Defining a "GREAT" horse

#1 08-23-2006, 10:30 AM

I've posted this before ... but it's always worth doing it again ...

A great horse is one who is a champion every year he/she races ... or who narrowly loses a championship to another great horse ... AND ...

... whose performances are reasonably comparable to those of past great horses.

It's pretty easy to tell when a horse is great. If you have any doubts ... then the horse isn't great.

#2 08-23-2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I've posted this before ... but it's always worth doing it again ...

A great horse is one who is a champion every year he/she races ... or who narrowly loses a championship to another great horse ... AND ...

... whose performances are reasonably comparable to those of past great horses.

It's pretty easy to tell when a horse is great. If you have any doubts ... then the horse isn't great.

Why do we have to measure a horse from today to horses of the past. We all agree that today's racing is vastly different from racing of the past. Why does the horse need to win championships in every year the horse races? That would mean that they need to win the 2 year old and 3 year old award. That is hard to do even for the greatest of the great. Since Smarty didnt win the award as a 2 year old, he doesnt deserve to be great?

#3 08-23-2006, 10:38 AM

Thats a very hard thing to describe. In the Smarty case its hard to say that he wasnt great because he never had the chance to face older, we don't know.

A great horse to me runs very fast numbers on the sheets, he wins more stretch battles than he loses, he wins at different tracks in different places, and he beats the best of his contemporaries. To me thats what makes a great horse.

#4 08-23-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oracle80

Thats a very hard thing to describe. In the Smarty case its hard to say that he wasnt great because he never had the chance to face older, we don't know.

A great horse to me runs very fast numbers on the sheets, he wins more stretch battles than he loses, he wins at different tracks in different places, and he beats the best of his contemporaries. To me thats what makes a great horse.

Correct ... same concept I outlined in different words ... except ...

... it isn't hard to describe ... you and I both did it very succinctly.

SentToStud · #5 08-23-2006, 10:51 AM

Guideline, not rules:
- Doesn't need to carry racetrack with
- Speed/stamina combo
- Wins/narrowly misses after not getting desired trip
- 5 grade 1's
- Won grade 1's at different distances
- Multiple Eclipse awards
I'd list these as the great horses of the last 30 years:
Affirmed, Spectacular Bid, Cigar, John Henry, Personal Ensign, Silverbulletday.

Forego is the greatest to have raced in the past 30 years, imo..

#6 08-23-2006, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Guideline, not rules:
- Doesn't need to carry racetrack with
- Speed/stamina combo
- Wins/narrowly misses after not getting desired trip
- 5 grade 1's
- Won grade 1's at different distances
- Multiple Eclipse awards
I'd list these as the great horses of the last 30 years:
Affirmed, Spectacular Bid, Cigar, John Henry, Personal Ensign, Silverbulletday.

Forego is the greatest to have raced in the past 30 years, imo..

I like this Sent. I like the "number" you gave. Have to win 5 Grade I's. I also agree with that number. Sent--Lava Man fits that criteria. Would you consider him great?

#7 08-23-2006, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Why do we have to measure a horse from today to horses of the past. We all agree that today's racing is vastly different from racing of the past. Why does the horse need to win championships in every year the horse races? That would mean that they need to win the 2 year old and 3 year old award. That is hard to do even for the greatest of the great. Since Smarty didnt win the award as a 2 year old, he doesnt deserve to be great?

1. Since "great" is a relative term ... there must be something to relate it to ... hence the comparison to past performers in similar races. The same applies to other sports.

2. It isn't difficult for a great horse to win both the 2YO and 3YO championship ... many have done it.

3. A "great" horse must have a great career ... not simply one or two unusually good performances. Horses who shine brightly ... but flame out quickly ... for whatever reason ... are not great.

SniperSB23 · #8 08-23-2006, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

1. Since "great" is a relative term ... there must be something to relate it to ... hence the comparison to past performers in similar races. The same applies to other sports.

2. It isn't difficult for a great horse to win both the 2YO and 3YO championship ... many have done it.

3. A "great" horse must have a great career ... not simply one or two unusually good performances. Horses who shine brightly ... but flame out quickly ... for whatever reason ... are not great.

So there will never be a great turf horse again since it is impossible to win or even narrowly miss winning the 2yo championship if you are running on the turf?

#9 08-23-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

So there will never be a great turf horse again since it is impossible to win or even narrowly miss winning the 2yo championship if you are running on the turf?

Tooks the words right out of my mouth. A horse like Hurrican Run or Deep Impact--would they be considered great? What about Kittens Joy?

