Defining a "GREAT" horse

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

There's a cornucopia of wisdom in that little sentence ... especially the "international" part.

Here's a question I'd like to see answered ...

How did The Blood-Horse panel include Phar Lap on the list of 20th Century American greats ... off a single race in Mexico ... but exclude Whisk Broom ... who won the three most difficult races then run in America ... packing weight as high as 139 pounds ... in his three races here?

Maybe since they speak english in Austraila they consider it America!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by ezrabrooks

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

Ez ...

... this in an extremely ignorant person ... who tops my "Ignore" list.

In my post ... I clearly said "their respective Triple Crown races" ... but this dumb-as-a-catcher's-mitt loser obviously doesn't understand the usage of "respective" in that context.

You'll save your eyes a lot of wasted wear-and-tear ... if you add him to your "Ignore" list as well.

Take care, good buddy.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Maybe since they speak english in Austraila they consider it America!!!!!!!

Ummm ... yeah ... but ...

... don't they speak English in England too?

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

Of course the horse I mentioned...Showing Up as well. HE wasn't exactly chopped liver on dirt winning his 1st 3 including the grade 2 Lexington and then running a decent 6th in the Ky Derby before going to the lawn.

But he's not "great" ... is he?

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Ummm ... yeah ... but ...

... don't they speak English in England too?

Yeah, I think.....who knows. I was trying to make sense of Phar Lap being on the list.

Originally Posted by moodwalker

I tell you what, if you consider the Eclipse awards the only type of organization that names "champions," then you can kiss my ass.

Let's round up all the awards from every country that has racing, and then see how many "champions" run exclusively on the turf versus our 7 Eclipse awards.

When I said "turf is where most all champions run," I was right.

It is probably 100+ to 7.

Not if you include NASCAR and greyhound racing ... where does that leave your precious turf horses?

I think turf horses should be held is higher regard that dirt horses. Dirt horses have many more options in the US than do grass horses. Grass horses usually face larger fields and they always have a blanket finish. In addition, US turfers get bombarded with Europeans. US Dirt horses dont have to worry about that. I think a turf horse who consistently performs at the top is more of a great horse than a horse that raced on selective tracks with selective races.

Originally Posted by GPK

that would be Mr. That Dude to you.

Let's wait and see how "Mr. Dude" you are ...

... when you look over your shoulder ... and see King Glorious closing like a freight train.

I make May 24, 2007 the under/over day ... for King taking the lead.

Watch yourself, dude ... errr ... Mr. Dude.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Ez ...

... this in an extremely ignorant person ... who tops my "Ignore" list.

In my post ... I clearly said "their respective Triple Crown races" ... but this dumb-as-a-catcher's-mitt loser obviously doesn't understand the usage of "respective" in that context.

You'll save your eyes a lot of wasted wear-and-tear ... if you add him to your "Ignore" list as well.

Take care, good buddy.

Ignore me? My a ss. You live for me. Ya schmedrick.

Originally Posted by sham

To me, "great" and "all time great" have different connotations

Wow .. wow ... wow !!!

Now Pup is here too!

Hey ... is there anyone left over "there" ... aside from the hyenas?

Pretty soon ... those alpha-females won't have anyone left to prey on ... so ... maybe we should "pray" for them?

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

There's a cornucopia of wisdom in that little sentence ... especially the "international" part.

Here's a question I'd like to see answered ...

How did The Blood-Horse panel include Phar Lap on the list of 20th Century American greats ... off a single race in Mexico ... but exclude Whisk Broom ... who won the three most difficult races then run in America ... packing weight as high as 139 pounds ... in his three races here?

I suspect that the answer is a distant cousin to why foreign-based horses routinely win US championships (which is what the Eclipse Awards are) for winning one race in the US, ie the Breeders' Cup. If a horse who is successful in his foreign base comes to North America and wins one race here, that is sufficient evidence for some/many to assume that had the horse run more often, he would have continued to show winning form here just as he or she did back home. There is a deep-running tendency for American racing to have an inferiority complex and generally, we are quick to accept that a good foreign horse is better than our horses. However, horses with in-and-out form in their foreign home base who happen to win a BC event are usually not given Eclipse Awards. This suggests that it's less the act of winning the BC race itself as it is the perception of whether the BC race was indicative of the horse's overall form.

Phar Lap, of course, was a phenomenal success down under and if that victory in Mexico was indicative of how he might have run in North America, it's reasonable - for people who like to do such things - to extrapolate how good he might have been here.

