Derby Winner vs. Oaks Winner

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by CSC

Perhaps it wasn't said, but it sure sounded like it might have been inferred. You would have thought she would have won the Preakness by more than a length. Looks she's a very good filly and she may go down as one of the greats, I just wouldn't classify her great yet. It's premature for that if anyone should ask me.

What more does she have to do? Do you understand how infrequently what she just did happens? It takes a very special filly to win a Triple Crown race and in my opinion (while I hate the semantics of good, great, superstar, etc) it's an automatic qualifier to being a "great" horse.

NT

[CSC]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

What more does she have to do? Do you understand how infrequently what she just did happens? It takes a very special filly to win a Triple Crown race and in my opinion (while I hate the semantics of good, great, superstar, etc) it's an automatic qualifier to being a "great" horse.

NT

Eight Belles ran second in the derby last year, Zarkava won the Arc. I know what you are saying when a filly beats the boys it is a superlative performance. I have to be honest though, it was a very good performance just not a great one. Frankly I was more impressed by her Oaks performance.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

What more does she have to do? Do you understand how infrequently what she just did happens? It takes a very special filly to win a Triple Crown race and in my opinion (while I hate the semantics of good, great, superstar, etc) it's an automatic qualifier to being a "great" horse.

NT

I don't think it takes as special a filly as people think. I think that with more opportunities, it could have happened more. It's happened twice in the last six races. Do you think Rags to Riches was great too? I'm hoping that with this result, with Eight Belles, and with Rags, the American attitude will start to change and we'll see it happen more times and with more chances will come more success.