Best 2 year old ever POLL!!!

[Thunder Gulch]

I pulled out the "Champions" book to look at Devil's Bag past performances...DAMN I remember him as being good, but not THAT good. Dominant in every start in very fast times.

However, Ruffian was even better on paper than Bag or Secretariat. The times were faster, and the margins were wider.

[Pedigree Ann]

I'm rather surprised that in discussing top 2yos that the name of Buckpasser hasn't come up. Won 9 of 11, including the Champagne and Hopeful, lost the Futurity when forced to run closer to the pace than he liked.

There have been two British-raced superwinners at 2 in the last few decades. Timeless Times, 1988, by Timeless Moment-Lovely Hobo, by Noholme II, won 16 of 21 starts at 2 and was listed-placed; similarly, Provideo, 1982, Godswalk-Nadwa, by Tyrant, won 16 races at two from I think it was 18 starts and was a listed winner.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I think the horses who ran pre-1930 get massively overrated in these discussions.....

Colin, Man O' War, and horses back than were certainly great for their time, however, they can't be fairly compared with later 2-year-old's, and in my opinion, just don't belong.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I don't think Favorite Trick would have beaten Stevie Wonderboy if the two met in the Breeders Cup at age 2.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I think the horses who ran pre-1930 get massively overrated in these discussions.....

Colin, Man O' War, and horses back than were certainly great for their time, however, they can't be fairly compared with later 2-year-old's, and in my opinion, just don't belong.

Thats impossible to say...the only thing we have to compare is times and since track condition and other factors constitute an incalculable variable, that's basically worthless as well! I've always believed great horse in the 1800's would be great horses today!

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I personally believe that the great horses from the 1800's would get drowned against the better horses of more recent decades.

What people don't realize, is how microscopic foal crops were back at that time. For example, the largest foal crop ever (1986) was 35 times larger than the foal crop Man O' War came from.

In my opinion, the members of that esteemed group who voted Man O' War the #1 horse of the 1900's, ought to be mocked for it.

[Solari]

Buckpasser was the best 2yo that I ever saw. In some ways he was even better than Secretariat.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I personally believe that the great horses from the 1800's would get drowned against the better horses of more recent decades.

What people don't realize, is how microscopic foal crops were back at that time. For example, the largest foal crop ever (1986) was 35 times larger than the foal crop Man O' War came from.

In my opinion, the members of that esteemed group who voted Man O' War the #1 horse of the 1900's, ought to be mocked for it.

Mocking someone for their opinion is not the staple of an intelligent mind...I will make light of some opinions as do we all when they go beyond any sense of reality...ie: Zippy Chippy as the best horse of the 20th century, but MOW certainly has a claim to best horse...the fact that his connections repeatedly ducked Exterminator does give me pause but certainly intelligent folks can disagree. I say Secretariat and Kincsem were the best ever but if someone said it was Ribot, Colin, MOW, Native Dancer or a dozen others, I would debate but hardly mock them!

[The Indomitable DrugS]

It is pretty sad that Man O' War had to duck a horse---when he was running in a day when less than 2K foals were born each year.

His big victory was earned in a match race, run in Canada, against a horse that entered the Kentucky Derby as a hapless maiden, and was only running for the purpose of setting a fast pace for his stablemate.

You could probably find better horses currently stabled on the grounds of Bay Meadows, than those that Man O' War was beating up on.

While he was no doubt the king of his crop, and ran fast times for his day, he never faced anything close to the kind of horse that he would have needed to beat convincingly, in order to make a justified claim to the title 'Greatest horse of the 1900's.'

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

It is pretty sad that Man O' War had to duck a horse---when he was running in a day when less than 2K foals were born each year.

His big victory was earned in a match race, run in Canada, against a horse that entered the Kentucky Derby as a hapless maiden, and was only running for the purpose of setting a fast pace for his stablemate.

You could probably find better horses currently stabled on the grounds of Bay Meadows, than those that Man O' War was beating up on.

While he was no doubt the king of his crop, and ran fast times for his day, he never faced anything close to the kind of horse that he would have needed to beat convincingly, in order to make a justified claim to the title 'Greatest horse of the 1900's.'

You really seem to be in love with your stat on number of foals in a crop...I think your thinking is a bit simplistic...and wrong! True there were fewer foals per year but there were also fewer races, fewer tracks...the "hotbed" of racing was the east coast especially NY and MD, and there was sanity in the breeding shed. Today, breeding is about speed and producing precocious horses that often are retired before their 4th birthday. I submit that 100 well bred horses will be more competitive, particularly when forced to face each other than 1000 horses bred from unsound lines in a time when candidates for HOY can race constantly in grade one races and never face each other!

[somerfrost]

and to be fair...Exterminator wasn't just "a horse", he was one of the greats!

[miraja2]

This whole thing will be easier to sort out in a few years when the Breeders' Cup adds a race for 2yo fillies going 5f on the turf. Then we will FINALLY know who the best of the best really is.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

You really seem to be in love with your stat on number of foals in a crop...I think your thinking is a bit simplistic...and wrong! True there were fewer foals per year but there were also fewer races, fewer tracks...the "hotbed" of racing was the east coast especially NY and MD, and there was sanity in the breeding shed. Today, breeding is about speed and producing precocious horses that often are retired before their 4th birthday. I submit that 100 well bred horses will be more competitive, particularly when forced to face each other than 1000 horses bred from unsound lines in a time when candidates for HOY can race constantly in grade one races and never face each other!

I think you are totally wrong in assuming that all of the handfull of horses bred back than were all "well bred."

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

and to be fair...Exterminator wasn't just "a horse", he was one of the greats!

If he couldn't beat the Best Pal that ran in 1921, I don't think he would have faired to well against the Best Pal who ran in the early 90's.

[tap]

Buckpasser, Native Dancer, Secretariat. In that order.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

If he couldn't beat the Best Pal that ran in 1921, I don't think he would have faired to well against the Best Pal who ran in the early 90's.

that's an insane comparison....really! Onion beat Secretariat, Upset beat Man O War, there is more to making an argument than taking things out of context or using the "well so-and-so beat him therefore" argument. Look at Exterminator's overall record, not a race or two...he actually ran more than the sum of 4-5 top horses do today!

[The Indomitable DrugS]

You took that the wrong way.

The Best Pal who ran in 1921 was a pretty damn good horse for 1921. My point is the talent level involved in top class racing today is MARKEDLY better than it was in those days.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I think you are totally wrong in assuming that all of the handfull of horses bred back than were all "well bred."

Didn't say "all" ...but a lot more! Modern breeding practices are dooming the breed...that's why we hear folks wanting to shorten TC races and have more time between them. In MOW's day, some horses ran more than once a week, and the winner of the Belmont wasn't the horse that tired the least!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

You took that the wrong way.

The Best Pal who ran in 1921 was a pretty damn good horse for 1921. My point is the talent level involved in top class racing today is MARKEDLY better than it was in those days.

Markedly better???? Surely you are joking! Today we have grade one races with 3-4 entries, often times...even in races for older horses....the entire field doesn't have a past G1 winner! if you stay here for any time at all (or on any racing board), you will see threads proclaiming a race..."the worst grade one ever"! Ducking other horses has become an art form...and even BC fields are far from great usually!

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Believe me, you can not compare the talent levels of the top 10 older males in the country today, with the top 10 older males who ran in the 1920's.

Todays top horses are a ton better.

If you think breeding foal crops thirty times less in volume, and breeding solely for endurance and soundness, will make horses better overall---I can't say I agree.

We are getting off-topic here.