Defining a "GREAT" horse

[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"

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by moodwalker

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

Fair enough, though I would have to suggest that, given the context, it's understood.
----------------------------------------------------
On a different tangent ...

I have never been a big fan of efforts to rank international/all-time competitors in all-inclusive best-ever/great lists.

We ("we" defined as "posters on this board") could easily sit at our computers all day and argue relative merits of two US-based horses that were running in the last year or so, maybe even against each other, in races that we saw (on TV or otherwise) against competitors that we know well. And given that that's true, the idea of reliably producing lists of "greats" or "best-evers" from vastly different places and times with which we have little to no familiarity is difficult.

First, there's the inevitable effect of the dulling edge of time and space. There could be a really great horse running right now in South Africa, but chances are, no one on this board voraciously follows the everyday minutiae of racing in South Africa sufficiently to properly appraise said horse's efforts. Likewise, there were great horses running 75, 100 years ago that many people on this board (including me) have never even heard of. This is simply a truth, not an indictment. After all, many of us learned - and continue to learn - about racing from the media, and the basic elements of news dictate that news media concentrates on the here and now. That's great when you're reading today's news, but that's not so great when you're undertaking an effort to identify greatness in all places and times. Unless your knowledge of racing is entirely founded in old books, ancient yellow newspapers, or material imported from other countries, it is almost impossible to avoid the effect of having lesser knowledge of places and times other than your own.

But really, this problem is surmountable. Information exists if you care enough to go looking for it. The problem is, when you find it, you will judge it by your standards of greatness. Therein lies the biggest issue in trying to judge horses from different eras and places.

What ultimately ends up being debated is less the greatness of the horses involved but of the various ways in which racing observers from different places and times defined greatness. Some contemporary horses that are considered "great" would not be considered thus by observers who had different expectations of greatness, whether that expectation was based upon lengthy careers, weight-carrying, running against open company, racing over a distance of ground, etc. Likewise, we may not consider some great of the past to be as great as his or her contemporaries did simply because our measures of greatness have changed. How great does the general modern population of racing fans think Gallorette - who lost more than two-thirds of her races - is now? Fifty years ago, many reasonable observers thought she was the best female in US racing history.

High-class horses are generally campaigned in a manner to demonstrate greatness by their contemporary standards. Gallorette did not have a 10- or 15-race career, limited to filly/mare opposition, as would a good filly today; if she had, her race record would be more impressive to modern viewers but of course she would not have impressed observers of the 1940s. Likewise, Ghostzapper did not have to run more than four times a year in order to impress his contemporary observers. Perhaps he might have been great by standards of some other day, but he never had to prove it. Ghostzapper would've looked much less great to the modern eye if he'd lost some races because he raced a lot and gave gobs of weight to stakes-class horses, just as Gallorette would've looked much less great to eyes of her time if she'd been raced infrequently against inferior competition but had retired with a higher win percentage. (I'm not, BTW, picking on either of these horses here, merely using them as examples of products of very different standards of greatness.)

The seeming answer would be to assign greatness, or rank horses, by the standards of their day rather than one's own, but this is a tricky exercise since a human being, with preferred standards of greatness, has to make command decisions. I, for example, realize intellectually that a Ghostzapper should be measured by standards of greatness of the early 21st century, but my standards are based on a different paradigm and I find greatness, by early 21st century standards, to be unpalatable and inferior. If I were to make a "great" list, it's very unlikely that a Ghostzapper would be on it. But truthfully, what's being judged is not the horse but the standard that made a career like his not just acceptable, but desirable.

The problem is, greatness is pretty much impossible to quantify objectively or judge fairly.

[sham]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Fair enough, though I would have to suggest that, given the context, it's understood.
----------------------------------------------------
On a different tangent ...

I have never been a big fan of efforts to rank international/all-time competitors in all-inclusive best-ever/great lists.

We ("we" defined as "posters on this board") could easily sit at our computers all day and argue relative merits of two US-based horses that were running in the last year or so, maybe even against each other, in races that we saw (on TV or otherwise) against competitors that we know well. And given that that's true, the idea of reliably producing lists of "greats" or "best-evers" from vastly different places and times with which we have little to no familiarity is difficult.

