Defining a "GREAT" horse

Originally Posted by King Glorious

For me

Hey King !!!

Great to see you here ... hope you show up a lot more often.

You've got a long way to go to pass Oracle80 as most-frequent-poster on this forum ... but if anyone can do it ... you can!

Kinda dull over "there" now ... ain't it?

Originally Posted by King Glorious

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.

I've always distinguished between Hall Of Fame horses and "great" horses.

I think the Hall Of Fame should have broader inclusion ... basically a place for truly distinguished horses. For example, Cougar II was just inducted ... and I approve of that ... he was hardly "great" .. but he was a top quality race horse over several seasons ... including in South America ... and deserves the designation and honor.

"Great" ... to me at least ... is a more hallowed term ... to be reserved for the special few ... maybe the 30 best colts and the 20 best fillies in an entire century.

P.S. You'll have to chuck your weight-carrying requirement ... or we'll never have another "great" horse.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Hey King !!!

Great to see you here ... hope you show up a lot more often.

You've got a long way to go to pass Oracle80 as most-frequent-poster on this forum ... but if anyone can do it ... you can!

Kinda dull over "there" now ... ain't it?

Bold Brook, I broke from the gate fast but Golf Pro Kev is gaining and gaining hard for most posts. Hes got a full head of steam and coming like a train and I expect him to take the lead with ease by Labor Day.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Hey King !!!

Great to see you here ... hope you show up a lot more often.

You've got a long way to go to pass Oracle80 as most-frequent-poster on this forum ... but if anyone can do it ... you can!

Kinda dull over "there" now ... ain't it?

I wouldn't say it really got dull or boring but it just got to the point where if u don't say wonderful things about every horse and every race, they jump all over u. So many people have been conditioned into just accepting whatever garbage is thrown out there these days that they don't want to take the time to look at the days when it was better and try to figure out ways to make it better. Then when I make a negative comment, I'm the villian because I want better.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I've always distinguished between Hall Of Fame horses and "great" horses.

I think the Hall Of Fame should have broader inclusion ... basically a place for truly distinguished horses. For example, Cougar II was just inducted ... and I approve of that ... he was hardly "great" .. but he was a top quality race horse over several seasons ... including in South America ... and deserves the designation and honor.

"Great" ... to me at least ... is a more hallowed term ... to be reserved for the special few ... maybe the 30 best colts and the 20 best fillies in an entire century.

P.S. You'll have to chuck your weight-carrying requirement ... or we'll never have another "great" horse.

And I see it the other way around. I see many more as great but that the Hall should take a more restrictive approach. As much as I love Java Gold and King Glorious and think both were great horses, I wouldn't dare put them in the Hall.

For the weight thing, I know we'll never see the weights of days gone by again but when I say top weights, I just mean the top weights of their day. If that means carrying 123 while the others are carrying 117, then that will have to suffice.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

A "Great Horse" is one that comes through when you have your money on it.

[somerfrost]

There is a reason that handicapping "systems" never work, it is because folks attempt to quantify something that simply can't be reduced to a formula...there are far too many intervening variables, many of which (for example how the horse feels that day, what his/her mood may be) we can never know. I think the same applies here...as many know, I maintain a "Top 100 Horses of All Time" list and post it periodically, especially as I update it. It is highly subjective...my personal opinion! Sure, I base it on race records, observations of self and respected others and many other things that are more or less measurable...but in the end, it comes down to gut feelings. My top ten is headed by a first place tie between Secretariat and Kincsem...I can debate all day producing a great amount of data to support these two legends, but can I "prove" they were greater than Citation or Man O War (or about 2-3 dozen others)...no! To me the answer is similar to what some political joker once said about porn..."I can't define it but I know it when I see it!" That's how I define greatness...I know it when I see it!

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I wouldn't say it really got dull or boring but it just got to the point where if u don't say wonderful things about every horse and every race, they jump all over u. So many people have been conditioned into just accepting whatever garbage is thrown out there these days that they don't want to take the time to look at the days when it was better and try to figure out ways to make it better. Then when I make a negative comment, I'm the villian because I want better.

Yeah ... tell me something I don't know.

That won't happen here. Lots of lively debates ... and out-and-out brawls ... but no maudlin tearjerker, pretty-horsie junk like over there.

You'll fit in much better here.

Originally Posted by King Glorious

And I see it the other way around. I see many more as great but that the Hall should take a more restrictive approach. As much as I love Java Gold and King Glorious and think both were great horses, I wouldn't dare put them in the Hall.

Both were tremendous talents ... but ...

... your namesake King Glorious just didn't race enough ... only 2 G1's.

Java Gold had better credentials ... with 4 G1's and two G1 placings ... marginal Hall Of Fame material ... but I'd just say No.

What a shame Java Gold wasn't a good stallion ... the St. Simon/Ribot line really could have used a good boost.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Bold Brook, I broke from the gate fast but Golf Pro Kev is gaining and gaining hard for most posts. Hes got a full head of steam and coming like a train and I expect him to take the lead with ease by Labor Day.

