How do you.....

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I think Ouija Board was great, and while I may get murdered here for saying so, I also think Skip Away was great, although a less flashy, less brilliant embodiement of it.

Skip Away was obviously great. I think he'd be in everyone's top 3 from the 90's. I think he was the best horse of the 90s...no idea why you'd get murdered for that.

Ouija Board, on the other hand, calling her great is a huge reach in my opinion. She lossed 12 of her 22career starts - and her two BC Filly and Mare Turf Wins both came at the expense of 2nd place finisher Film Maker.

Film Maker never won more than a single Grade 3 stake in those two years.

[Cajungator26]

I'd put Silver Charm in the 'great' category as well.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I'd put Silver Charm in the 'great' category as well.

You need to read up on racing history.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You need to read up on racing history.

Opinions are like a$$holes. He impressed me.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Opinions are like a$$holes. He impressed me.

He impressed you therefore he's great?

I was wrong, it's not history you need to study, it's the dictionary.

[PSH]

Three horses who never got a chance to show how great they might have been: Danzig, Hoist the Flag, and Roberto. All were pretty good in the breeding shed though....

Great horses that i remember from my early days in racing

Forego - carried the weight. Loved to go to Belmont and see him give 10-15 lbs to Quiet Little Table and others...
Affirmed, Alydar, Seattle Slew come to mind right away of course....

Pearl Necklace would not be a great horse but the Roger Laurin trained filly was my first real love in horse racing in New York.... Always competed against Greentree, Darby Dan and Rokeby horses. The good old days...

Loved when Pebbles came to Aqueduct to win the Breeders Cup race from overseas....

Curlin might become great if he is allowed to race. We shall see....

Ghostzapper was fast real fast, have to call him great....

PSH

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by PSH

Pearl Necklace would not be a great horse but the Roger Laurin trained filly was my first real love in horse racing in New York....

That's funny you brought her up. I was a big fan of her's as well and I was recently telling someone about what a wonderful horse Waya was and how she dusted Pearl Necklace in that record setting Diana......which was quite an accomplishment.

[King Glorious]

I think that the thing people need to do is understand the difference between what you THINK is great or could be great and what's PROVEN as great. On the first list, I have horses like Java Gold and King Glorious. They wouldn't make the second list though.

I also believe that it's unfair to compare horses of different eras because so many things that are out of the horses control have changed. It's not fair, for example, to give a horse from the 60's more credit for carrying high weights when a horse in today's era never gets that same chance. I feel like to assume that they COULDN'T do it is not fair at all. It's not right to downgrade a Bernardini or Curlin (maybe) because they didn't race as 4yo's. Many of the greats of the past, if they ran in today's era, would not race at the age of four either. I think that in order to properly judge them, one has to look at how they fare against the other horses in their era and not the ones from past ones.

Look at baseball for example.
1968 Bob Gibson led the league in ERA at 1.12
Second place was 1.60
The top 10 were all at 2.08 or better.
Seven guys under 2.00
League ERA was 2.98

1994 Greg Maddux led in 1.56
Second place was 2.65
There were only eight players under 3.00
League ERA was 4.51

2000 Pedro Martinez led at 1.74
Second place was 2.58
There were only four players under 3.00
League ERA was 4.77

Looking at it based solely on raw numbers, one would see Gibson's 1.12 and figure he had the best season. But when you look deeper, you see that in comparison to their peers, Maddux and Martinez had far more dominant years.

Same goes with these horses. They've got to be judged under the conditions of their times and not against others. If they go above and beyond what is normal for good horses of their time, they've done all they can do and deserve some consideration for that.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

He impressed you therefore he's great?

I was wrong, it's not history you need to study, it's the dictionary.

Okay, Andy. My OPINION is that he was a great horse. The last time I checked there wasn't a definition in the dictionary categorizing what a 'great' horse is. Perhaps I need to get the edition that you have?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Okay, Andy. My OPINION is that he was a great horse. The last time I checked there wasn't a definition in the dictionary categorizing what a 'great' horse is. Perhaps I need to get the edition that you have?

In my personal opinion I'm a better basketball player than Michael Jordan, a better baseball player than Alex Rodriguez and a better hockey player than Wayne Gretzky.

Hard to believe? Maybe.....but it's my OPINION.













I just bought your dictionary. It was very enlightening.