Defining a great horse

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Sightseek and Street Sense ... but no Ghostzapper and Smarty Jones?

They were both great... I told you I would forget. I can give another list of about 10-20 who have had MULTIPLE great moments, but I would not call great.
Street Sense broke the Juvy-Derby Jynx... Also added the Jim Dandy and Travers to it... Second in the Preakness and Second to a great form Hard Spun in the Turfway race. I think he was great.

I

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

Street Sense broke the Juvy-Derby Jynx... Also added the Jim Dandy and Travers to it... Second in the Preakness and Second to a great form Hard Spun in the Turfway race. I think he was great.

Street Sense won extremely low rated runnings of the Jim Dandy and Travers in close races over the immortal duo of Grasshopper and CP West.

He basically pulled off a Mine That Bird twice ... and was otherwise nothing speical.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Sightseek and Street Sense ... but no Ghostzapper and Smarty Jones?

I don't like you.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

I don't like you.

Sightseek is the best horse ever! better?

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I'd be interested to know the most important common factors that people prefer when defining a great horse.

Rate the following factors as either... very important, important, not that important, or doesn't matter at all. And pick the 3-to-5 which you think are most important.

Ability as a 2yo
Ability as a 3yo
Ability as an older horse

Ability as a sprinter
Ability as a miler
Ability as a router

Ability as a dirt horse
Ability as a synthetic horse
Ability as a turf horse

Ability to win major races **
Ability to beat good horses ***
Ability to run fast figures **
Ability to win with dominance *

Ability to stay sound and race often without big time gaps between starts ***
Ability to carry high weight or give weight away to good horses *
Ability to have success as a stallion or broodmare
Ability to be consistant and not go in and out of top form ***

Ability to handle different surfaces *
Ability to handle a wide range of distances ***
Ability to handle tough trips, bad rides, and unfavorable circumstances ***
Ability to ship and consistantly run near top form away from home circuit **
Ability to have participated in a lot of major races **

Ability of the trainer. (for instance ... would you downgrade a horse like Saint Liam because he was 2-for-8 with all failed stakes attempts before getting transferred from a solid trainer to a miracle worker? Or to a more extreme, Would you upgrade the early form of horses like Rachel Alexandra and Rock Hard Ten because they were trained by guys with dismal stats?)

Ability of the jockey.

Competence of the management. (would you upgrade a horse because he was placed in illogical spots? Or to a greater extreme, would you downgrade a horse because he was placed in clever and calculated spots?)

Visual likability. (would you upgrade or downgrade a horse based on flashiness? Flashy type of horses being like an Easy Goer or Arazi. Unflashy types being like a Skip Away .. who was often best when moved prematurely and would grind out steady wins with odd action)

I put "*"'s by my choices. Toughness and consistency are often undervalued, IMO. I consider Cigar great. On Ghostzapper's best day, he would almost certainly have beaten Cigar by open lengths. But which horse would have won a best-of-11 series over the course of a year? I'd probably bet on Cigar.

--Dunbar

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I put "*"'s by my choices. Toughness and consistency are often undervalued, IMO. I consider Cigar great. On Ghostzapper's best day, he would almost certainly have beaten Cigar by open lengths. But which horse would have won a best-of-11 series over the course of a year? I'd probably bet on Cigar.

--Dunbar

I hear ya - but I never really understood why almost everyone seems to most associate Cigar with the toughness and consistentcy traits instead of Skip Away... considering they were both from about the same time period.

I always thought Skip Away was clear cut the toughest and most consistant SOB of the 90's.

Skip Away was stakes placed four times at age 2 - twice just missing in Graded Stakes races.

At age 3, he won the Blue Grass by 6 lengths in his final Ky Derby prep, the eventual Preakness winner finished 2nd. The eventual Belmont winner finished 3rd.

He ran in all 3 triple crown races .. as well as the Ohio Derby, Haskell, Travers, and Woodbine Million, before defeating the older Cigar in the Jockey Club Gold Cup.

At age 4, he made 11 starts - 10 times running a Beyer of 112 or better - 9 times running a 115 or better and capped off the season with a 6 length Breeders Cup Classic win.

At age 5, he won 7 of his 9 starts - 5 of which at the Grade 1 level. Carried as much as 131 pounds and raced in all the different major regions of the country.


Cigar was extremely tough and consistant ... but it lasted a little less than 2 years... and he certainly didn't see anything like the brilliant level of competition Skip Away had to put up with throughout his entire career.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I hear ya - but I never really understood why almost everyone seems to most associate Cigar with the toughness and consistentcy traits instead of Skip Away... considering they were both from about the same time period.

I always thought Skip Away was clear cut the toughest and most consistant SOB of the 90's.

Skip Away was stakes placed four times at age 2 - twice just missing in Graded Stakes races.

At age 3, he won the Blue Grass by 6 lengths in his final Ky Derby prep, the eventual Preakness winner finished 2nd. The eventual Belmont winner finished 3rd.

He ran in all 3 triple crown races .. as well as the Ohio Derby, Haskell, Travers, and Woodbine Million, before defeating the older Cigar in the Jockey Club Gold Cup.

At age 4, he made 11 starts - 10 times running a Beyer of 112 or better - 9 times running a 115 or better and capped off the season with a 6 length Breeders Cup Classic win.

