somer, i put up on the other board some time ago about the supposed 'ducking' and plenty to show that it didn't happen. i guess you missed it....i have every t'bred champ book, so i doubt there isn't anything i haven't seen since i read them all.

i just believe horses should be judged by what they did, not what they had no chance to do. man o war still has records on the books. the simple fact that he is still spoken of so highly after all these years speaks volumes.

How can you leave off Go For Wand? She and Ruffian were about the same. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how you "grade" the horses.

Go For Wand was a nice filly....but if you want her in the top 100, take the years of research and the months of study and create your own list. You will wait even longer for me to justify my methods, it would take days to explain every detail and...don't take this wrong...your opinion just isn't that important to me.

I have done the work. Years of work. I too have a list and I have posted it on other forums...along with an explanation as to my grading criteria. Until you do that, your list cannot be taken seriously. Your list may be perfectly fine by your criteria. After all, who can prove you wrong about the relative quality of horses that will never meet on the track.

Who the hell are you to say my list can't be taken seriously? I've made well over 40,000 posts on the ESPN Board over the past 8-9 years and took a large amount of time to list all 100 horses ALONG WITH A DETAILED EVALUATION of each including racing record, awards won, dosage and breeding extracts...all this tied together to explain my evaluation of every horse! I posted this twice...took 4 posts each time due to ESPN limits. In addition, I have repeatedly spoken at great length about my grading philosophy and techniques and now you come along and insult all these efforts without ever seeing them.....because I don't care to go through it all again?? Well buddy, post your list and let folks have a go at it. Been there, done that...it's my list and I stand behind it...think what you want but don't tell me all my work "cannot be taken seriously"

I was not trying to be adversarial with you. That was not the point of my post. If you have done all this, then why not just suggest a place where I can read it? How am I supposed to know what you've done in the past? I am interested in your grading criteria because I am always looking for ways to improve my own. My query was aimed at seeing if you had ideas I had not considered, not intended to attack your work. Chill out! Sorry I asked.

and, as expected, the obligatory condescending post telling me to "chill out"...god, folks are so predictable! I made the posts over at ESPN, probably been 2-3 years since the last one...I know some folks said they copied the info but I doubt ESPN still has it on file, they changed their entire format since then. One parting note as this is the last time I will address this...if you don't wish to be seen as adversarial, don't post in a challenging manner.

Very well then. Your response indicates that you have much to hide, and I suspect your methods would hold up poorly under knowledgeable scrutiny.

There is no "method" involved.

Somer is having his own fun time ... making very subjective judgments about horses he knows and likes.

It's literally impossible to compare Flying Childers ... a horse who raced 3 times on turf against a total of four opponents in England 300 years ago and 80 years before the breed was even defined ... to Forego ... a horse who raced 59 times on dirt in America 30 years ago against hundreds of opponents.

Let him have his fun ... we're all entitled to a hobby ... and there's nothing here to take so seriously.

Was Flying Childers the one who liked to graze when the race was starting? That one's my personal favorite.

No ... I believe that was Kincsem ... you know the way those Hungarian mares are ... don't you?

I'm learning.

And I'm married to one !!!

Mrs. Brooklynite's maternal grandfather was an officer in Emperor Franz-Joseph's Austro-Hungarian cavalry.

Hey ... maybe he knew Kincsem !!! Too bad the old boy has been dead for 60 years.

Could you imagine this group lining up for a race. The top 4 are prob 4 of my favorite horses of all time.

I'd rather see a race between Flying Childers, Commando, Hyperion, and Affirmed.

If it were 4-mile heats over rolling turf ... I'd have to go with Childers.

But 5f on a flat dirt track ... it's Commando all the way !!!

The topic of this thread was who was the best dirt horse in America? Most people put Secretariat on the top of their lists when I think that other horses should be filling the top spot such as Man O' War. I know that you can't compare a 3yo to 4yo when they are actually racing against each other most of the time except for the rare occassion when the 3yo actually beats the older horses.

The whole point is that I have to compare them OVERALL. SB raced as 2, 3, and 4. Secretariat raced only at 2 and 3. Therefore, I have to compare them accordingly. Now I know that Secretariat couldn't help that he didn't race at four, but I can't and refuse to predict what could have been. I only go with what has been accomplished and FACTS. Therefore, to me, SB had the better OVERALL career as a racehorse mainly because of his amazing accomplishments at four. If I compared SB's best year with Secretariat's best year, SB wins in my eyes. I'm not going to take Bid's wonderful 4yo year away from him just because Secretariat didn't race at four. That would just be crazy and an injustice to SB.

You must realize that certain horses peak at different times in their lives. While outstanding as three year olds, I believe that the three big ones in the late 70s (Affirmed, Seattle Slew, and "The Bid") best year were when they were 4yo. Some horses peak in their three year old years and then tail off. Some are better when they mature. For these three greats, they just got better, and better, and better as time went on...like a fine wine.

The Triple Crown is a greatest feat in sports to accomplish, but I do not think that you can define a horse's overall greatness by just those three races (Secretariat being the only exception since he didn't race as an older horse...and I'm only talking about the horses in the who won the TC in the 70s). Look at GZ who didn't even race in them. Most people nowadays think that it is all that there is to horse racing but I see racing as much more. Sometimes you have to look beyond the box. I don't think that you can measure a horse's true greatness until you see them run as older, mature ones against other older ones. Then you know what they are really made of.

Don't get me wrong...I absolutely LOVE Secretariat. The first time I saw his race, the Belmont Charge, I cried. It still leaves tears in my eyes. That was his day.

But SB had his days too where he was a God among horses. Really, Spectacular Bid and Secretariat were very comparable in my eyes.

Secretariat-12 furlongs-2:24
Spectacular Bid-10 furlongs-1:57 4/5.

Just to look at those times leaves me in awe. Even though you are rough around the edges BB, I must thank you. This has been a very good thread with a lot of very good information in it. I've learned a lot from it. It persuaded me to look up a lot on the history of the various champions of our sport (and no not Secretariat or SB (I already knew a whole lot about them) but others...).

Your entire post makes sense ... especially this last paragraph.

Many racing fans haven't taken the time to become more familiar with the sport's history. To some ... thoroughbred racing began in 1995 or thereabouts.

I'm not picking on anyone ... but there was a poster who ranked Silverbulletday as the 4th best filly of "all-time" ... a preposterous notion to anyone who has an understanding of the great fillies of the past.

I'd encourage one-and-all to take the time to read up on thoroughbred racing's glorious past ... and I applaud Somerfrost for opening up the scope of these discussions.

And ... I've been described in many ways ... but never as "rough around the edges" ... quite the opposite of the "too smooth" descriptor which is sometimes inappropriately directed toward me.