How do you.....

[robfla]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It also helps to overcome adversity at a very high level....
The ability to win at a very high level when things don't go your own way.

like Invasor in the Whitney - way too close to a fast pace, crazy middle move and still wins.



edit: lets not forget his Donn race... where is Jara now??

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by robfla

like Invasor in the Whitney - way too close to a fast pace, crazy middle move and still wins.

He was a lot faster than Afleet Alex but not as fast as the real greats of the past. To me he was pretty much as good as Cigar...though Cigar was a little faster on his best days.

Here's the problem as I see it, to many people who haven't followed the game for that long, and don't know the history, these horses are special....because relative to what they've seen they are, in fact, special. Now, in the short term there's nothing specifically wrong with that, but in relation to the true greats these horses are also rans. That doesn't mean they aren't very good horses, but it also doesn't put them in the rarified air of the true greats, and if you are going to attach the word " great " to a horse it is competing with history....and not just the personal history of the judger.

[robfla]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

He was a lot faster than Afleet Alex but not as fast as the real greats of the past. To me he was pretty much as good as Cigar...though Cigar was a little faster on his best days.

Here's the problem as I see it, to many people who haven't followed the game for that long, and don't know the history, these horses are special....because relative to what they've seen they are, in fact, special. Now, in the short term there's nothing specifically wrong with that, but in relation to the true greats these horses are also rans. That doesn't mean they aren't very good horses, but it also doesn't put them in the rarified air of the true greats, and if you are going to attach the word " great " to a horse it is competing with history....and not just the personal history of the judger.

in today's state of racing we will never have another " great " horse.

[MaTH716]

What about a horse like Left Bank. Multiple Graded wins and track records at 2 different distances?

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

What about a horse like Left Bank. Multiple Graded wins and track records at 2 different distances?

Track records are highly overrated. They are too much a function of track condition and not enough of a function of the horse's brilliance.

[Indian Charlie]

Must win at least one superbowl

[King Glorious]

For me, it's the ability to not just compete but win the majority of times that a horse faces the highest levels of his/her competition while either running fast times or earning high figures or preferrably both and doing it under a variety of different circumstances. I look at horses that travel well and horses that run on different kinds of surfaces and give them extra credit.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

What about a horse like Left Bank. Multiple Graded wins and track records at 2 different distances?

Left Bank had a very good couple of months and a very disappointing couple of years.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by robfla

in today's state of racing we will never have another " great " horse.

Whatever, Bold Ruler was a miler.

Seriously though, to expand on robfla's point, if one of our qualifications is going to be "longevity" or even "beat the best competition" then there will be no more great horses. Horses no longer stick around, and trainers and owners duck other stars more often than not.

Today, it MOSTLY boils down to talent in my eyes. Hence why I think Ghostzapper was great. He wasn't sturdy, he didn't beat any other great horses (although he beat some very good ones) and he certainly didn't hang around long. His talent level and versatility, however, were absurd. Ghostzapper was one of a kind, and when your ability is that far above anything that's run in the past decade, you're great.

People will disagree with me and put horses like Invasor or Pleasantly Perfect over Ghostzapper because they danced more dances, but I'll take brilliance over longevity when it's not truly longevity, but a very relative version of it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Whatever, Bold Ruler was a miler.

Seriously though, to expand on robfla's point, if one of our qualifications is going to be "longevity" or even "beat the best competition" then there will be no more great horses. Horses no longer stick around, and trainers and owners duck other stars more often than not.

Today, it MOSTLY boils down to talent in my eyes. Hence why I think Ghostzapper was great. He wasn't sturdy, he didn't beat any other great horses (although he beat some very good ones) and he certainly didn't hang around long. His talent level and versatility, however, were absurd. Ghostzapper was one of a kind, and when your ability is that far above anything that's run in the past decade, you're great.