At age 5, he won 7 of his 9 starts - 5 of which at the Grade 1 level. Carried as much as 131 pounds and raced in all the different major regions of the country.


Cigar was extremely tough and consistant ... but it lasted a little less than 2 years... and he certainly didn't see anything like the brilliant level of competition Skip Away had to put up with throughout his entire career.

I think people forget how good Skip Away really was because as you mentioned, he wasn't flashy. He had a terrible pedigree, an odd action, and really just ground you into the ground. I never liked him until he retired and I looked back on his career and realized how many really good/great horses he beat over what these days is a long career.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I hear ya - but I never really understood why almost everyone seems to most associate Cigar with the toughness and consistentcy traits instead of Skip Away... considering they were both from about the same time period.

I always thought Skip Away was clear cut the toughest and most consistant SOB of the 90's.

Skip Away was stakes placed four times at age 2 - twice just missing in Graded Stakes races.

At age 3, he won the Blue Grass by 6 lengths in his final Ky Derby prep, the eventual Preakness winner finished 2nd. The eventual Belmont winner finished 3rd.

He ran in all 3 triple crown races .. as well as the Ohio Derby, Haskell, Travers, and Woodbine Million, before defeating the older Cigar in the Jockey Club Gold Cup.
At age 4, he made 11 starts - 10 times running a Beyer of 112 or better - 9 times running a 115 or better and capped off the season with a 6 length Breeders Cup Classic win.

At age 5, he won 7 of his 9 starts - 5 of which at the Grade 1 level. Carried as much as 131 pounds and raced in all the different major regions of the country.


Cigar was extremely tough and consistant ... but it lasted a little less than 2 years... and he certainly didn't see anything like the brilliant level of competition Skip Away had to put up with throughout his entire career.

Yep, Skip Away was another great tough one. I was a big admirer of both, but a bigger fan of Cigar.

I made the pilgrimage to NY to see that JCGC with Cigar and Skip Away. My almost 3-yr-old son had become a fan of Skip Away from watching Thoroughbred Digest with me for the previous 6 months. We got some good photos of my son at the walking ring with Skip Away and Cigar in the background.

Skip Away did beat Cigar by a nose that day, but maybe the 5 lb weight break had something to do with it!

--Dunbar

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Skip Away did beat Cigar by a nose that day, but maybe the 5 lb weight break had something to do with it!

--Dunbar

This a point that isn't brought up enough in my opinion, Skip Away beat Cigar by a head that day while getting a 5lb advantage. If that is the best he could do with a Cigar probably past his prime, one must wonder how he would have fared against Cigar when he was at his best. Not as well, one would surmise.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by CSC

This a point that isn't brought up enough in my opinion, Skip Away beat Cigar by a head that day while getting a 5lb advantage. If that is the best he could do with a Cigar probably past his prime, one must wonder how he would have fared against Cigar when he was at his best. Not as well, one would surmise.

Well wasnt Skip Away 3 years old? Try having Skip Away at HIS prime and Cigar at his prime if you want to make this kind of comparison.

But I know you always think the 2nd place finisher is better than the first place finisher

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by CSC

This a point that isn't brought up enough in my opinion, Skip Away beat Cigar by a head that day while getting a 5lb advantage. If that is the best he could do with a Cigar probably past his prime, one must wonder how he would have fared against Cigar when he was at his best. Not as well, one would surmise.

The problem with this is that Cigar was just as good at the end of 1996 as he was at the end of 1995. His races in the Woodward, JCGC, and BC Classic were every bit as good the seconed time as the first. The difference was the competition. Whereas in 1995, he was facing the likes of Unaccounted For and L'Carriere, the next year it was Skip Away, Louis Quartorze, and Alphabet Soup. Had he had the same comp in 1996 as he did the previous years, he would have won the races again.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Competence of the management. (would you upgrade a horse because he was placed in illogical spots? Or to a greater extreme, would you downgrade a horse because he was placed in clever and calculated spots?)

Visual likability. (would you upgrade or downgrade a horse based on flashiness? Flashy type of horses being like an Easy Goer or Arazi. Unflashy types being like a Skip Away .. who was often best when moved prematurely and would grind out steady wins with odd action)

I wouldn't give the horse extra "greatness points" if you will, but if the horse is being managed like Teuflesburg a few years ago I'll appreciate that horse more than say a Zensational.

It doesn't tilt the greatness scale in any way for me but, watching a horse win easily is a beautiful thing, and I prefer front-runners to closers.

[Gate Dancer]

Ability to win major races
Ability to beat good horses
Ability to run fast figures
Ability to win with dominance

Ability to handle different surfaces
Ability to handle a wide range of distances
Ability to handle tough trips, bad rides, and unfavorable circumstances
Ability to ship and consistantly run near top form away from home circuit
Ability to have participated in a lot of major races


These two groups of criteria 'define' a great race horse for me. I had the fortune to see the great groups of horses in the 70's and 80's and still believe these decades of thoroughbreds were far superior to what we are seeing now.

[Indian Charlie]

I think to be a great horse you have to be able to run at least a 115 BSF twice in a row.

[Thoroughbred Fan]

Ability to be consistant and not go in and out of top form
Ability to handle a wide range of distances
Ability to handle tough trips, bad rides, and unfavorable circumstances
Ability to carry high weight or give weight away to good horses
Ability to run fast figures