Suck it up, Mike ...

... don't let that dude grab the lead.

But watch this guy King Glorious ... he's got a posting kick like you wouldn't believe ... a tremendous machine.

[Danzig]

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.

when's the last tc champ not to face open competition??? sec, slew, affirmed all did, with slew and affirmed returning at four. as for close by not quites, silver charm, real quiet, alysheba are just a few who did. of course in the last few years, breeding has been the name of the game. when some sanity returns, so will top 3 yo's at four. smarty and alex are actually exceptions to the rule. even fupeg met older, remember? as did war emblem....

and no, a tc winner based solely on his wins there isn't automatically great---see omaha for example!!


and as much as i liked smarty, he isn't great to me. could have been. but imo he didn't get a chance to make himself a legend.

Originally Posted by somerfrost

There is a reason that handicapping "systems" never work, it is because folks attempt to quantify something that simply can't be reduced to a formula...there are far too many intervening variables, many of which (for example how the horse feels that day, what his/her mood may be) we can never know. I think the same applies here...as many know, I maintain a "Top 100 Horses of All Time" list and post it periodically, especially as I update it. It is highly subjective...my personal opinion! Sure, I base it on race records, observations of self and respected others and many other things that are more or less measurable...but in the end, it comes down to gut feelings. My top ten is headed by a first place tie between Secretariat and Kincsem...I can debate all day producing a great amount of data to support these two legends, but can I "prove" they were greater than Citation or Man O War (or about 2-3 dozen others)...no! To me the answer is similar to what some political joker once said about porn..."I can't define it but I know it when I see it!" That's how I define greatness...I know it when I see it!

Somer, I was waiting for your post. I love your top 100 and I have little beef with it. Your top two would also be my top two if I was going to make a list. I think when people compare horses they try to compare them as if they raced each other. You can really only go by what the horse did on the track. Also I give more weight to a horse who won two legs of a triple crown race before I would an older horse who won three races in a year. The reason being is the the tc trail is HARD. These horses dont have time off from Jan to June. In fact, they actually only have a couple of months off from summer of their 2 year old season until june of their 3 year old season. To me that is more impressive than a horse who got to pick his spots, trained up to the race, had some time off and was able to prepare. Plus in triple crown races you have to beat anywhere up to 20 horses. That is hard to do. Therefor I give a win in the Derby more weight than I do a horse that wins the Whitney, JCGC or Met Mile to name a few.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

A "Great Horse" is one that comes through when you have your money on it.

LMFAO Scuds...

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

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.

...... The only place that a turfer is considered a "specialty" horse, is in the USA. Are you suggesting that a turf running horse is somehow less great than a dirt horse? Or that a dirt champion is better than a turf champion?

Turf is where most all champions run.

Originally Posted by SentToStud

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

You should have stayed in school.

Acorn, Mother Goose and the Coachng Club.. What's that about school?

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by moodwalker

...... The only place that a turfer is considered a "specialty" horse, is in the USA. Are you suggesting that a turf running horse is somehow less great than a dirt horse? Or that a dirt champion is better than a turf champion?

Turf is where most all champions run.

Well, in the United States, which is where this board is based and most of the people who post on it live, turf is a specialty. We have been running races on the dirt for a very long time. Our races of historic significance - ie, older than a few decades - are dirt races. For many generations, US thoroughbreds raced on the dirt and when they went to the breeding shed, the best breeders were aiming to produce horses that excelled in our prestige races which were all on the dirt. Only a handful of courses even had turf courses prior to the 1950s; in the big picture, turf racing is a real johnny-come-lately in the US.

Obviously, US racing is slowly changing and turf racing is becoming more entrenched. However, the pinnacle targets here are still dirt races and, generally, the best US-based horses are still campaigning on the dirt with those targets in sight. Unless that situation changes, turf champions in the US will continue to be considered by most to be specialty champions.

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I wouldn't say it really got dull or boring but it just got to the point where if u don't say wonderful things about every horse and every race, they jump all over u. So many people have been conditioned into just accepting whatever garbage is thrown out there these days that they don't want to take the time to look at the days when it was better and try to figure out ways to make it better. Then when I make a negative comment, I'm the villian because I want better.

Could this be the same King Glorious who nailed the 2004 Stephen Foster with a 60/1 shot by the name of Colonial Colony? Some picks stay with me..and that was one.

Ez

[my miss storm cat]

Glad you're here King.

* * *

So Bold..... say you have a 2YO who wins her first 9 outta 10, goes on to win the Vagrancy carrying 137 pounds. Wins the Top Flight, the Toboggan..... I know you know where I'm going.

Admit it once and for all..... she was a great.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Well, in the United States, which is where this board is based and most of the people who post on it live, turf is a specialty. We have been running races on the dirt for a very long time. Our races of historic significance - ie, older than a few decades - are dirt races. For many generations, US thoroughbreds raced on the dirt and when they went to the breeding shed, the best breeders were aiming to produce horses that excelled in our prestige races which were all on the dirt. Only a handful of courses even had turf courses prior to the 1950s; in the big picture, turf racing is a real johnny-come-lately in the US.