Though classic-placed at 3, Whisk Broom II was not a major player in England prior to his return to the US. His accomplishments in his native land take place over less than a month's time and his Suburban was always tainted by the near-certainty that the record time was wrong by at least two seconds. (This is hardly the horse's fault, but many later references to Whisk Broom II, up until the record was finally broken, involved some reference to it.) Moreover, as racing had just returned to New York that year after disruption that seriously shook up the sport in this country (resulting in many good horses and bloodstock being shipped overseas), there has to be some doubt as to the caliber of horses he met. Contemporary observers did not place him among the pantheon of greats. I believe that these factors led to how he was remembered (or not) by later generations.

[sham]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Wow .. wow ... wow !!!

Now Pup is here too!

Hey ... is there anyone left over "there" ... aside from the hyenas?

Pretty soon ... those alpha-females won't have anyone left to prey on ... so ... maybe we should "pray" for them?

Hey BB,
I see you are about to go on another secret mission. These folks probably don't know that the "Bond" character in Ian Flemming's books were largely based on the adventures of Mr Brooklynite.

Originally Posted by sham

Hey BB,
I see you are about to go on another secret mission. These folks probably don't know that the "Bond" character in Ian Flemming's books were largely based on the adventures of Mr Brooklynite.

... and Mrs. Brooklynite.

Hey, Pup ... stick around ... this is a very interesting place ... 100% hyena-free.

King Glorious, Damascus, Fupeg, Ez, lots of others ... are here now. Even War Emblem will be here full-time soon.

Steve Byk ... who runs this joint ... is an all-time great mensch.

[Thunder Gulch]

Obviously it's a very subjective evaluation, and I don't think you can attach any hard guidelines or rules such as a certain percentage of wins. Wins at different tracks, distances, divisions, etc, all contribute, but you still can 't put hard and fast rules in place to determine greatness.

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Phar Lap ... was a phenomenal success down under and if that victory in Mexico was indicative of how he might have run in North America, it's reasonable - for people who like to do such things - to extrapolate how good he might have been here.

Though classic-placed at 3, Whisk Broom II was not a major player in England prior to his return to the US ... and his Suburban was always tainted by the near-certainty that the record time was wrong by at least two seconds.

But ... the whole premise of the ranking was supposed to be "who were the best performers in North America in the 20th century."

One race in Mexico ... technically in North America ... is still only one race ... so how does that get him to #22 on the list? Plenty of other foreign horses won their first starts in stakes races here ... so why aren't they #20, #21, 23, #24, #25 ... ?

And while Whisk Broom's time was suspect ... that 139 pounds on his back surely wasn't ... they had very accurate scales in 1913 ... nor were his decisive victories in the Metropolitan, Brooklyn, and Suburban handicaps.

And ... as I always ask ... but never get a serious response to ... if it were so easy for European horses to come here in 1913, 1914, 1915 ... and sweep the handicap triple crown ... how come no one else did it?

Whisk Broom's foreign form wasn't near Phar Lap's ... but again ... weren't they supposed to be ranking North American form?

And All Along ... who also won three G1 stakes here within a month's time ... after a spotty European career ... one G1 against fillies in 6 G1 starts ... and then lost 3 G1 races here ... got spotted at #68. Say what?

The Blood-Horse panel did a mostly good job ... but this was a blatant and inexplicable floperoo on their part.

And ... as I always ask ... but never get a serious response to ... if it were so easy for European horses to come here in 1913, 1914, 1915 ... and sweep the handicap triple crown ... how come no one else did it?Well shipping back in 1913,1914,1915....was not as easy as it is today. In addition, European racing was held in higher regard back then as well. There was no reason to ship their horses to the US.

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

But ... the whole premise of the ranking was supposed to be "who were the best performers in North America in the 20th century."

Not defending ... just taking a stab at explaining.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

[Well shipping back in 1913,1914,1915....was not as easy as it is today. In addition, European racing was held in higher regard back then as well. There was no reason to ship their horses to the US.

Nonetheless ... Whisk Broom shipped ... and swept the only "Triple Crown" that America had at the time ... and ...

... and no one else did.

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Not defending ... just taking a stab at explaining.

I understood that ... I was asking rhetorical questions ...

... just in case anyone from the panel was lurking on this thread.

You're the (second) best !!!

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

But he's not "great" ... is he?

Of course not. People were responding to good horses that went to turf who were not failures on dirt like Lava Man and I mentioned Showing Up who ran good races on dirt this year and certainly didn't embarrass himself in the Derby, his last race on dirt before going to the grass.