People will disagree with me and put horses like Invasor or Pleasantly Perfect over Ghostzapper because they danced more dances, but I'll take brilliance over longevity when it's not truly longevity, but a very relative version of it.

so be it.
if you water down the qualifications, then it doesn't mean as much.
like i've seen written before on the subject, 'great isn't so great anymore'.

it's like what we now know as the steroids era in baseball....horses will be modern day greats, they can no longer be compared historically.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

He was a lot faster than Afleet Alex but not as fast as the real greats of the past. To me he was pretty much as good as Cigar...though Cigar was a little faster on his best days.

Here's the problem as I see it, to many people who haven't followed the game for that long, and don't know the history, these horses are special....because relative to what they've seen they are, in fact, special. Now, in the short term there's nothing specifically wrong with that, but in relation to the true greats these horses are also rans. That doesn't mean they aren't very good horses, but it also doesn't put them in the rarified air of the true greats, and if you are going to attach the word " great " to a horse it is competing with history....and not just the personal history of the judger.

Sucks that Invasor's legacy will always be lessened because his fastest race was a race in which no Beyer was published and everyone is always going to use the lack of a 120+ Beyer against him. He was a very good horse, too bad we didn't get to see him finish the year and possibly duplicate that World Cup performance.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Sucks that Invasor's legacy will always be lessened because his fastest race was a race in which no Beyer was published and everyone is always going to use the lack of a 120+ Beyer against him. He was a very good horse, too bad we didn't get to see him finish the year and possibly duplicate that World Cup performance.

How do you know his World Cup was such a high figure race?

I'll ask Beyer what number he would have given it.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

How do you know his World Cup was such a high figure race?

I'll ask Beyer what number he would have given it.

Comparisons to other times on the card relative to the time relationship of those same races in past years. Unless you split the race out and put it on its own variant and just make it a class figure it should have come up a very nice Beyer. I'd be curious what he'd have to say on it.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Comparisons to other times on the card relative to the time relationship of those same races in past years. Unless you split the race out and put it on its own variant and just make it a class figure it should have come up a very nice Beyer. I'd be curious what he'd have to say on it.

This sounds like you're trying to repeat something someone else said.

Or else I'm just overtired.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This sounds like you're trying to repeat something someone else said.

Or else I'm just overtired.

No, I was saying that right after the race when I saw the time and started making the comparisons.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Sucks that Invasor's legacy will always be lessened because his fastest race was a race in which no Beyer was published and everyone is always going to use the lack of a 120+ Beyer against him. He was a very good horse, too bad we didn't get to see him finish the year and possibly duplicate that World Cup performance.

I somehow fail to 'appreciate' the quality of this horse. If Bernie handles the track better and/OR doesn't move prematurely, he gets dusted in the BC. Why is he even mentioned in a discussion of great horses?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I somehow fail to 'appreciate' the quality of this horse. If Bernie handles the track better and/OR doesn't move prematurely, he gets dusted in the BC. Why is he even mentioned in a discussion of great horses?

i think he may have entrapped as well...spiked a fever the next day too...

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I somehow fail to 'appreciate' the quality of this horse. If Bernie handles the track better and/OR doesn't move prematurely, he gets dusted in the BC. Why is he even mentioned in a discussion of great horses?

He handled the track fine. He just got the usual rush-rush panic ride that Castellano has apparently patented. He's been doing it virtually every race at Gulfstream so far this meet.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I somehow fail to 'appreciate' the quality of this horse. If Bernie handles the track better and/OR doesn't move prematurely, he gets dusted in the BC. Why is he even mentioned in a discussion of great horses?

He wasn't great but he belongs in that discussion long before Bernardini. Bernardini handled that track just fine, he just was beat by a better a horse.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

He wasn't great but he belongs in that discussion long before Bernardini. Bernardini handled that track just fine, he just was beat by a better a horse.

I'm not Bernardini's biggest fan, though he was very good, but he got an atrocious ride that day.