There's no stars in racing? Is that right?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Pretending that a bunch of less than stellar horses are as exciting as truly good horses does not generate any real excitement or interest.....and I think it shows.

Who's pretending? And I think this is the crux... Your passion for the game, and Chuck's, pre-dates mine by a good 10-15 years. While I remember the truly great horses that you are holding up to today's horses for scrutiny, I don't require that today's best be as good as them. I find Proud Spell and Music Note battling to the wire in the Alabama earning 101 Beyers every bit as exciting as Heavenly Prize earning a 111 over Lakeway. Would Proud Spell or Music Note beat Mom's Command? Or Open Mind or Maplejinsky or Go For Wand? No... But that's OK for me personally.

This is a great discussion. And my underlying issue partially is that since the vast majority of younger fans can only relate to what they see, it doesn't serve much benefit to abjectly belittle what they are embracing as great in their time.

The objective is to appreciate the modern 'stars' while educating the unenlightened or neophyte as to why Rachel Alexandra and Curlin aren't even in the Top 50 All Time let alone among the Top 10 or 20. (Which brings up the issue of who is going to handle the assignment with Jess Jackson?)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Who's pretending? And I think this is the crux... Your passion for the game, and Chuck's, pre-dates mine by a good 10-15 years. While I remember the truly great horses that you are holding up to today's horses for scrutiny, I don't require that today's best be as good as them. I find Proud Spell and Music Note battling to the wire in the Alabama earning 101 Beyers every bit as exciting as Heavenly Prize earning a 111 over Lakeway. Would Proud Spell or Music Note beat Mom's Command? Or Open Mind or Maplejinsky or Go For Wand? No... But that's OK for me personally.

This is a great discussion. And my underlying issue partially is that since the vast majority of younger fans can only relate to what they see, it doesn't serve much benefit to abjectly belittle what they are embracing as great in their time.

The objective is to appreciate the modern 'stars' while educating the unenlightened or neophyte as to why Rachel Alexandra and Curlin aren't even in the Top 50 All Time let alone among the Top 10 or 20. (Which brings up the issue of who is going to handle the assignment with Jess Jackson?)

While there are still great races, cards, days, etc. the quality of top horses simply doesnt match up anymore in most cases. It is like saying that that a triple A game is the same as a major league game because the score was close. Both may be entertaining events that you had a good time watching (or even betting on) but when push comes to shove you know that the AAA game isnt the same as the majors. Horses like Einstein, while nice horses that are versatile and game, simply arent much better than AAA all stars posing as major leaguers. He and Commentator are far from great horses yet have had longevity which allows them to add to the their list of accomplishments against other less than stellar competition (for the most part) but have never been considered or done anything truly extraordinary. Our society loves lists and all time greats and other rankings. Racings current problem is that historically the modern "stars" simply dont measure up no matter how hard we try to accept the new reality of horseracing.

[satan's twin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

While there are still great races, cards, days, etc. the quality of top horses simply doesnt match up anymore in most cases. It is like saying that that a triple A game is the same as a major league game because the score was close. Both may be entertaining events that you had a good time watching (or even betting on) but when push comes to shove you know that the AAA game isnt the same as the majors. Horses like Einstein, while nice horses that are versatile and game, simply arent much better than AAA all stars posing as major leaguers. He and Commentator are far from great horses yet have had longevity which allows them to add to the their list of accomplishments against other less than stellar competition (for the most part) but have never been considered or done anything truly extraordinary. Our society loves lists and all time greats and other rankings. Racings current problem is that historically the modern "stars" simply dont measure up no matter how hard we try to accept the new reality of horseracing.

All I know is that Bob Gibson would have struck out Skip Away every time he faced him.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by satan's twin

All I know is that Bob Gibson would have struck out Skip Away every time he faced him.

He may have plunked him a few times too

[KirisClown]

Originally Posted by Kasept

And my underlying issue partially is that since the vast majority of younger fans can only relate to what they see, it doesn't serve much benefit to abjectly belittle what they are embracing as great in their time.

That's why they need to watch the older races and get an appreciation for the great stars of the past.. If they are only exposed to what's happening now.. they'll have a very flawed view of what greatness in racing is..

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Who's pretending? And I think this is the crux... Your passion for the game, and Chuck's, pre-dates mine by a good 10-15 years. While I remember the truly great horses that you are holding up to today's horses for scrutiny, I don't require that today's best be as good as them. I find Proud Spell and Music Note battling to the wire in the Alabama earning 101 Beyers every bit as exciting as Heavenly Prize earning a 111 over Lakeway. Would Proud Spell or Music Note beat Mom's Command? Or Open Mind or Maplejinsky or Go For Wand? No... But that's OK for me personally.

This is a great discussion. And my underlying issue partially is that since the vast majority of younger fans can only relate to what they see, it doesn't serve much benefit to abjectly belittle what they are embracing as great in their time.

The objective is to appreciate the modern 'stars' while educating the unenlightened or neophyte as to why Rachel Alexandra and Curlin aren't even in the Top 50 All Time let alone among the Top 10 or 20. (Which brings up the issue of who is going to handle the assignment with Jess Jackson?)

Who's pretending? Should I submit the list?

I understand what you're saying, and don't completely disagree ( last year's Alabama was as good as it gets from a lot of perspectives ). However, it would be nice if people had a better sense of history.

Come on, Steve, you were as outraged as anyone when Jess Jackson was talking about Curlin being the best of all time. You have to be slightly less subjective and look at the bigger picture.