Why It's Silly To Play Woulda/Coulda/Shoulda

I was thinking about the Bellamy Road thread ... where we were discussing whether or not talented horses who run a few brilliant races ... like Bellamy Road, Landaluce, Hoist The Flag, and many others ... can ever be considered "great."

My viewpoint is a resounding "No" ... but others said "Maybe" or "Yes."

But I've thought of a good example which strengthens my point ... Honest Pleasure.

He was an outstanding 2YO champion in 1975. He came out as a 3YO and was dazzling ... beyond dazzling. He won his first start at 7f by 14 lengths ... then won the G1 Flamingo by 11 easy lengths ... running the 9f faster than the legendary 1957 renewal featuring Bold Ruler, Gen Duke and Iron Liege. (I remember Honest Pleasure's race as thought it were yesterday ... what a performance!) He then won the G1 Florida Derby by 3 lengths ... with "speed to spare."

Suppose his career ended there ... outstanding 2YO champion ... dazzling winner of his first four starts as a 3YO ... eight straight wins ... including 5 G1's and a G2 ... with the last seven being with the greatest of ease ... would there be some today who would say he was "great" ... that he was one of the all-time best? Undoubtedly. Beyond undoubtedly ... certainly. And you know who you are.

But look at what actually happened ... Honest Pleasure won only one of his last nine starts as a 3YO ... and one of four as a 4YO ... 2 out of 13 overall.

And there was not a thing physically wrong with him ... because his one subsequent victory as a 3YO was a solid score in the Travers ... and he also lost that memorable photo to Forego in the 10f Marlboro Cup while receiving 18 pounds.

He was a high-quality colt who almost always won ... over any distance ... when he could make the early lead ... but who almost always lost ... over any distance ... when he was challenged.

Through April of his 3YO year ... he had compiled one of the greatest records ... ever ... up to that point ... but ... it was downhill from there.

Can anyone seriously argue then ... with an air of certitude ... what Landaluce, Hoist The Flag, Graustark, Sir Gaylord, Bellamy Road ... or any other talented horse whose career was cut short ... "woulda" done ... or "coulda" done?

That's why I say ... woulda/coulda/shoulda doesn't count for anything ... and only what actually happens in real, contested races does.

End of case.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I was thinking about the Bellamy Road thread ... where we were discussing whether or not talented horses who run a few brilliant races ... like Bellamy Road, Landaluce, Hoist The Flag, and many others ... can ever be considered "great."

My viewpoint is a resounding "No" ... but others said "Maybe" or "Yes."

But I've thought of a good example which strengthens my point ... Honest Pleasure.

He was an outstanding 2YO champion in 1975. He came out as a 3YO and was dazzling ... beyond dazzling. He won his first start at 7f by 14 lengths ... then won the G1 Flamingo by 11 easy lengths ... running the 9f faster than the legendary 1957 renewal featuring Bold Ruler, Gen Duke and Iron Liege. (I remember Honest Pleasure's race as thought it were yesterday ... what a performance!) He then won the G1 Florida Derby by 3 lengths ... with "speed to spare."

Suppose his career ended there ... outstanding 2YO champion ... dazzling winner of his first four starts as a 3YO ... eight straight wins ... including 5 G1's and a G2 ... with the last seven being with the greatest of ease ... would there be some today who would say he was "great" ... that he was one of the all-time best? Undoubtedly. Beyond undoubtedly ... certainly. And you know who you are.

But look at what actually happened ... Honest Pleasure won only one of his last nine starts as a 3YO ... and one of four as a 4YO ... 2 out of 13 overall.

And there was not a thing physically wrong with him ... because his one subsequent victory as a 3YO was a solid score in the Travers ... and he also lost that memorable photo to Forego in the 10f Marlboro Cup while receiving 18 pounds.

He was a high-quality colt who almost always won ... over any distance ... when he could make the early lead ... but who almost always lost ... over any distance ... when he was challenged.

Through April of his 3YO year ... he had compiled one of the greatest records ... ever ... up to that point ... but ... it was downhill from there.

Can anyone seriously argue then ... with an air of certitude ... what Landaluce, Hoist The Flag, Graustark, Sir Gaylord, Bellamy Road ... or any other talented horse whose career was cut short ... "woulda" done ... or "coulda" done?

That's why I say ... woulda/coulda/shoulda doesn't count for anything ... and only what actually happens in real, contested races does.

End of case.

Very well put.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Very well put.

I think it varies based on a lot of factors...was Count Fleet great? He raced a lot but never after the Belmont. How about Pharis? Lammtarra? Hard to make a hard fast rule here!

