![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
He and I have had that discussion quite a few times... horses like Silent Witness and Makybe Diva and whether or not they were greats. I realize I'm a newer fan and so my frame of reference is a lot different, but don't the older fans also do this... consider the horses who first excited them as great? I mean on King's tagline for example.....I'm assuming he's saying King Glorious and Java Gold were great (?). I'm not saying they were or weren't... I have no idea. Silent Witness won 18 races... 18 - 3 - 2 out of 29. Went to Japan a couple of times, won the Sprinters Stakes over there, in his career repeatedly beat G1 winners. So for someone who came into the game when he was undefeated and just phenomenal, for someone who didn't know any of the history of the sport, he defined greatness and that's why. I can understand the other side though, the people who say he beat the same horses over and over. My problem with that is that not everyone realizes just how good these other horses were. Cape of Good Hope for example. Do the older fans do this? I'm not trying to be cute, I really want to know. Does history make a great horse greater? The great horses of the past..... if one were to look at who they beat, whether or not they remained in one area, etc. would they still measure up in general or have they become part of folklore? It seems like no present day horse ever measures up to the past and I'm trying to figure out if this is valid or not. I realize it probably is, but..... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|