Should Have

[philcski]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Thanks for reminding me. Add Bernardini to my list. I don't see why he couldn't have won it. He was good enough to win the Preakness two weeks later. I know, I know. I thought he was good enough to win the Preakness anyway though so I don't think two weeks earlier, he wouldn't have been able to beat Barbaro.

He needed that Withers start. No way he would have been ready for the Derby off a maiden win- you don't seriously believe he could have beaten Barbaro do you? The Preakness is a different race, and (unfortunately) it fell into his hands after Barbaro went down.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Devils Bag was done well before that Derby. Now, if the 2YO Devils Bag showed up......

Yeah, I know. I remember waiting for the newspaper to show up the next day to find out what he did in the race before the Flamingo (Everglades I think?) and when he was kind of average I was disappointed, then the terrible performance in the Flamingo... still, something was wrong and if he had made it healthy to Churchill he would have destroyed that field.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by philcski

He needed that Withers start. No way he would have been ready for the Derby off a maiden win- you don't seriously believe he could have beaten Barbaro do you? The Preakness is a different race, and (unfortunately) it fell into his hands after Barbaro went down.



Yeah, I know. I remember waiting for the newspaper to show up the next day to find out what he did in the race before the Flamingo (Everglades I think?) and when he was kind of average I was disappointed, then the terrible performance in the Flamingo... still, something was wrong and if he had made it healthy to Churchill he would have destroyed that field.

Great horses do great things. Lammtarra won the Epsom Derby in his second career start....off of a seven month layoff at that. I'm not suggesting though that Bernardini would have beaten Barbaro if he had run off of the maiden win. What I was saying is that had things been able to go different and they could have started on him earlier and had more preparation time, I think that Bernardini would have been the one winning the Derby, not Barbaro.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Great horses do great things. Lammtarra won the Epsom Derby in his second career start....off of a seven month layoff at that. I'm not suggesting though that Bernardini would have beaten Barbaro if he had run off of the maiden win. What I was saying is that had things been able to go different and they could have started on him earlier and had more preparation time, I think that Bernardini would have been the one winning the Derby, not Barbaro.

Bernardini wasn't a great horse....and frankly neither was Lamtarra. Both might have proven great but neither did on the racetrack.....and certainly not Bernardini.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Bernardini wasn't a great horse....and frankly neither was Lamtarra. Both might have proven great but neither did on the racetrack.....and certainly not Bernardini.

I won't argue Bernardini. We won't agree on that. But Lammtarra wasn't? I understand that his career was short but how much more brilliant could a horse be? It wasn't like he was winning allowance races either. Winning the Epsom Derby off a seven month layoff, in your second career start, in course record time.....that's a great horse. To follow that up with a King George win over Pentire (Irish Champion, King George winner) and Carnegie (the previous year's Arc winner) was icing on the cake. To follow that up with an Arc win over Freedom Cry (narrowly beaten in the BC Turf) and Swain (two time King George winner, Irish Champion, Coronation Cup) was the final stamp needed. He was winning world class races against world class horses. That he only ran four times was too bad for us but shouldn't be held against him.

[blackthroatedwind]

Look, I really don't know how he ran specifically, and obviously he was an exceptional talent, but I just don't see how greatness can be proclaimed in what was effectively a three race career.

Hell, there are people who act like Ghostzapper wasn't a great and he ran a minimum of six great races.....and ran until he was five. Lamtarra was cheated out of his chance of truly proving his greatness by his owner. It's unfortunate but true.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Look, I really don't know how he ran specifically, and obviously he was an exceptional talent, but I just don't see how greatness can be proclaimed in what was effectively a three race career.

Hell, there are people who act like Ghostzapper wasn't a great and he ran a minimum of six great races.....and ran until he was five. Lamtarra was cheated out of his chance of truly proving his greatness by his owner. It's unfortunate but true.

I understand that sentiment but I don't agree with it. IMO, Ghostzapper was a great horse. Candy Ride was a great horse. Lammtarra was a great horse. I think it's ideal when we have the opportunity to witness greatness for a prolonged period of time. It's ideal when we have the opportunity see many different challenges taken on and overcome by a horse. But for me, the lack of having those opportunities doesn't factor in when I evaluate what I think I've seen. The lack of those opportunities would keep me from voting any of those horses into the hall of fame. The hall of fame, IMO, should be for those horses that separated themselves even from other great horses by doing exceptional things like winning divisional championships in multiple years, winning x% of career starts, being in the money in x% of career starts, winning x number of grade one races. Things like that. But as far as ability, that's a different story. If there was a human sprinter and he only raced 10 times in his life but won an Olympic gold, a world championship gold and set a world record in those 10 starts, he's a great sprinter. For me, greatness is more about ability than accomplishments. Too often, especially when it comes to racing in this era, accomplishments are out of the hands of the horses.

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I understand that sentiment but I don't agree with it. IMO, Ghostzapper was a great horse. Candy Ride was a great horse. Lammtarra was a great horse. I think it's ideal when we have the opportunity to witness greatness for a prolonged period of time. It's ideal when we have the opportunity see many different challenges taken on and overcome by a horse. But for me, the lack of having those opportunities doesn't factor in when I evaluate what I think I've seen. The lack of those opportunities would keep me from voting any of those horses into the hall of fame. The hall of fame, IMO, should be for those horses that separated themselves even from other great horses by doing exceptional things like winning divisional championships in multiple years, winning x% of career starts, being in the money in x% of career starts, winning x number of grade one races. Things like that. But as far as ability, that's a different story. If there was a human sprinter and he only raced 10 times in his life but won an Olympic gold, a world championship gold and set a world record in those 10 starts, he's a great sprinter. For me, greatness is more about ability than accomplishments. Too often, especially when it comes to racing in this era, accomplishments are out of the hands of the horses.

any horse with hands would have to be considered great, no matter what else the animal did.