How is it possible...

[Holland Hacker]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

If Ginger Punch is great then I can dunk over Shaq.

Geeesh BTW, I knew you gave up a lot to be a pro handicapper, but a career in the NBA as well as a job in Manhattan. Now I'm truly impressed by you intelligence and your athletic ability.


Seriously, Why don't you think GP is great? Perhaps you and I have different definitions of great. After all she has complied a rather nice record of 11 wins, 5 seconds and 2 thirds from 19 lifetime starts. Here only start where she failed to hit the board was her third lifetime start where she encountered an off track for the first time. Obviously, she has no problem with the slop now, as we saw her victory in the final BC "DISTAFF".

What then makes a great horse in your opinion?

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Holland Hacker

Geeesh BTW, I knew you gave up a lot to be a pro handicapper, but a career in the NBA as well as a job in Manhattan. Now I'm truly impressed by you intelligence and your athletic ability.


Seriously, Why don't you think GP is great? Perhaps you and I have different definitions of great. After all she has complied a rather nice record of 11 wins, 5 seconds and 2 thirds from 19 lifetime starts. Here only start where she failed to hit the board was her third lifetime start where she encountered an off track for the first time. Obviously, she has no problem with the slop now, as we saw her victory in the final BC "DISTAFF".

What then makes a great horse in your opinion?

Everybody has different definitions.
The things you pointed out obviously indicate that Ginger Punch is a very good, and fairly versatile horse. She has won graded stakes races in the slop and on fast surfaces, and around both one turn and two turns. There are definitely a lot of good horses out there that can't do that.

I think the reason that many people wouldn't call her great is that she has never really run a "great" individual race (her top lifetime BSF is only a 104), and several of her big wins (last year's Ruffian, this year's Louisville BC, and yesterday's race) have been run in very slow times.

I don't think anybody would dispute that she is a very accomplished mare who deserves high marks for consistency, but the mythical title of "great" is extremely subjective.

[Holland Hacker]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Everybody has different definitions.
The things you pointed out obviously indicate that Ginger Punch is a very good, and fairly versatile horse. She has won graded stakes races in the slop and on fast surfaces, and around both one turn and two turns. There are definitely a lot of good horses out there that can't do that.

I think the reason that many people wouldn't call her great is that she has never really run a "great" individual race (her top lifetime BSF is only a 104), and several of her big wins (last year's Ruffian, this year's Louisville BC, and yesterday's race) have been run in very slow times.

I don't think anybody would dispute that she is a very accomplished mare who deserves high marks for consistency, but the mythical title of "great" is extremely subjective.

Jack Van Berg used to say that "the only place time matter is in prison." I simply can't fault a horse for running "very slow" time yet managing to win and hit the board in Graded stakes races. I know at least yesterday the fact that she only galloped along for 7 1/2 furlongs before squeezing between two horses in upper strecth to pull away to a somewhat easy victory is an indication of a very speacial if not great horse.

I do agree that everybody has different scales of greatness and it is a difficult thing to define especially now that we rarely get to see the best horses of any given generation race into their four year old campaign, except of course this year with Curlin.

[Danzig]

timing is everything. ginger punch was lucky enough to be born and race at a time when there aren't any fast individuals. it's hard to say a horse is great, when so many horses who have come before-and possibly weren't able to enjoy the benefit of subpar competition-would easily defeat the supposed great horse of today.
it's not as tho time means everything, but slow times should mean something.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Holland Hacker

I know at least yesterday the fact that she only galloped along for 7 1/2 furlongs before squeezing between two horses in upper strecth to pull away to a somewhat easy victory is an indication of a very speacial if not great horse.

So, in your opinion, RUNNING LESS than the competition makes a horse great?

[blackthroatedwind]

If good enough to usually beat mediocre competition is great then Ginger Punch is an all-timer.

However, if you are under some sort of delusion that Ginger Punch is actually great then I am curious as to what sort of stratosphere you believe Zenyatta exists in.

[Holland Hacker]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

So, in your opinion, RUNNING LESS than the competition makes a horse great?

When did I say she "ran less"? I said she galloped along for 7 1/2 furlongs and than ran the final 3/16ths after splitting horses in the stretch. And yes if a horse is able to as you say "RUN LESS" and still win the race it makes them better than the competition. Whether it makes them great or not I don't know, but apparently it is your OPINION that it doesn't.

For the record who does qualify as a great horse? Apparently I need and education and hopefully you and BTW can teach me something.

Please limit the list to active horses.

Thanks in advance for sharing your brilliance.

[sumitas]

Does anyone know if synthetic offers this exciting change of surface conditions from race to race that dirt does ? I realize these unexpected variables in dirt track conditions appeal to the sophisticated dirt officiandos so I wonder if synthetic offers the same type of unpredictable challenge in the middle of a card ?

[blackthroatedwind]

2942.....and still going.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by sumitas

Does anyone know if synthetic offers this exciting change of surface conditions from race to race that dirt does ? I realize these unexpected variables in dirt track conditions appeal to the sophisticated dirt officiandos so I wonder if synthetic offers the same type of unpredictable challenge in the middle of a card ?

Ever watch Del Mar?

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by sumitas

Does anyone know if synthetic offers this exciting change of surface conditions from race to race that dirt does ? I realize these unexpected variables in dirt track conditions appeal to the sophisticated dirt officiandos so I wonder if synthetic offers the same type of unpredictable challenge in the middle of a card ?

No, synthetic is predictably sucky. You definitely have an angle there.