Defining a "GREAT" horse

SniperSB23 · #1 08-23-2006, 09:46 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?

#2 08-23-2006, 09:50 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?

#3 08-23-2006, 09:55 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.

#4 08-23-2006, 10:01 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.

SentToStud · #5 08-23-2006, 10:04 AM

Quote:

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.

#6 08-23-2006, 07:51 PM

Quote:

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?

#7 08-24-2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ezrabrooks

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

Ez ...

... this in an extremely ignorant person ... who tops my "Ignore" list.

In my post ... I clearly said "their respective Triple Crown races" ... but this dumb-as-a-catcher's-mitt loser obviously doesn't understand the usage of "respective" in that context.

You'll save your eyes a lot of wasted wear-and-tear ... if you add him to your "Ignore" list as well.

Take care, good buddy.

Byebyemermaid · #8 08-24-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

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.

#9 08-23-2006, 10:04 AM

Quote:

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 · #10 08-23-2006, 10:10 AM

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.

#11 08-23-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

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?

#12 08-23-2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

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?

Bold Brook, I broke from the gate fast but Golf Pro Kev is gaining and gaining hard for most posts. Hes got a full head of steam and coming like a train and I expect him to take the lead with ease by Labor Day.

King Glorious · #13 08-23-2006, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

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?

I wouldn't say it really got dull or boring but it just got to the point where if u don't say wonderful things about every horse and every race, they jump all over u. So many people have been conditioned into just accepting whatever garbage is thrown out there these days that they don't want to take the time to look at the days when it was better and try to figure out ways to make it better. Then when I make a negative comment, I'm the villian because I want better.

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

Quote:

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.

King Glorious · #15 08-23-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

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.

And I see it the other way around. I see many more as great but that the Hall should take a more restrictive approach. As much as I love Java Gold and King Glorious and think both were great horses, I wouldn't dare put them in the Hall.

For the weight thing, I know we'll never see the weights of days gone by again but when I say top weights, I just mean the top weights of their day. If that means carrying 123 while the others are carrying 117, then that will have to suffice.

Danzig · #16 08-23-2006, 06:08 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.

#17 08-23-2006, 09:51 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?

#18 08-23-2006, 09:56 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.

#19 08-23-2006, 10:11 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.

SCUDSBROTHER · #20 08-23-2006, 12:09 PM

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