Obviously, US racing is slowly changing and turf racing is becoming more entrenched. However, the pinnacle targets here are still dirt races and, generally, the best US-based horses are still campaigning on the dirt with those targets in sight. Unless that situation changes, turf champions in the US will continue to be considered by most to be specialty champions.

Then let's retitle the thread "Defining a GREAT American horse"

[sham]

To me, "great" and "all time great" have different connotations. There can be many great horses but few all time greats. Following are resumes for three all time greats. Perhaps requirements could be set by examining their accomplishments.

SECRETARIAT
- 21 starts, 16 wins, 3 seconds, 1 third, 1 fourth
- 5 Eclipse awards, 2yo champ, 3yo champ, grass champ, HOY (2 times)
- Triple crown winner
- Set track record in all three triple crown races (1:59:2...1:53:2...2:24:0)
- Set 5 track records and 1 course record as a 3yo, two of those were world records (3 TR's still stand; 33 years and counting; 10F-1:59:2-Churchill Downs, 12F-2:24:0-Belmont Park, 9F-1:45:2- Belmont Park)
- Published workouts still remain the fastest ever
- Ran astounding fractions to win the Derby. Each successive fraction was faster than the previous (25:1...24:0...23:4...23:2...23:0). No Derby horse before or since comes close to his final closing quarter of 23 flat…an amazing display of unmatched stamina
- Ran the Belmont in 2:24 flat, won by 31 lengths...a full 2 seconds (12 lengths) faster than any other horse that has run in the Belmont. Still stands as the WR for 12fl on dirt. The fractions were absolutely astounding, 23:3...46:1...1:09:4...134:1...1:59:0...2:24:0…aga in an amazing display of unmatched stamina
- Destroyed a field of the best older handicap horses in North America in the Marlboro Cup in world record time of 1:45:2 which still stands as the 9fl track record at Belmont Park
- Won his last two and only starts on grass, unchallenged, against strong fields of older handicap grass horses
- And most compelling of all, Secretariat remains the standard by which all other racing horses are measured

The Bid
- 30 starts, 26 wins, 2 seconds, 1 third
- Champion 2-year-old male, 1978
- Champion 3-year-old male, 1979
- Horse of the Year, champion older male, 1980
- 1980 race record: 9 starts, 9 wins, $1,117,790
- Retired as racing's all-time leading earning in North America
- Record in grade 1 races: 15 starts, 13 wins, 1 second, 1 third
- Set or tied eight track records from 5 1/2 furlongs to 1 1/4 miles
- Still holds American dirt record for 1 1/4 miles, 1:57 4/5 set in Charles H. Strub Stakes (gr.1) at Santa Anita on Feb, 3, 1980
- Final race was a walkover in the Woodward Stakes (gr.1) on Sept. 20, 1980
- Elected to racing's Hall of Fame in 1982

He won grade I stakes on the lead and he won coming from 10 lengths back. He ran seven furlongs in a near-world-record 1:20 flat and 1 1/4 miles in an American and world record 1:57 4/5, a time which has not been equaled on dirt in 26 years. He broke seven track records and equaled another, and he did it at 2 , 3, and 4. As a 2-year-old, he won the World's Playground Stakes at Atlantic City by 15 lengths, running the seven furlongs over a dead racetrack under wraps in an astounding 1:20 4/5.

He won at 15 different racetracks in nine different states, and carried 130 pounds or more to victory five times. To demonstrate his dominance, and the respect the public had for him, he was sent off at odds of 1-20, that's 1-20, an unheard of eight times, and 1-10 six times. Beginning with the World's Playground, he won 24 of 26 starts, rattling off 12-race and 10-race winning streaks, while facing such classy grade I winners as Flying Paster, General Assembly, Coastal, Glorious Song, Cox's Ridge, and Golden Act. His only two defeats came at 1 1/2 miles, when he stepped on a safety pin the morning of the Belmont, almost losing his foot after a bad infection set in, and in the Jockey Club Gold Cup, when he was beaten by Hall of Famer Affirmed after being forced to miss his prep in the Woodward Stakes due to a virus.

JOHN HENRY
Voted 7 Eclipse Awards
Voted Horse of the Year 1981 and 1984
Only horse to win Horse of the Year more than once but not in consecutive years
Voted Champion Older Horse 1981
Oldest horse to win Horse of the Year - at age 9
Oldest horse to win a Grade 1 race - at age 9
Voted Champion Turf Horse - 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984
Won 30 stakes races
Only horse to win the Arlington Million(G1) twice - 1981 & 1984
Only horse to win the Santa Anita Handicap(G1) twice - 1981 & 1982 (has been tied, Milwaukee Brew)
Won more grade stakes than any other Thoroughbred - 25
Voted racehorse of the decade for the 1980's
Still the richest gelding of any breed in history
Retired as the world's richest thoroughbred - July 28, 1985
Inducted into Racing's Hall of Fame in 1990
Voted 23rd best racehorse of the 20th Century