First, there's the inevitable effect of the dulling edge of time and space. There could be a really great horse running right now in South Africa, but chances are, no one on this board voraciously follows the everyday minutiae of racing in South Africa sufficiently to properly appraise said horse's efforts. Likewise, there were great horses running 75, 100 years ago that many people on this board (including me) have never even heard of. This is simply a truth, not an indictment. After all, many of us learned - and continue to learn - about racing from the media, and the basic elements of news dictate that news media concentrates on the here and now. That's great when you're reading today's news, but that's not so great when you're undertaking an effort to identify greatness in all places and times. Unless your knowledge of racing is entirely founded in old books, ancient yellow newspapers, or material imported from other countries, it is almost impossible to avoid the effect of having lesser knowledge of places and times other than your own.

But really, this problem is surmountable. Information exists if you care enough to go looking for it. The problem is, when you find it, you will judge it by your standards of greatness. Therein lies the biggest issue in trying to judge horses from different eras and places.

What ultimately ends up being debated is less the greatness of the horses involved but of the various ways in which racing observers from different places and times defined greatness. Some contemporary horses that are considered "great" would not be considered thus by observers who had different expectations of greatness, whether that expectation was based upon lengthy careers, weight-carrying, running against open company, racing over a distance of ground, etc. Likewise, we may not consider some great of the past to be as great as his or her contemporaries did simply because our measures of greatness have changed. How great does the general modern population of racing fans think Gallorette - who lost more than two-thirds of her races - is now? Fifty years ago, many reasonable observers thought she was the best female in US racing history.

High-class horses are generally campaigned in a manner to demonstrate greatness by their contemporary standards. Gallorette did not have a 10- or 15-race career, limited to filly/mare opposition, as would a good filly today; if she had, her race record would be more impressive to modern viewers but of course she would not have impressed observers of the 1940s. Likewise, Ghostzapper did not have to run more than four times a year in order to impress his contemporary observers. Perhaps he might have been great by standards of some other day, but he never had to prove it. Ghostzapper would've looked much less great to the modern eye if he'd lost some races because he raced a lot and gave gobs of weight to stakes-class horses, just as Gallorette would've looked much less great to eyes of her time if she'd been raced infrequently against inferior competition but had retired with a higher win percentage. (I'm not, BTW, picking on either of these horses here, merely using them as examples of products of very different standards of greatness.)

The seeming answer would be to assign greatness, or rank horses, by the standards of their day rather than one's own, but this is a tricky exercise since a human being, with preferred standards of greatness, has to make command decisions. I, for example, realize intellectually that a Ghostzapper should be measured by standards of greatness of the early 21st century, but my standards are based on a different paradigm and I find greatness, by early 21st century standards, to be unpalatable and inferior. If I were to make a "great" list, it's very unlikely that a Ghostzapper would be on it. But truthfully, what's being judged is not the horse but the standard that made a career like his not just acceptable, but desirable.

The problem is, greatness is pretty much impossible to quantify objectively or judge fairly.

Very insightful post. Thank you for revealing these observations.

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

The problem is, greatness is pretty much impossible to quantify objectively or judge fairly.

No ... it's much simpler than that ... all anyone has to do ...

... is ask me.

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

I have never been a big fan of efforts to rank international/all-time competitors in all-inclusive best-ever/great lists.

There's a cornucopia of wisdom in that little sentence ... especially the "international" part.

Here's a question I'd like to see answered ...

How did The Blood-Horse panel include Phar Lap on the list of 20th Century American greats ... off a single race in Mexico ... but exclude Whisk Broom ... who won the three most difficult races then run in America ... packing weight as high as 139 pounds ... in his three races here?

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

There's a cornucopia of wisdom in that little sentence ... especially the "international" part.

Here's a question I'd like to see answered ...

How did The Blood-Horse panel include Phar Lap on the list of 20th Century American greats ... off a single race in Mexico ... but exclude Whisk Broom ... who won the three most difficult races then run in America ... packing weight as high as 139 pounds ... in his three races here?

Maybe since they speak english in Austraila they consider it America!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Maybe since they speak english in Austraila they consider it America!!!!!!!

