Derby Trail Forums

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Defining a "GREAT" horse (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3583)

eurobounce 08-23-2006 09:24 AM

Defining a "GREAT" horse
 
In your opinion what makes a horse great? Does the horse need to win multiple Grade I's? Does the horse need to beat older horses? If a female, does she need to beat males? It seems that us board members determine the critera for greatness based on who the horse is. For example, people will not call Bernardini GREAT because he hasnt faced older horses. Why does he need to face and beat older horses? Lets look at Funny Cide, he has multiple Grade I wins and has beaten older horses. He has won three of the most prestigious races out there. Do we consider him GREAT!!!! If Bernardini had that resume he would be deemed GREAT by some board members. Smarty Jones never beat older horses and only lost 1 race. Is he GREAT!!! If YES then why and if NO then why. Basically lets determine what makes a horse great. Please, lets not argue and just set some criteria as to what makes a horse GREAT.

Bold Brooklynite 08-23-2006 09:30 AM

I've posted this before ... but it's always worth doing it again ...

A great horse is one who is a champion every year he/she races ... or who narrowly loses a championship to another great horse ... AND ...

... whose performances are reasonably comparable to those of past great horses.

It's pretty easy to tell when a horse is great. If you have any doubts ... then the horse isn't great.

eurobounce 08-23-2006 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
I've posted this before ... but it's always worth doing it again ...

A great horse is one who is a champion every year he/she races ... or who narrowly loses a championship to another great horse ... AND ...

... whose performances are reasonably comparable to those of past great horses.

It's pretty easy to tell when a horse is great. If you have any doubts ... then the horse isn't great.

Why do we have to measure a horse from today to horses of the past. We all agree that today's racing is vastly different from racing of the past. Why does the horse need to win championships in every year the horse races? That would mean that they need to win the 2 year old and 3 year old award. That is hard to do even for the greatest of the great. Since Smarty didnt win the award as a 2 year old, he doesnt deserve to be great?

oracle80 08-23-2006 09:38 AM

Thats a very hard thing to describe. In the Smarty case its hard to say that he wasnt great because he never had the chance to face older, we don't know.

A great horse to me runs very fast numbers on the sheets, he wins more stretch battles than he loses, he wins at different tracks in different places, and he beats the best of his contemporaries. To me thats what makes a great horse.

Bold Brooklynite 08-23-2006 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eurobounce
Why do we have to measure a horse from today to horses of the past. We all agree that today's racing is vastly different from racing of the past. Why does the horse need to win championships in every year the horse races? That would mean that they need to win the 2 year old and 3 year old award. That is hard to do even for the greatest of the great. Since Smarty didnt win the award as a 2 year old, he doesnt deserve to be great?

1. Since "great" is a relative term ... there must be something to relate it to ... hence the comparison to past performers in similar races. The same applies to other sports.

2. It isn't difficult for a great horse to win both the 2YO and 3YO championship ... many have done it.

3. A "great" horse must have a great career ... not simply one or two unusually good performances. Horses who shine brightly ... but flame out quickly ... for whatever reason ... are not great.

Bold Brooklynite 08-23-2006 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oracle80
Thats a very hard thing to describe. In the Smarty case its hard to say that he wasnt great because he never had the chance to face older, we don't know.

A great horse to me runs very fast numbers on the sheets, he wins more stretch battles than he loses, he wins at different tracks in different places, and he beats the best of his contemporaries. To me thats what makes a great horse.

Correct ... same concept I outlined in different words ... except ...

... it isn't hard to describe ... you and I both did it very succinctly.

SniperSB23 08-23-2006 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
1. Since "great" is a relative term ... there must be something to relate it to ... hence the comparison to past performers in similar races. The same applies to other sports.

2. It isn't difficult for a great horse to win both the 2YO and 3YO championship ... many have done it.

3. A "great" horse must have a great career ... not simply one or two unusually good performances. Horses who shine brightly ... but flame out quickly ... for whatever reason ... are not great.

So there will never be a great turf horse again since it is impossible to win or even narrowly miss winning the 2yo championship if you are running on the turf?

Danzig2 08-23-2006 09:50 AM

why does a three year old need to beat older? well, a race such as the derby is restricted...so when meeting older horses, that's an open field, anyone can enter. kind of like a horse who beats all comers in a stakes would be considered better than a horse who only races in a restricted race, such as ny-breds only facing fellow ny-breds....
and yes, a filly would be given more props for beating colts, rather than just other fillies.

open comp is one key.
setting/tying records is another. ruffian for example..beat all comers, as well as the clock, and never headed. that's greatness.
round table, excelled on turf and dirt, 17 tied or new records, the most ever. great horse!

personal ensign, undefeated. beat colts and fillies. she was great.
azeri, a nice win streak, but didn't win in open competition...very good, but not great.

of course back in 'the day' a win while carrying far more weight was something, as was a narrow loss while giving a lot of weight....that doesn't happen much these days...however, congaree got a lot more praise in his very narrow nose loss to milwaukee brew than MB did for winning! congaree was giving weight...
also, dr fager set the mile record while carrying 137 pounds(if memory serves...) that's GREAT. najran tying the record years later....mmm, not so great.


horses have dazzled with great performances...GZ in the bcc, candy rides win over MDO...but a great performance doesn't make a great horse. they need to back it up.

smarty could have been great...so could alex.

to really know tho, if a horse was great. come back in 20 years and see how many of todays horses still get press. those are the great ones.

eurobounce 08-23-2006 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23
So there will never be a great turf horse again since it is impossible to win or even narrowly miss winning the 2yo championship if you are running on the turf?

