Quote:
|
Originally Posted by somerfrost
I will likewise agree...everything I saw about Smarty told me he was special...as usual, lots of folks jumped off the bandwagon after the Belmont, but as we've said many times, only one horse that ever set foot on the track could have survived that second half mile and continued on...and I don't expect to live long enough to see a horse like Secretariat again! Smarty lost to a good horse, at that horse's preferred distance, after a suicidal second half mile...if anything, he gained stature in that brave effort...I rank him #83 and consider him truly special!
|
smarty was no doubt a talented horse as well. He was a dual classic winner and there is certainly something to be said for that. Great or "truly special" as you put it? Again, it depends on how you judge it.
I would have liked to have seen him face older horses. I would have liked to have seen him beat some really good horses. The horses in his crop werent all that good. He destroyed an extremely immature Rockhardten and likewise an extremely immature Eddington. Playing Devils advocate, could it be argued that his dominance over those two were more of a result of their immaturity as opposed to a superiority in quality? Not necessarily saying that that is the case but simply asking if that is a possiblity.
In my opinion, Smarty was robbed of the chance to prove how great he truly was one way or the other.
In the end, i realize that this will be an unpopular stance. I hope that instead of bashing me that people will instead defend why he was great.