Defining a "GREAT" horse

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.