Ummm ... yeah ... but ...

... don't they speak English in England too?

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Ummm ... yeah ... but ...

... don't they speak English in England too?

Yeah, I think.....who knows. I was trying to make sense of Phar Lap being on the list.

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

There's a cornucopia of wisdom in that little sentence ... especially the "international" part.

Here's a question I'd like to see answered ...

How did The Blood-Horse panel include Phar Lap on the list of 20th Century American greats ... off a single race in Mexico ... but exclude Whisk Broom ... who won the three most difficult races then run in America ... packing weight as high as 139 pounds ... in his three races here?

I suspect that the answer is a distant cousin to why foreign-based horses routinely win US championships (which is what the Eclipse Awards are) for winning one race in the US, ie the Breeders' Cup. If a horse who is successful in his foreign base comes to North America and wins one race here, that is sufficient evidence for some/many to assume that had the horse run more often, he would have continued to show winning form here just as he or she did back home. There is a deep-running tendency for American racing to have an inferiority complex and generally, we are quick to accept that a good foreign horse is better than our horses. However, horses with in-and-out form in their foreign home base who happen to win a BC event are usually not given Eclipse Awards. This suggests that it's less the act of winning the BC race itself as it is the perception of whether the BC race was indicative of the horse's overall form.

Phar Lap, of course, was a phenomenal success down under and if that victory in Mexico was indicative of how he might have run in North America, it's reasonable - for people who like to do such things - to extrapolate how good he might have been here.

Though classic-placed at 3, Whisk Broom II was not a major player in England prior to his return to the US. His accomplishments in his native land take place over less than a month's time and his Suburban was always tainted by the near-certainty that the record time was wrong by at least two seconds. (This is hardly the horse's fault, but many later references to Whisk Broom II, up until the record was finally broken, involved some reference to it.) Moreover, as racing had just returned to New York that year after disruption that seriously shook up the sport in this country (resulting in many good horses and bloodstock being shipped overseas), there has to be some doubt as to the caliber of horses he met. Contemporary observers did not place him among the pantheon of greats. I believe that these factors led to how he was remembered (or not) by later generations.

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Phar Lap ... was a phenomenal success down under and if that victory in Mexico was indicative of how he might have run in North America, it's reasonable - for people who like to do such things - to extrapolate how good he might have been here.

Though classic-placed at 3, Whisk Broom II was not a major player in England prior to his return to the US ... and his Suburban was always tainted by the near-certainty that the record time was wrong by at least two seconds.

But ... the whole premise of the ranking was supposed to be "who were the best performers in North America in the 20th century."

One race in Mexico ... technically in North America ... is still only one race ... so how does that get him to #22 on the list? Plenty of other foreign horses won their first starts in stakes races here ... so why aren't they #20, #21, 23, #24, #25 ... ?

And while Whisk Broom's time was suspect ... that 139 pounds on his back surely wasn't ... they had very accurate scales in 1913 ... nor were his decisive victories in the Metropolitan, Brooklyn, and Suburban handicaps.

And ... as I always ask ... but never get a serious response to ... if it were so easy for European horses to come here in 1913, 1914, 1915 ... and sweep the handicap triple crown ... how come no one else did it?

Whisk Broom's foreign form wasn't near Phar Lap's ... but again ... weren't they supposed to be ranking North American form?

And All Along ... who also won three G1 stakes here within a month's time ... after a spotty European career ... one G1 against fillies in 6 G1 starts ... and then lost 3 G1 races here ... got spotted at #68. Say what?

The Blood-Horse panel did a mostly good job ... but this was a blatant and inexplicable floperoo on their part.

And ... as I always ask ... but never get a serious response to ... if it were so easy for European horses to come here in 1913, 1914, 1915 ... and sweep the handicap triple crown ... how come no one else did it?Well shipping back in 1913,1914,1915....was not as easy as it is today. In addition, European racing was held in higher regard back then as well. There was no reason to ship their horses to the US.

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

But ... the whole premise of the ranking was supposed to be "who were the best performers in North America in the 20th century."

Not defending ... just taking a stab at explaining.