#10 08-23-2006, 10:55 AM

If a horse needs to face open company then a triple crown horse could never be considered great. We all know that once a horse does that, that horse is off to the shed. Again, let go back to Smarty--his only loss is a 2nd in the Belmont. He had plenty of races and beat everyone he faced. So we dont deem him great because he didnt beat older horses.

#11 08-23-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eurobounce

If a horse needs to face open company then a triple crown horse could never be considered great. We all know that once a horse does that, that horse is off to the shed. Again, let go back to Smarty--his only loss is a 2nd in the Belmont. He had plenty of races and beat everyone he faced. So we dont deem him great because he didnt beat older horses.

That's a very big problem ...

... which causes me to hesitiate a bit to even call Count Fleet and Ruffian "great" ... because they never won again after their respective Triple Crown victories.

Their "greatness" is based more on the fact that they were champions as 2YOS and 3YOS ... and the quality of their performances ... rather than on the scope of their careers.

Yes ... it is a problem.

Danzig · #12 08-23-2006, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eurobounce

If a horse needs to face open company then a triple crown horse could never be considered great. We all know that once a horse does that, that horse is off to the shed. Again, let go back to Smarty--his only loss is a 2nd in the Belmont. He had plenty of races and beat everyone he faced. So we dont deem him great because he didnt beat older horses.

when's the last tc champ not to face open competition??? sec, slew, affirmed all did, with slew and affirmed returning at four. as for close by not quites, silver charm, real quiet, alysheba are just a few who did. of course in the last few years, breeding has been the name of the game. when some sanity returns, so will top 3 yo's at four. smarty and alex are actually exceptions to the rule. even fupeg met older, remember? as did war emblem....

and no, a tc winner based solely on his wins there isn't automatically great---see omaha for example!!

and as much as i liked smarty, he isn't great to me. could have been. but imo he didn't get a chance to make himself a legend.

#13 08-23-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

So there will never be a great turf horse again since it is impossible to win or even narrowly miss winning the 2yo championship if you are running on the turf?

There is no 2YO turf championship ...

... so how can a horse fail to win it?

#14 08-23-2006, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

There is no 2YO turf championship ...

... so how can a horse fail to win it?

He meant that a two year old that runs on turf will not win the award because that goes to the dirt horse.

#15 08-23-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eurobounce

He meant that a two year old that runs on turf will not win the award because that goes to the dirt horse.

This raises the question as to whether a "specialty" horse ... a sprinter or turfer ... can be considered great.

Generally speaking ... I'd say no ...

.... because greatness requires both more versatility than just sprinting ... as well as meeting/defeating the best horses of the day ... who are running on the dirt.

Was Ta Wee great? Was Manila great? They were great at what they did ... but what they did was very limited.

More scope is needed for true greatness.

SniperSB23 · #16 08-23-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

There is no 2YO turf championship ...

... so how can a horse fail to win it?

Your criteria is to be a champion or narrowly miss being a champion in every year they race. If there isn't a 2yo turf championship then every horse that only runs the turf as a 2yo is ineligible to be great.

#17 08-23-2006, 10:50 AM

why does a three year old need to beat older? well, a race such as the derby is restricted...so when meeting older horses, that's an open field, anyone can enter. kind of like a horse who beats all comers in a stakes would be considered better than a horse who only races in a restricted race, such as ny-breds only facing fellow ny-breds....
and yes, a filly would be given more props for beating colts, rather than just other fillies.

open comp is one key.
setting/tying records is another. ruffian for example..beat all comers, as well as the clock, and never headed. that's greatness.
round table, excelled on turf and dirt, 17 tied or new records, the most ever. great horse!

personal ensign, undefeated. beat colts and fillies. she was great.
azeri, a nice win streak, but didn't win in open competition...very good, but not great.

of course back in 'the day' a win while carrying far more weight was something, as was a narrow loss while giving a lot of weight....that doesn't happen much these days...however, congaree got a lot more praise in his very narrow nose loss to milwaukee brew than MB did for winning! congaree was giving weight...
also, dr fager set the mile record while carrying 137 pounds(if memory serves...) that's GREAT. najran tying the record years later....mmm, not so great.

horses have dazzled with great performances...GZ in the bcc, candy rides win over MDO...but a great performance doesn't make a great horse. they need to back it up.

smarty could have been great...so could alex.

to really know tho, if a horse was great. come back in 20 years and see how many of todays horses still get press. those are the great ones.