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I think it varies based on a lot of factors...was Count Fleet great? He raced a lot but never after the Belmont. How about Pharis? Lammtarra? Hard to make a hard fast rule here!

I agree with you there Somerfrost. I think it comes down to competition faced. If you can beat really good horses in an abbreviated career, then you should be considered great.

My issue is with horses that never beat anything good but put up freakish times or sheet figs being called great.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I agree with you there Somerfrost. I think it comes down to competition faced. If you can beat really good horses in an abbreviated career, then you should be considered great.

My issue is with horses that never beat anything good but put up freakish times or sheet figs being called great.

I agree, Pharis for example raced three times...but he won two group ones and a group two at distances of 12f, 12f and 15f...obviously a superior animal.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I agree with you there Somerfrost. I think it comes down to competition faced. If you can beat really good horses in an abbreviated career, then you should be considered great.

My issue is with horses that never beat anything good but put up freakish times or sheet figs being called great.

The problem is a horse can beat everything he is put up against, and still lose ground. A new horse arises that could be a challenge, he races against said horse that might be considered great, and the great one blows the horse away and then.... awww, he really was not that good. One thing that helps is having a champion that you go back and forth with. Ali/Frazier. Affirmed...Aly.. the list goes on.

I really think Mineshaft is vastly underrated for this reason. No TC races. Megs ran away. Mineshaft did not run in the BC. Done, overwith, forgotten. But anyone who watched the animal run saw the talent. And the horse had a few grueling performances. But he does not make many people's list as a top horse. Its always comes down the horse has to be born in the right year and always beat an up and coming horse, the "now we will see how good he really is" has to happen multiple times. And some horses never get a chance to put on this display.

[Scurlogue Champ]

On record here,

I still think Smarty Jones was a chugging little f ucker that would scrap with any horse out there.

And fast too.....

Originally Posted by moodwalker

On record here,

I still think Smarty Jones was a chugging little f ucker that would scrap with any horse out there.

And fast too.....

Seconded.

What a great animal. Im glad I had the chance to see him.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Seconded.

What a great animal. Im glad I had the chance to see him.

I will likewise agree...everything I saw about Smarty told me he was special...as usual, lots of folks jumped off the bandwagon after the Belmont, but as we've said many times, only one horse that ever set foot on the track could have survived that second half mile and continued on...and I don't expect to live long enough to see a horse like Secretariat again! Smarty lost to a good horse, at that horse's preferred distance, after a suicidal second half mile...if anything, he gained stature in that brave effort...I rank him #83 and consider him truly special!

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I will likewise agree...everything I saw about Smarty told me he was special...as usual, lots of folks jumped off the bandwagon after the Belmont, but as we've said many times, only one horse that ever set foot on the track could have survived that second half mile and continued on...and I don't expect to live long enough to see a horse like Secretariat again! Smarty lost to a good horse, at that horse's preferred distance, after a suicidal second half mile...if anything, he gained stature in that brave effort...I rank him #83 and consider him truly special!

smarty was no doubt a talented horse as well. He was a dual classic winner and there is certainly something to be said for that. Great or "truly special" as you put it? Again, it depends on how you judge it.

I would have liked to have seen him face older horses. I would have liked to have seen him beat some really good horses. The horses in his crop werent all that good. He destroyed an extremely immature Rockhardten and likewise an extremely immature Eddington. Playing Devils advocate, could it be argued that his dominance over those two were more of a result of their immaturity as opposed to a superiority in quality? Not necessarily saying that that is the case but simply asking if that is a possiblity.

In my opinion, Smarty was robbed of the chance to prove how great he truly was one way or the other.

In the end, i realize that this will be an unpopular stance. I hope that instead of bashing me that people will instead defend why he was great.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

smarty was no doubt a talented horse as well. He was a dual classic winner and there is certainly something to be said for that. Great or "truly special" as you put it? Again, it depends on how you judge it.

I would have liked to have seen him face older horses. I would have liked to have seen him beat some really good horses. The horses in his crop werent all that good. He destroyed an extremely immature Rockhardten and likewise an extremely immature Eddington. Playing Devils advocate, could it be argued that his dominance over those two were more of a result of their immaturity as opposed to a superiority in quality? Not necessarily saying that that is the case but simply asking if that is a possiblity.

In my opinion, Smarty was robbed of the chance to prove how great he truly was one way or the other.

In the end, i realize that this will be an unpopular stance. I hope that instead of bashing me that people will instead defend why he was great.

I wish he would have gotten to do the things you mentioned also, but I guess it wasn't to be.

The reason I think he impressed me is because when that bastard would take the lead, it gave me a lot of goosebumps.....

And he looked like he was giving his absolute all.

I don't know if he could have even beaten Perfect Drift, but he was a good and tough racehorse who endured a tough campaign and stroked them all save for the Belmont.

