All of a sudden the editors from Bloodhorse...

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

1 through 18 is pretty damn bad. He opted to make a complete fool of himself with #20.

I think 1-18 is a decent list. If you and say 10 other knowledgeable posters here independently put up "Top 18" lists, I'm guessing the SI list would not stick out as the odd-list-out.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

People who don't follow horse racing religiously will see a list like that and trust it - after all - we are talking about America's sports authority SI.

People who don't follow horseracing religiously will spend at most 10 seconds on that list, and they will immediately forget any horse whose name they don't recognize, which is all but maybe Funny Cide, Smarty Jones, Afleet Alex, Big Brown, and, possibly-but-I-doubt-it, this year's fillies.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I don't care one bit that the writer and editor don't know Johar or that they think Saint Liam was unraced at age three - when in fact he made nine starts at age 3.

I'm willing to forgive the mis-info on St. Liam. At least he INCLUDED St. Liam, a horse whose name less than 0.1% of sports fans outside of this board would even recognize.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

The real travesty is that you have a writer who specializes in fluff pieces and human interest stories trying his hand at something that requires hardcore analytical and handicapping skills. On top of that - you have the nations most trusted sports magazine willing to publish it.

Look, this isn't health care or climate change. "travesty" is a little strong. It's a Top 20 list. People make these lists at the end of a year or end of a decade. It gives us something to argue about. We should be delighted that SI even puts together a top 20 horse list.

--Dunbar