Defining a "GREAT" horse

[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!

Originally Posted by 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!

Somer, I was waiting for your post. I love your top 100 and I have little beef with it. Your top two would also be my top two if I was going to make a list. I think when people compare horses they try to compare them as if they raced each other. You can really only go by what the horse did on the track. Also I give more weight to a horse who won two legs of a triple crown race before I would an older horse who won three races in a year. The reason being is the the tc trail is HARD. These horses dont have time off from Jan to June. In fact, they actually only have a couple of months off from summer of their 2 year old season until june of their 3 year old season. To me that is more impressive than a horse who got to pick his spots, trained up to the race, had some time off and was able to prepare. Plus in triple crown races you have to beat anywhere up to 20 horses. That is hard to do. Therefor I give a win in the Derby more weight than I do a horse that wins the Whitney, JCGC or Met Mile to name a few.

[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.

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by moodwalker

...... 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.

Well, in the United States, which is where this board is based and most of the people who post on it live, turf is a specialty. We have been running races on the dirt for a very long time. Our races of historic significance - ie, older than a few decades - are dirt races. For many generations, US thoroughbreds raced on the dirt and when they went to the breeding shed, the best breeders were aiming to produce horses that excelled in our prestige races which were all on the dirt. Only a handful of courses even had turf courses prior to the 1950s; in the big picture, turf racing is a real johnny-come-lately in the US.

Obviously, US racing is slowly changing and turf racing is becoming more entrenched. However, the pinnacle targets here are still dirt races and, generally, the best US-based horses are still campaigning on the dirt with those targets in sight. Unless that situation changes, turf champions in the US will continue to be considered by most to be specialty champions.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Well, in the United States, which is where this board is based and most of the people who post on it live, turf is a specialty. We have been running races on the dirt for a very long time. Our races of historic significance - ie, older than a few decades - are dirt races. For many generations, US thoroughbreds raced on the dirt and when they went to the breeding shed, the best breeders were aiming to produce horses that excelled in our prestige races which were all on the dirt. Only a handful of courses even had turf courses prior to the 1950s; in the big picture, turf racing is a real johnny-come-lately in the US.

Obviously, US racing is slowly changing and turf racing is becoming more entrenched. However, the pinnacle targets here are still dirt races and, generally, the best US-based horses are still campaigning on the dirt with those targets in sight. Unless that situation changes, turf champions in the US will continue to be considered by most to be specialty champions.

Then let's retitle the thread "Defining a GREAT American horse"

Originally Posted by moodwalker

...... 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.

When the subject is American racing ... yes ... it's quite evident that the most talented horses are trained for the dirt ... and ...

... and only when they disappoint there ... are they tried on the lawn.

As far as "turf is where most all champions run" ... that's patent nonsense ... since 7 of the 10 Eclipse Awards are given to horses which race on dirt ... and I'm being generous by considering jumpers to be turf horses.

You're not one of those Euroweenies .. are you?

[horseofcourse]

I certainly think a turf specialist can be great. IF for example, Showing Up stays on turf and wins the rest of his races through his 4 year old year including 2 BC Turf races, he would certainly be considered a great horse...but then of course he would have 2 turf championships under his belt so he would meet criteria set by BB.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

When the subject is American racing ... yes ... it's quite evident that the most talented horses are trained for the dirt ... and ...

... and only when they disappoint there ... are they tried on the lawn.As far as "turf is where most all champions run" ... that's patent nonsense ... since 7 of the 10 Eclipse Awards are given to horses which race on dirt ... and I'm being generous by considering jumpers to be turf horses.

You're not one of those Euroweenies .. are you?

For the most part what you say is true. The only issue i have is the use of the phrase "only when they dissapoint"...or more specifically the word "only".

Lava Man, at very least an HOY candidate, was tried on the turf this year. In recent years, so have dirt successes such as Peace Rules and Congaree.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

When the subject is American racing ... yes ... it's quite evident that the most talented horses are trained for the dirt ... and ...

... and only when they disappoint there ... are they tried on the lawn.

As far as "turf is where most all champions run" ... that's patent nonsense ... since 7 of the 10 Eclipse Awards are given to horses which race on dirt ... and I'm being generous by considering jumpers to be turf horses.

You're not one of those Euroweenies .. are you?

I tell you what, if you consider the Eclipse awards the only type of organization that names "champions," then you can kiss my ass.

Let's round up all the awards from every country that has racing, and then see how many "champions" run exclusively on the turf versus our 7 Eclipse awards.

When I said "turf is where most all champions run," I was right.

It is probably 100+ to 7.

[Thunder Gulch]

Obviously it's a very subjective evaluation, and I don't think you can attach any hard guidelines or rules such as a certain percentage of wins. Wins at different tracks, distances, divisions, etc, all contribute, but you still can 't put hard and fast rules in place to determine greatness.

[SniperSB23]

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.