Mostly for me, it just made me feel good to see him do his thing...

And sometimes that is all that counts.

[sham]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I was thinking about the Bellamy Road thread ... where we were discussing whether or not talented horses who run a few brilliant races ... like Bellamy Road, Landaluce, Hoist The Flag, and many others ... can ever be considered "great."

My viewpoint is a resounding "No" ... but others said "Maybe" or "Yes."

But I've thought of a good example which strengthens my point ... Honest Pleasure.

He was an outstanding 2YO champion in 1975. He came out as a 3YO and was dazzling ... beyond dazzling. He won his first start at 7f by 14 lengths ... then won the G1 Flamingo by 11 easy lengths ... running the 9f faster than the legendary 1957 renewal featuring Bold Ruler, Gen Duke and Iron Liege. (I remember Honest Pleasure's race as thought it were yesterday ... what a performance!) He then won the G1 Florida Derby by 3 lengths ... with "speed to spare."

Suppose his career ended there ... outstanding 2YO champion ... dazzling winner of his first four starts as a 3YO ... eight straight wins ... including 5 G1's and a G2 ... with the last seven being with the greatest of ease ... would there be some today who would say he was "great" ... that he was one of the all-time best? Undoubtedly. Beyond undoubtedly ... certainly. And you know who you are.

But look at what actually happened ... Honest Pleasure won only one of his last nine starts as a 3YO ... and one of four as a 4YO ... 2 out of 13 overall.

And there was not a thing physically wrong with him ... because his one subsequent victory as a 3YO was a solid score in the Travers ... and he also lost that memorable photo to Forego in the 10f Marlboro Cup while receiving 18 pounds.

He was a high-quality colt who almost always won ... over any distance ... when he could make the early lead ... but who almost always lost ... over any distance ... when he was challenged.

Through April of his 3YO year ... he had compiled one of the greatest records ... ever ... up to that point ... but ... it was downhill from there.

Can anyone seriously argue then ... with an air of certitude ... what Landaluce, Hoist The Flag, Graustark, Sir Gaylord, Bellamy Road ... or any other talented horse whose career was cut short ... "woulda" done ... or "coulda" done?

That's why I say ... woulda/coulda/shoulda doesn't count for anything ... and only what actually happens in real, contested races does.

End of case.

Can't argue with that. The truth is...a horse has to be good enough to defeat the others of his era most of the time, and sound enough to avoid injury (luck plays a part here) to become a great. So there is the hidden attribute of great horses that is seldom mentioned...lucky.

[Pedigree Ann]

In his Champagne and Bay Shore runs, Hoist the Flag totally outclassed colts like Jim French, Bold Reason, Good Behaving, etc., who would go on to win and place in races like the Santa Anita Derby, Wood Memorial, Kentucky Derby, Belmont, and Travers. There was talk that if Travers winner Bold Reason won the 10f Woodward over his elders as well, he would have had Horse of the Year and champion 3yo locked up. But he didn't - Cougar II ran away and hid from that field, so Ack Ack got HoY and Canonero II (laid up after the Belmont) got top 3yo. Hoist the Flag had made the cream of his crop look like overmatched allowance horses.

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I think it varies based on a lot of factors...was Count Fleet great? He raced a lot but never after the Belmont. How about Pharis? Lammtarra? Hard to make a hard fast rule here!

I addressed the Lammtarra case on the other thread ... but I'll repeat it here ...

Lammtarra won the three most important races in Europe ... twice defeating large fields of the best older horses. He was great ... and he proved it on the racetrack.

On other threads in the past ... I've addressed Count Fleet ... and Ruffian ... neither of whom won another race after winning their respective Triple Crowns in June of their 3YO years.

Both of them looked sensational ... winning by substantial margins and running fast times. But they did it against weak crops of their contemporaries ... and never faced a quality horse from another crop ... or ... in Ruffian's case ... defeated a colt.

What would have happened had they faced tougher opposition ... or quality older opponents? We'll never know ... so that leaves both of their careers achingly incomplete ... and shy of what other great horses accomplished.

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

In his Champagne and Bay Shore runs, Hoist the Flag totally outclassed colts like Jim French, Bold Reason, Good Behaving, etc., who would go on to win and place in races like the Santa Anita Derby, Wood Memorial, Kentucky Derby, Belmont, and Travers. There was talk that if Travers winner Bold Reason won the 10f Woodward over his elders as well, he would have had Horse of the Year and champion 3yo locked up. But he didn't - Cougar II ran away and hid from that field, so Ack Ack got HoY and Canonero II (laid up after the Belmont) got top 3yo. Hoist the Flag had made the cream of his crop look like overmatched allowance horses.

