champagne and Hopeful, lost the Futurity when forced to run closer to the pace than he liked.

There have been two British-raced superwinners at 2 in the last few decades. Timeless Times, 1988, by Timeless Moment-Lovely Hobo, by Noholme II, won 16 of 21 starts at 2 and was listed-placed; similarly, Provideo, 1982, Godswalk-Nadwa, by Tyrant, won 16 races at two from I think it was 18 starts and was a listed winner.