[avance2000]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I understand that sentiment but I don't agree with it. IMO, Ghostzapper was a great horse. Candy Ride was a great horse. Lammtarra was a great horse. I think it's ideal when we have the opportunity to witness greatness for a prolonged period of time. It's ideal when we have the opportunity see many different challenges taken on and overcome by a horse. But for me, the lack of having those opportunities doesn't factor in when I evaluate what I think I've seen. The lack of those opportunities would keep me from voting any of those horses into the hall of fame. The hall of fame, IMO, should be for those horses that separated themselves even from other great horses by doing exceptional things like winning divisional championships in multiple years, winning x% of career starts, being in the money in x% of career starts, winning x number of grade one races. Things like that. But as far as ability, that's a different story. If there was a human sprinter and he only raced 10 times in his life but won an Olympic gold, a world championship gold and set a world record in those 10 starts, he's a great sprinter. For me, greatness is more about ability than accomplishments. Too often, especially when it comes to racing in this era, accomplishments are out of the hands of the horses.

any horse with hands would have to be considered great, no matter what else the animal did.