bellamy road was retired

My Rule #1 ...

What a horse does in actual races is all that really counts; "woulda/coulda/shoulda" doesn't count for squat.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

My Rule #1 ...

What a horse does in actual races is all that really counts; "woulda/coulda/shoulda" doesn't count for squat.

My God, BB, if we stick to horses we generally see eye to eye.

There has to be some sort of standard for evaluating quality and/or greatness in race horses. This was discussed extensively on a thread a few weeks ago.

If we dwell on the hypothetical ... we'll get nowhere.

Hoist The Flag may have been the greatest race horse in the history of the world ... may have been ... but he wasn't. He won two stakes races as a 2YO ... and one as a 3YO ... not enough to reach any sort of threshhold.

Stick to what they actually do in races ... and never mind how good they looked walking around the shedrow.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

There has to be some sort of standard for evaluating quality and/or greatness in race horses. This was discussed extensively on a thread a few weeks ago.

If we dwell on the hypothetical ... we'll get nowhere.

Hoist The Flag may have been the greatest race horse in the history of the world ... may have been ... but he wasn't. He won two stakes races as a 2YO ... and one as a 3YO ... not enough to reach any sort of threshhold.

Stick to what they actually do in races ... and never mind how good they looked walking around the shedrow.

BB,
you are way off base here. His Wood and travers were not theoretical. I watched one on tv, and saw the other one live. I'm quite sure they happened. How many times do you have to see great before you know a horse is great.
Ask anyone who ever saw landaluce run if she was great.

Originally Posted by oracle80

BB,
you are way off base here. His Wood and travers were not theoretical. I watched one on tv, and saw the other one live. I'm quite sure they happened. How many times do you have to see great before you know a horse is great.
Ask anyone who ever saw landaluce run if she was great.

Landaluce had a terrific record as a 2YO in California ... and showed tremendous potential ... which she never got to fulfill ... just like Hoist The Flag whom I cited previously.

Bellamy Road won one G1 race ... and placed in another. It takes a lot of talent to do that ... but that's all he did.

Arts And Letters won 7 G1 races as a 3YO ... including his final 6 in a row ... defeating older champions along the way ... and placed in 5 others earlier in the year. I have no doubt about how good he was.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Landaluce had a terrific record as a 2YO in California ... and showed tremendous potential ... which she never got to fulfill ... just like Hoist The Flag whom I cited previously.

Bellamy Road won one G1 race ... and placed in another. It takes a lot of talent to do that ... but that's all he did.

Arts And Letters won 7 G1 races as a 3YO ... including his final 6 in a row ... defeating older champions along the way ... and placed in 5 others earlier in the year. I have no doubt about how good he was.

I have no doubts about Landaluce either.

Originally Posted by oracle80

I have no doubts about Landaluce either.

She never won a race as a 3YO ... or 4YO, 5YO, etc.

She never raced outside of California.

She had a single race around two turns ... which she won by two narrowing lengths over a field nonentities.

She never defeated colts.

She never defeated older fillies and mares.

There IS some room for doubt ... but ... we'll never know until we get to heaven ... or at least I'll find out and let you know.

That's why woulda/shoulda/coulda doesn't ... in fact, can't ... count.

Originally Posted by Dixie Porter

As far as BR, he wouldn't rate in the top 1000 horses that have raced.

That's exactly what I was going to post! But I was beaten to it by the world's second most knowledgable analyst.

Here's how I got there ...

Bellamy Road won one G1 stakes and placed in one other. In an average year ... there are probably about 10 to 20 horses who accomplish that ... or accomplish much more. So ... if we go back to the time when thoroughbred racing became a major organized sport in the United States ... about 1860 say ... there probably have been about 1,500 to 3,000 horses who have done what Bellamy Road did ... or better.

So ... if anyone took the time to research all G1-equivalent winners over the past 145 years ... Bellamy Road would probably rank somewhere around 2000th ....among all American race horses.

Ooops ... this was supposed to be a new thread.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

My Rule #1 ...

What a horse does in actual races is all that really counts; "woulda/coulda/shoulda" doesn't count for squat.

exactly, but two races in the wood and travers are efforts that only a great horse is capable of. shug thought he was one of the best horses in years and obviously he had nothing to do with him.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Revolution

exactly, but two races in the wood and travers are efforts that only a great horse is capable of. shug thought he was one of the best horses in years and obviously he had nothing to do with him.

I guess then what it comes down to how you define "great". For me, it takes more than two efforts in restricted races. Its obvious he had the talent to be a great horse. The Wood was, again, the most dominating prep ive ever seen.

For me, it takes more than just two races. For me, they have to beat the best around and do it consistently.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I guess then what it comes down to how you define "great". For me, it takes more than two efforts in restricted races. Its obvious he had the talent to be a great horse. The Wood was, again, the most dominating prep ive ever seen.

For me, it takes more than just two races. For me, they have to beat the best around and do it consistently.

Gee,
Thats kinda hard to do when you have a splint thats all screwed up near the tendon.
Or if you are Smarty, hard to do when your ankles have eroded down to nothing(just a "rumor" I heard).
I don't hold injuries against horses, any horse.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Gee,
Thats kinda hard to do when you have a splint thats all screwed up near the tendon.
Or if you are Smarty, hard to do when your ankles have eroded down to nothing(just a "rumor" I heard).
I don't hold injuries against horses, any horse.

Again, this must just be a comprehension thing because its becoming consistent.

You cant hold injuries against horses. But at the same time, you cant hypothesize what they "would have" done if not injured. The fact is, soundness has a lot to do with how much a horse accomplishes.

You look at pure talent when defining "greatness". Thats fine. I look more at what they accomplish on the track. Neither is right or wrong.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I guess then what it comes down to how you define "great". For me, it takes more than two efforts in restricted races. Its obvious he had the talent to be a great horse. The Wood was, again, the most dominating prep ive ever seen.

For me, it takes more than just two races. For me, they have to beat the best around and do it consistently.

I think it just depends what question you are answering. If someone asks you who were the most talented horses you've ever seen, that would be a different question from what horses accomplished the most.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think it just depends what question you are answering. If someone asks you who were the most talented horses you've ever seen, that would be a different question from what horses accomplished the most.

too true!!

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think it just depends what question you are answering. If someone asks you who were the most talented horses you've ever seen, that would be a different question from what horses accomplished the most.

True. Again, how do you define "greatness"? If its just the perception of pure talent, then by all means, BM was great. If its by accomplishment, he was far from it.

Heck, Lamtarra could have been one of the greatest ever to run if just judging by talent.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

True. Again, how do you define "greatness"? If its just the perception of pure talent, then by all means, BM was great. If its by accomplishment, he was far from it.

Heck, Lamtarra could have been one of the greatest ever to run if just judging by talent.

And just who the **** would argue that Lamtarra wasn't great?
Look, they don't have to run 100 times to be great in my book. I only have to see it twice. One time to define it, another time to prove the first one ain't a fluke.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

True. Again, how do you define "greatness"? If its just the perception of pure talent, then by all means, BM was great. If its by accomplishment, he was far from it.

Heck, Lamtarra could have been one of the greatest ever to run if just judging by talent.

Lammtarra won the three most important races in Europe as a 3YO ... twice defeating large fields of the best older horses.

There's no doubt that he was great ... he proved it on the track.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Lammtarra won the three most important races in Europe as a 3YO ... twice defeating large fields of the best older horses.

There's no doubt that he was great ... he proved it on the track.

Agree totally.

His run in the Derby was tremendous