Hey Stupid ...

... Honest Pleasure had an even better record than Hoist The Flag ... through the same stage of their careers ... and he failed consistently thereafter.

How do you know the same wouldn't have happened to Hoist The Flag ... did you get a Coulda/Shoulda/Woulda Decoder Ring in your first box of Animal Crackers?

You know nothing ... so stop wasting server space ... and go back to trying to prove how great the Sir Gallahad line was in the late 1940's and early 1950's.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Hey Stupid ...

... Honest Pleasure had an even better record than Hoist The Flag ... through the same stage of their careers ... and he failed consistently thereafter.

How do you know the same wouldn't have happened to Hoist The Flag ... did you get a Coulda/Shoulda/Woulda Decoder Ring in your first box of Animal Crackers?

You know nothing ... so stop wasting server space ... and go back to trying to prove how great the Sir Gallahad line was in the late 1940's and early 1950's.

Never be convinced otherwise.

You are an A sshole.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Hey Stupid ...

... Honest Pleasure had an even better record than Hoist The Flag ... through the same stage of their careers ... and he failed consistently thereafter.

How do you know the same wouldn't have happened to Hoist The Flag ... did you get a Coulda/Shoulda/Woulda Decoder Ring in your first box of Animal Crackers?

You know nothing ... so stop wasting server space ... and go back to trying to prove how great the Sir Gallahad line was in the late 1940's and early 1950's.

And where I come from a ssholes like you are used to clean the streets.

63 year old man talking tough from a thousand miles away.

Your parents should be ashamed for themselves.

Some peoples' children.

This thread shows the difference between those who understand the game, and those who want it to be like something it isn't.
You see BB, human athletes when feeling a cramp or pain, tell teh coach or manager to take them out of the lineup and they go and see the Dr.
Basically, they can talk.
Horses can't. And they also don't have the intelligence(most of them) to pull themselves up in a race when they feel pain. They keep running until they can't.
Therefore injuries occur that end their careers prematurely.
Trying to use "accomplishments" over a three year period as an absolute to achieve greatness is illogical in the horse business.
Don Mattingly was certainly great, one of the best who ever played baseball as a matter of fact. His back injury prevented him from putting up career hall oF fame standard numbers.
Does this mean he was not great? Piffle and balderdash!!! he most certainly was.
here is a "newsflash" for you. because of the current disproportion between stud fees and purses, it would be insane for anyone but a sheokh to run a superstar at age 4. crazy!!! the insurance premiums would far outweigh any purses that the horse could earn.
So what I'm basically telling you is that 4 year old campaigns by great three year olds are going to be rare. This does not mean that we will never again see greatness.
To use this logic, only a three year old who is awesome and is owned by a sheikh will ever have the chance to be great.
Its nonsense. You can identify greatness by watchinga horse run and specualting with rationality what kind of horse he is.

Originally Posted by oracle80

This thread shows the difference between those who understand the game, and those who want it to be like something it isn't.
You see BB, human athletes when feeling a cramp or pain, tell teh coach or manager to take them out of the lineup and they go and see the Dr.
Basically, they can talk.
Horses can't. And they also don't have the intelligence(most of them) to pull themselves up in a race when they feel pain. They keep running until they can't.
Therefore injuries occur that end their careers prematurely.
Trying to use "accomplishments" over a three year period as an absolute to achieve greatness is illogical in the horse business.
Don Mattingly was certainly great, one of the best who ever played baseball as a matter of fact. His back injury prevented him from putting up career hall oF fame standard numbers.
Does this mean he was not great? Piffle and balderdash!!! he most certainly was.
here is a "newsflash" for you. because of the current disproportion between stud fees and purses, it would be insane for anyone but a sheokh to run a superstar at age 4. crazy!!! the insurance premiums would far outweigh any purses that the horse could earn.
So what I'm basically telling you is that 4 year old campaigns by great three year olds are going to be rare. This does not mean that we will never again see greatness.
To use this logic, only a three year old who is awesome and is owned by a sheikh will ever have the chance to be great.
Its nonsense. You can identify greatness by watchinga horse run and specualting with rationality what kind of horse he is.

Greatness has little to do with the number of times a horse races ... or the number of years he races. Lammtarra proved that ... by soundly beating the best horses from all contemporary crops in the three most important races in Europe.

But unless a horse demonstrates ... on the track in actual races ... that he is capable of defeating opponents of known quality ... all the speculative couldas and wouldas and shouldas and I-can-tell's ... don't mean a thing.

Identify "greatness" by watching a horse run and speculating with rationality? Sounds like the 2YOS In Training Sales ... and we see how well those speculations turn out.