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.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Everyone in the business thought BM's Travers performance was awesome under the circumstances. Everyone I talked to thought that race vaildated what a good horse he was.

Everyting you said is correct. He had been off for a while, he only had a few works, there's no way he was ready to go the distance, he set fast fractions and not only that he was still injured. He had all those things going agaisnt him yet he still ran a good 2nd to a good horse in Flower Alley.

It was an awesome perfomance under the circumstances.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by oracle80

I have no doubts about Landaluce either.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Hmmm ... I think we all have a different definition of what "an awesome performance" is.

To me ... a second-place finish to a rather average Travers winner is ... a second-place finish to a rather average Travers winner.

Circumstances may have prevented Bellamy Road from running a better race that day ... but ... the fact is ... they did. And the end result of his effort was far from awesome.

Given better handling ... better luck ... better karma ... he may have run a lot more often ... with a lot better results. But he didn't.

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

Wow..I don't even have to read through this thread to know that someone must have pissed Oracle off for this thread to get this long....:D

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Mike never gets "pissed" ... he's much too gentlemanly for that ...

... he merely asserts his opinions with vigor.

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

Wow..I don't even have to read through this thread to know that someone must have pissed Oracle off for this thread to get this long....:D

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.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Apparently you didn't see his Travers, which anyone with a true understanding of the game and circumstances knows:
It was not the trainers fault that he had to run there.
The horse was coming off an injury and a layoff and had FOUR breezes, none longer than 5f for his race preparation.
He lost to eventual BCC runner up Flower Alley who was razor sharp at the time.
He beat the rest of the field by a city block. Including Rooman Ruler who had just won the haskell and returned off that race to run RHT to a length.

I won't go into it again. If you follow the game and really know what you are seeing, his Travers will always remain one of the most incredible efforts of raw talent and guts that you will ever see on a racetrack.
If you don't follow the game and don't understand what you are seeing or anything about training and preparation as it relates to performance, then you don't get it and most likely never will.