How do you.....

[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.

[the_fat_man]

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.

Better horses don't need better setups to win. That's what makes them unique. I suggest you take a closer look at the race. The premature move is obvious.

[PPerfectfan]

Greatness = John Henry!!

[Bravado2112]

To me true greatness is best defined as the intersection of talent and accomplishment. Many horses have great talent without enough of a resume to qualify for greatness (Ghostzapper), while many others have special accomplishments but not necessary historical talent (Lava Man)...but few have both when measured against history.

As pointed out above, the nature of racing today essentially prevents any horse from reaching greatness - at least in a historical sense. The DRF Champions book makes for great reading in seeing what the careers of some of the older superstars looked like. Horses today just don't do what those horses did. Most of them don't have the ability to (which is why greatness is an exclusive club), but the remainder never get the chance to (due to limited racing schedules or injuries). It's pretty sobering looking at the records of some of today's stars to remind yourself that a horse like Spectacular Bid was 24 for 24 at distances between 7f and 1 1/4 (14 Grade 1's) or that Buckpasser managed to put together a run of 24 wins and 2 seconds in 26 starts after his debut, or that Bold 'n Determined (hardly a household name) managed to win 7 Grade 1's in 1981 without even winning the 3 yo filly title. The examples are countless.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Bravado2112

Bold 'n Determined (hardly a household name) managed to win 7 Grade 1's in 1981 without even winning the 3 yo filly title. The examples are countless.

She was a 3YO in 1980.....when Genuine Risk won the Derby.

[TheSpyder]

I was going to point out the same thing. You look at the horses of the past and are amazed and them winning grade ones year after year after year. The string of races that makes their career is far and away better than any horse you see today. Eeven if the breeding shed doesn't take them, it seems horses today would just not hold up.

Spyder

Originally Posted by Bravado2112

To me true greatness is best defined as the intersection of talent and accomplishment. Many horses have great talent without enough of a resume to qualify for greatness (Ghostzapper), while many others have special accomplishments but not necessary historical talent (Lava Man)...but few have both when measured against history.

As pointed out above, the nature of racing today essentially prevents any horse from reaching greatness - at least in a historical sense. The DRF Champions book makes for great reading in seeing what the careers of some of the older superstars looked like. Horses today just don't do what those horses did. Most of them don't have the ability to (which is why greatness is an exclusive club), but the remainder never get the chance to (due to limited racing schedules or injuries). It's pretty sobering looking at the records of some of today's stars to remind yourself that a horse like Spectacular Bid was 24 for 24 at distances between 7f and 1 1/4 (14 Grade 1's) or that Buckpasser managed to put together a run of 24 wins and 2 seconds in 26 starts after his debut, or that Bold 'n Determined (hardly a household name) managed to win 7 Grade 1's in 1981 without even winning the 3 yo filly title. The examples are countless.

[blackthroatedwind]

If you talk to people who have been around the racetrack a very long time the one horse who's name gets mentioned with reverance more than any other is Dr. Fager.

[SentToStud]

Dr. Fager was way better than any of those mentioned in this thread. Way better. He finished first in every race except the two when Hedevar rabbited for Damascus. He also got DQ'd in a race when he took a bite out of In Reality as he was passing him by.

Champion sprinter and co-champ turf horse in the same year.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

He finished first in every race except the two when Hedevar rabbited for Damascus.

Damascus looked like an invincible horse when he had the aid of a rabbit to kill off all the speed horses and set his run up.

I think he jogged in the Travers by about 15 in track record time with an insane duel well infront of him.

[blackthroatedwind]

DrugS's parents were in diapers when Damascus was running.

They were, of course, married.....but he's from Erie.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Damascus raced in plenty of events with seemingly strong paces, which is not unusual, but in only four of his races did he run with an entrymate who acted as a rabbit (one of which he finished second). In 18 of his 21 wins, he did not have a rabbit.

When he did his form seemed to elevate.

Dominating Dr. Fager and winning the Travers by a pole in a jog.

But - I know you know that.

[Danzig]

dr fager was an amazing, supremely talented horse. he ran his guts out every time, and no horse that tried to go with him early was still gutting it out with him in the end.
his one race on turf was enough to get him top honors in that group, and he hated the surface--but hated getting headed even worse.

altho others have been listed as better than him, it's hard to say really that he was worse than any one.

as to the true test of greatness....

man o war still gets props. as does citation, secretariat, etc. i'd imagine they still will years from now--matter of fact, there aren't many left, if any, who saw the original big red race-but he's still one that is mentioned to this day as defining greatness.

if you see a horse now and think he's great, ask yourself if his name will still even be known 20 years from now, let alone 80? if not, then he isn't great.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Danzig

if you see a horse now and think he's great, ask yourself if his name will still even be known 20 years from now, let alone 80? if not, then he isn't great.

This is very good.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I do not have his record in front of me, but wasn't it the 1967 Woodward in which Dr. Fager, Buckpasser, and Damascus competed?

Three eventual Hall-of-Famers in one race!

not for nothing that race is called the race of the century.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Deservedly so.

Any race that featured a rabbit impacting the result doesn't deserve to be called the race of the century.

It ought to be a fairly run race - regardless of who is in it - to earn that title I would think.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

It's a hell of a lot easier to rate great individual performances than it is to rate great horses.

Circumstances dictates outcomes in horse racing - inferior horses favored by the wide variety of circumstances beat superior horses every day - and it happens at every level.

Also - horses develop and go in and out of form at different times - they obviously have preferences to a wide variety of things starting with surface and distance.

Rating a performance is much easier and can be done with a much higher degree of accuracy than it is to rate how good a horse is overall.

[SentToStud]

Huh?

Dr. Fager never went out of form. Cigar, once he got good, never went out of form.

The pretenders of today can't overcome any kind of a bad trip or carry weight, at least compared to horses of 25+ years ago.

[blackthroatedwind]

By the way, Smarty Jones ran one great race in his entire career, the Preakness, and failed the one time everything didn't go his way, the Belmont. Calling him great is like declaring a bartender great because the one time you bought a drink from her she somehow managed to pick out the only cold beer in cooler. Let her do it a few more times before acknowledging her exceptional talents.

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I've heard the reverance, too.

The two races of his that I hear mentioned most often are his then-world record mile at Arlington (132 pounds?), and his Vosburgh at 137 lbs.

[The weight carried issue is an interesting one.]

He carried his speed at 1 1/4 and won on turf.

Was Affectionately great?

Is it just like everything else where there are layers and overlaps of this thing called greatness?

I was impressed reading over the Top 100 book.... I don't know much off the top of my head, not the type who can remember figures, but i do remember reading that she carried 137 in the Vagrancy.

I'm not trying to qualify her as being great because of this alone, but combined with her record of wins and beating the boys (which seems to matter to some, I think...) was she or wasn't she?