Defining a "GREAT" horse

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]

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?

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?

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.

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.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

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.

It's also a problem you think Ruffian won a triple crown race.

You should have stayed in school.

Originally Posted by SentToStud

It's also a problem you think Ruffian won a triple crown race.

You should have stayed in school.

Acorn, Mother Goose and the Coachng Club.. What's that about school?

[Byebyemermaid]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

It's also a problem you think Ruffian won a triple crown race.

You should have stayed in school.

STS she did win the triple crown for Fillies.At that time it was known as the Triple Tiara.To me Forego was one of the greatest horses i've ever seen.He won having to carry a house on his back,lost to one of the best 3 year olds by only 2 length Wajima spotting 14 lbs.He also won at every distance imaginable whether it was 7 furlongs or 2.25 miles when the Jockey club gold cup was that distance and he had longevity.You haven't seen many horses like him around for a long time and might never again.And if anyone thinks Best Pal being a gelding like Forego should be mentioned in the same breath as THE MIGHTY FOREGO you are mistaken.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

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.

I agree with that 100%. Then you have Ghostzapper who has won all he could and did it in awesomely. But he didnt do crap his 3 year old season. I dont consider him great. I look at him as what could have been. His sheet numbers are awesome but he didnt do enough to be great.

[King Glorious]

For me, I want to see a few things:

1. Wins in the top races of their class.
2. Carrying the highest weights in their races.
3. Running fast times/figures.
4. Winning percentage at 60% or more.
5. In the money percentage at 80% or more.
6. At least being a champion in one season.
7. Winning outside of your division.

All of these things don't have to be accomplished but most of them should be.

If I were to create a hall of fame, I'd say that a couple of those rules would be absolutely required. U'd have to have been a champion in more than one season. U'd have to meet the winning/ITM %. If u don't, u don't make it. I agree with Bold in that if there is doubt, a horse doesn't belong. I don't like the current rules that say u only need to be named on 75% of the ballots. That still means that 25% of the people don't think u belong. That, to me, is not a hall of famer. When horses like Bid and Secretariat came up for inductment, I doubt anyone hesitated on them. That is what the hall should be for. The very best of the best. Not just those that had a good season or won a couple of big races.

Originally Posted by King Glorious

For me

Hey King !!!

Great to see you here ... hope you show up a lot more often.

You've got a long way to go to pass Oracle80 as most-frequent-poster on this forum ... but if anyone can do it ... you can!

Kinda dull over "there" now ... ain't it?

Originally Posted by King Glorious

If I were to create a hall of fame, I'd say that a couple of those rules would be absolutely required. U'd have to have been a champion in more than one season. U'd have to meet the winning/ITM %. If u don't, u don't make it. I agree with Bold in that if there is doubt, a horse doesn't belong. I don't like the current rules that say u only need to be named on 75% of the ballots. That still means that 25% of the people don't think u belong. That, to me, is not a hall of famer. When horses like Bid and Secretariat came up for inductment, I doubt anyone hesitated on them. That is what the hall should be for. The very best of the best. Not just those that had a good season or won a couple of big races.

I've always distinguished between Hall Of Fame horses and "great" horses.

I think the Hall Of Fame should have broader inclusion ... basically a place for truly distinguished horses. For example, Cougar II was just inducted ... and I approve of that ... he was hardly "great" .. but he was a top quality race horse over several seasons ... including in South America ... and deserves the designation and honor.

"Great" ... to me at least ... is a more hallowed term ... to be reserved for the special few ... maybe the 30 best colts and the 20 best fillies in an entire century.

P.S. You'll have to chuck your weight-carrying requirement ... or we'll never have another "great" horse.

[Danzig]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

A "Great Horse" is one that comes through when you have your money on it.

[somerfrost]

There is a reason that handicapping "systems" never work, it is because folks attempt to quantify something that simply can't be reduced to a formula...there are far too many intervening variables, many of which (for example how the horse feels that day, what his/her mood may be) we can never know. I think the same applies here...as many know, I maintain a "Top 100 Horses of All Time" list and post it periodically, especially as I update it. It is highly subjective...my personal opinion! Sure, I base it on race records, observations of self and respected others and many other things that are more or less measurable...but in the end, it comes down to gut feelings. My top ten is headed by a first place tie between Secretariat and Kincsem...I can debate all day producing a great amount of data to support these two legends, but can I "prove" they were greater than Citation or Man O War (or about 2-3 dozen others)...no! To me the answer is similar to what some political joker once said about porn..."I can't define it but I know it when I see it!" That's how I define greatness...I know it when I see it!

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

A "Great Horse" is one that comes through when you have your money on it.

LMFAO Scuds...

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

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.

...... The only place that a turfer is considered a "specialty" horse, is in the USA. Are you suggesting that a turf running horse is somehow less great than a dirt horse? Or that a dirt champion is better than a turf champion?

Turf is where most all champions run.