Which horses were truly great?

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I'm already having this debate on another forum and it seems as good a time as any to bring it here. Which horses were truly great? For the purposes of this thread great means they were both brilliant and accomplished and the elite of the elite. Ghostzapper was brilliant but not accomplished enough to fit the definition. Cigar was accomplished but not brilliant enough to fit the definition. Here is who I believe fits the truly great label. Who would you remove or add?

Hindoo (1878)
Kingston (1884)
Salvator (1886)
Colin (1905)
Man o War (1917)
War Admiral (1934)
Count Fleet (1940)
Citation (1945)
Tom Fool (1949)
Native Dancer (1950)
Nashua (1952)
Swaps (1952)
Round Table (1954)
Kelso (1957)
Buckpasser (1963)
Dr Fager (1964)
Damascus (1964)
Secretriat (1970)
Forego (1970)
Seattle Slew (1974)
Affirmed (1975)
Spectacular Bid (1976)


I'm only talking North American based horses and not giving anyone a break cause they are a filly. If their biggest accomplishment is that they beat the boys and are great "for a filly" that doesn't count. All of these horses beat the boys every race and would be otherwordly if they were fillies.

Well, it's your list but how can you leave off Exterminator? He won 50 of 100 races and more stakes -- 30 -- than any horse before or since.

I'd also put Grey Lag on the list. He won 25 races out of less than 50 starts and won 8 straght stakes race starts. He retired at 5 but came back as a 9 yo to win both his starts that year.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Well, it's your list but how can you leave off Exterminator? He won 50 of 100 races and more stakes -- 30 -- than any horse before or since.

I'd also put Grey Lag on the list. He won 25 races out of less than 50 starts and won 8 straght stakes race starts. He retired at 5 but came back as a 9 yo to win both his starts that year.

That also means he lost 50 out of 100. I have tough time putting a horse in the upper tier that only won half his starts. Grey Lag was really only great for one year which hurts his case.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

That also means he lost 50 out of 100. I have tough time putting a horse in the upper tier that only won half his starts. Grey Lag was really only great for one year which hurts his case.

Really, so what?

Go back and check the weight Exterminator gave away. How much, how often and to what horses.

If all you are looking for are animals who had good records over a couple years, how can you leave off Black Ruby?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

If all you are looking for are animals who had good records over a couple years, how can you leave off Black Ruby?

Talk about brilliantly fast.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Talk about brilliantly fast.

She was one game mule.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

That also means he lost 50 out of 100. I have tough time putting a horse in the upper tier that only won half his starts. Grey Lag was really only great for one year which hurts his case.

if he was 5 of 10, i could see your point. just remember that no one holds citations losses against him, not with that win streak, and weight carried.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Danzig

if he was 5 of 10, i could see your point. just remember that no one holds citations losses against him, not with that win streak, and weight carried.

In those 50 wins Exterminator never had a streak longer than 6, and in that streak he only carried more than 126 once.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

In those 50 wins Exterminator never had a streak longer than 6, and in that streak he only carried more than 126 once.

when i said win streak, it was in reference to citation.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I'm already having this debate on another forum and it seems as good a time as any to bring it here. Which horses were truly great? For the purposes of this thread great means they were both brilliant and accomplished and the elite of the elite. Ghostzapper was brilliant but not accomplished enough to fit the definition. Cigar was accomplished but not brilliant enough to fit the definition. Here is who I believe fits the truly great label. Who would you remove or add?

Hindoo (1878)
Kingston (1884)
Salvator (1886)
Colin (1905)
Man o War (1917)
War Admiral (1934)
Count Fleet (1940)
Citation (1945)
Tom Fool (1949)
Native Dancer (1950)
Nashua (1952)
Swaps (1952)
Round Table (1954)
Kelso (1957)
Buckpasser (1963)
Dr Fager (1964)
Damascus (1964)
Secretriat (1970)
Forego (1970)
Seattle Slew (1974)
Affirmed (1975)
Spectacular Bid (1976)


I'm only talking North American based horses and not giving anyone a break cause they are a filly. If their biggest accomplishment is that they beat the boys and are great "for a filly" that doesn't count. All of these horses beat the boys every race and would be otherwordly if they were fillies.

Ok I'll weigh in,

I never understood that saying Cigar was not brilliant enough. He was brilliant enough from what I saw of him. Perhaps he didn't have that one electrifying performance that would elevate him to freakish great, however in an age of early retirements, fragile horses, horses that call 4-5 race campaigns tiring. He was one of the greatest from what I have seen.

But I perhaps undertstand your point, Candy Ride-Ghostzapper short term brilliance or Cigar longevity steadiness.