|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
01-08-2008, 01:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
Farewell to Kings - My horse racing blog which provides fresh insight and commentary on horse racing and handicapping. 
|
|
#2
01-08-2008, 01:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
She was a 3YO in 1980.....when Genuine Risk won the Derby.
|
|
#3
01-08-2008, 10:38 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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 Quote:
__________________
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.
|
|
#4
01-08-2008, 02:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#5
01-08-2008, 02:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#6
01-08-2008, 02:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I think he jogged in the Travers by about 15 in track record time with an insane duel well infront of him.
|
|
#7
01-10-2008, 12:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
DrugS's parents were in diapers when Damascus was running.
They were, of course, married.....but he's from Erie.
|
|
#8
01-11-2008, 04:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Simply watching the races - it would be impossible to not make that kind of judgement. His '67 Travers win looking like Whirlaway in the '41 Preakness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWGOz...eature=related All of his meetings with Dr. fager: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8frxLao1bM And as for Erie - it has produced one of the greatest sports heros going for undersized men like yourself.  Too bad he's one week away from he, and the Indy secondary, getting owned by Moss.
|
|
#9
01-11-2008, 05:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
He was far more than just a rabbited set up horse. And when he wasn;t rabbitted vs Fager, it was no disgrace that he got beat. Fager was only one of the two best horses to race between Citation and Secretariat and arguably was better than both of them. Maybe a political analyst gig is in your future?
|
|
#10
01-11-2008, 10:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Change can be good, but constant change shows no direction" http://www.hickoryhillhoff.blogspot.com/
|
|
#11
01-10-2008, 08:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Dominating Dr. Fager and winning the Travers by a pole in a jog. But - I know you know that.
|
|
#13
01-11-2008, 11:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#14
01-11-2008, 11:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Personal Ensign YES X 10 Princess Rooney YES Rags to Riches CLOSE Spain NO Davona Dale BEFORE MY TIME
__________________
please use generalizations and non-truths when arguing your side, thank you
|
|
#15
01-11-2008, 02:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes Yes No No I don't know
|
|
#17
01-11-2008, 06:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#18
01-08-2008, 02:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#19
01-08-2008, 03:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
This is very good.
|
Hybrid Mode
