Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dalakhani
Interesting. Merlinsky said that the belmont is relevant because "only the best can do it" and you guys are telling me a horse that loses that race is still flattered by it. How is that?
Smarty Jones was the best 3 year old of 2004. What does a 12f race have to do with it? If Smarty staggers home a little less slow, does that make him any more of a champion and does the fact that he staggered home as slow as he did make him any less of one? Any meaningful race he had raced in and any meaningful race he would have raced in for the rest of his career would have been 10f at most.
So how was the belmont relevant to his quality as a racehorse? That he could gallantly stagger to the line after running further than his pedigree would suggest that he should? A true test of champions should be a test that a true champion can realistically meet. So I ask...Was smarty jones not a true champion?
|
Smarty can be the best of 2004 and not be the Triple Crown winner - I don't see a problem with that. Testing horses beyond what they normally do makes for good racing - why do you think fans get so excited over a filly facing the boys or surface switches etc?
Every race that a horse enters will determine their mettle if they are Champion or not...that is what the year end awards are for. Perhaps it's the phrase "Test of Champions" that should get the boot, not the Triple Crown as it stands because some fantasctic horses haven't won or even attempted the Triple Crown. But as a goal in racing, it should stand as it is in my opinion.
05-25-2009, 10:03 AM
Threaded Mode