Tooks the words right out of my mouth. A horse like Hurrican Run or Deep Impact--would they be considered great? What about Kittens Joy?

SentToStud 08-23-2006 09:51 AM

Guideline, not rules:
- Doesn't need to carry racetrack with
- Speed/stamina combo
- Wins/narrowly misses after not getting desired trip
- 5 grade 1's
- Won grade 1's at different distances
- Multiple Eclipse awards
I'd list these as the great horses of the last 30 years:
Affirmed, Spectacular Bid, Cigar, John Henry, Personal Ensign, Silverbulletday.

Forego is the greatest to have raced in the past 30 years, imo..

Bold Brooklynite 08-23-2006 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23
So there will never be a great turf horse again since it is impossible to win or even narrowly miss winning the 2yo championship if you are running on the turf?

There is no 2YO turf championship ...

... so how can a horse fail to win it?

eurobounce 08-23-2006 09:55 AM

If a horse needs to face open company then a triple crown horse could never be considered great. We all know that once a horse does that, that horse is off to the shed. Again, let go back to Smarty--his only loss is a 2nd in the Belmont. He had plenty of races and beat everyone he faced. So we dont deem him great because he didnt beat older horses.

eurobounce 08-23-2006 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
There is no 2YO turf championship ...

... so how can a horse fail to win it?

He meant that a two year old that runs on turf will not win the award because that goes to the dirt horse.

eurobounce 08-23-2006 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SentToStud
Guideline, not rules:
- Doesn't need to carry racetrack with
- Speed/stamina combo
- Wins/narrowly misses after not getting desired trip
- 5 grade 1's
- Won grade 1's at different distances
- Multiple Eclipse awards
I'd list these as the great horses of the last 30 years:
Affirmed, Spectacular Bid, Cigar, John Henry, Personal Ensign, Silverbulletday.

Forego is the greatest to have raced in the past 30 years, imo..

I like this Sent. I like the "number" you gave. Have to win 5 Grade I's. I also agree with that number. Sent--Lava Man fits that criteria. Would you consider him great?

Bold Brooklynite 08-23-2006 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eurobounce
If a horse needs to face open company then a triple crown horse could never be considered great. We all know that once a horse does that, that horse is off to the shed. Again, let go back to Smarty--his only loss is a 2nd in the Belmont. He had plenty of races and beat everyone he faced. So we dont deem him great because he didnt beat older horses.

That's a very big problem ...

... which causes me to hesitiate a bit to even call Count Fleet and Ruffian "great" ... because they never won again after their respective Triple Crown victories.

Their "greatness" is based more on the fact that they were champions as 2YOS and 3YOS ... and the quality of their performances ... rather than on the scope of their careers.

Yes ... it is a problem.

SentToStud 08-23-2006 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
That's a very big problem ...

... which causes me to hesitiate a bit to even call Count Fleet and Ruffian "great" ... because they never won again after their respective Triple Crown victories.

Their "greatness" is based more on the fact that they were champions as 2YOS and 3YOS ... and the quality of their performances ... rather than on the scope of their careers.

Yes ... it is a problem.

It's also a problem you think Ruffian won a triple crown race.

You should have stayed in school.

eurobounce 08-23-2006 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
That's a very big problem ...

... which causes me to hesitiate a bit to even call Count Fleet and Ruffian "great" ... because they never won again after their respective Triple Crown victories.

Their "greatness" is based more on the fact that they were champions as 2YOS and 3YOS ... and the quality of their performances ... rather than on the scope of their careers.

Yes ... it is a problem.

I agree with that 100%. Then you have Ghostzapper who has won all he could and did it in awesomely. But he didnt do crap his 3 year old season. I dont consider him great. I look at him as what could have been. His sheet numbers are awesome but he didnt do enough to be great.

SniperSB23 08-23-2006 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
There is no 2YO turf championship ...

... so how can a horse fail to win it?

Your criteria is to be a champion or narrowly miss being a champion in every year they race. If there isn't a 2yo turf championship then every horse that only runs the turf as a 2yo is ineligible to be great.

King Glorious 08-23-2006 10:10 AM

For me, I want to see a few things:

1. Wins in the top races of their class.
2. Carrying the highest weights in their races.
3. Running fast times/figures.
4. Winning percentage at 60% or more.
5. In the money percentage at 80% or more.
6. At least being a champion in one season.
7. Winning outside of your division.

All of these things don't have to be accomplished but most of them should be.

If I were to create a hall of fame, I'd say that a couple of those rules would be absolutely required. U'd have to have been a champion in more than one season. U'd have to meet the winning/ITM %. If u don't, u don't make it. I agree with Bold in that if there is doubt, a horse doesn't belong. I don't like the current rules that say u only need to be named on 75% of the ballots. That still means that 25% of the people don't think u belong. That, to me, is not a hall of famer. When horses like Bid and Secretariat came up for inductment, I doubt anyone hesitated on them. That is what the hall should be for. The very best of the best. Not just those that had a good season or won a couple of big races.

Bold Brooklynite 08-23-2006 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eurobounce
He meant that a two year old that runs on turf will not win the award because that goes to the dirt horse.

This raises the question as to whether a "specialty" horse ... a sprinter or turfer ... can be considered great.

Generally speaking ... I'd say no ...

.... because greatness requires both more versatility than just sprinting ... as well as meeting/defeating the best horses of the day ... who are running on the dirt.

Was Ta Wee great? Was Manila great? They were great at what they did ... but what they did was very limited.

More scope is needed for true greatness.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.