Shared Belief

[NTamm1215]

Perfect Drift ended his career on a 19-race losing streak, even dropping three allowance races. Under no circumstances was he better than Commentator.



Commentator had injury issues. But when he was on his game, he was incredible.



Lava Man was incredibly overrated. Aside from his strong run in parts of 2005 and 2006, he was ordinary and has enjoyed an inflated standing by people all over the internet. Maybe it was because he was "the originals rags to riches."



That's just a few. I'll pull more PPs.

[RockHardTen1985]

I might have to move Commentator up from 13. I actually might be underrating him. I forgot how strong his pps look.

[Danzig]

i love looking at old past performances.

[Indian Charlie]

Clearly, Perfect Drift was a mistake, but for the most part he could make reasonable arguments for the majority of that list.

Candy Ride though, he would have handled Commentator.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Perfect Drift ended his career on a 19-race losing streak, even dropping three allowance races. Under no circumstances was he better than Commentator.



Commentator had injury issues. But when he was on his game, he was incredible.



Lava Man was incredibly overrated. Aside from his strong run in parts of 2005 and 2006, he was ordinary and has enjoyed an inflated standing by people all over the internet. Maybe it was because he was "the originals rags to riches."



That's just a few. I'll pull more PPs.

Perfect Drift actually made $4.7 million. He made over double what Commentator made. Commentator only made $2 million. Not only that, but 6 of Commentator's 14 wins were against New York breds.

In addition, I don't think it's fair to judge Perfect Drift off his last few years of racing. He was running as a 9 year old. He wasn't nearly as good of a horse during his 7,8, and 9 year old seasons as he was as a 4 and 5 year old.

Don't get me wrong, I think Commentator was a better horse. When he ran his best race, he was not going to lose to Perfect Drift. But if we are going to compare them, we need to compare them when they were both in top form. Who cares what Perfect Drift did as an 8 and 9 year old when he was over the hill.

Lava Man made $5.2 million. My big knock on him was that he couldn't win anywhere but Southern California. But when he was in top form in Southern California, there weren't too many horses that could beat him. Plus he did it on every surface- regular dirt, synthetic, and grass. He won a total of 7 grade I races. Commentator only won two. You guys like to look at speed figures. How many graded stakes wins did Lava Man have where he ran a 105 Beyer or higher? The answer is 9. How many did Commentator have? The answer is 3.

It's pretty hard to knock Lava Man's overall stats. When you look at the amount of money he won, the number of grade I races he won, how fast he ran, and all the different surfaces he did it on, it's pretty hard to knock him.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Perfect Drift actually made $4.7 million. He made over double what Commentator made. Commentator only made $2 million. Not only that, but 6 of Commentator's 14 wins were against New York breds.

In addition, I don't think it's fair to judge Perfect Drift off his last few years of racing. He was running as a 9 year old. He wasn't nearly as good of a horse during his 7,8, and 9 year old seasons as he was as a 4 and 5 year old.

Don't get me wrong, I think Commentator was a better horse. When he ran his best race, he was not going to lose to Perfect Drift. But if we are going to compare them, we need to compare them when they were both in top form. Who cares what Perfect Drift did as an 8 and 9 year old when he was over the hill.

Lava Man made $5.2 million. My big knock on him was that he couldn't win anywhere but Southern California. But when he was in top form in Southern California, there weren't too many horses that could beat him. Plus he did it on every surface- regular dirt, synthetic, and grass. He won a total of 7 grade I races. Commentator only won two. You guys like to look at speed figures. How many graded stakes wins did Lava Man have where he ran a 105 Beyer or higher? The answer is 9. How many did Commentator have? The answer is 3.

It's pretty hard to knock Lava Man's overall stats. When you look at the amount of money he won, the number of grade I races he won, how fast he ran, and all the different surfaces he did it on, it's pretty hard to knock him.

so, by using the logic of money won, curlin is the best horse ever?

perfect drift was more lucrative over his career, doesn't mean he was better. to say otherwise would be the same as saying mark rypien was a better QB than dan marino, because rypien won a super bowl.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, by using the logic of money won, curlin is the best horse ever?

perfect drift was more lucrative over his career, doesn't mean he was better. to say otherwise would be the same as saying mark rypien was a better QB than dan marino, because rypien won a super bowl.

I never said that Perfect Drift was better.

Money won is important. It's certainly not the only important factor but it is an important factor. I don't know how a person could compare two horses and not use money won as one of things you would look at. You obviously can't look at money won if you are comparing a modern horse with a horse from 60 years ago, but if you are comparing two horses that ran in the same general time frame then I would certainly look at it. I would say money won and number of graded stakes wins would be two of the most important things.

That being said, I would still probably pick Ghostzapper as the best horse in the US in the last 15 years. He made $3.4 million, won 6 graded stakes races including 4 grade I races. He had 9 wins from 11 starts. His career wasn't that long but he was spectacular. And he easily won what was probably the deepest field in terms of talent in the BC Classic when he beat Roses in May and Pleasantly Perfect.


Curlin was a great horse. I would put him in the top 5 or so best horses in the US in the last 15 years.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I never said that Perfect Drift was better.

Money won is important. It's certainly not the only important factor but it is an important factor. I don't know how a person could compare two horses and not use money won as one of things you would look at. You obviously can't look at money won if you are comparing a modern horse with a horse from 60 years ago, but if you are comparing two horses that ran in the same general time frame then I would certainly look at it. I would say money won and number of graded stakes wins would be two of the most important things.

That being said, I would still probably pick Ghostzapper as the best horse in the US in the last 15 years. He made $3.4 million, won 6 graded stakes races including 4 grade I races. He had 9 wins from 11 starts. His career wasn't that long but he was spectacular. And he easily won what was probably the deepest field in terms of talent in the BC Classic when he beat Roses in May and Pleasantly Perfect.


Curlin was a great horse. I would put him in the top 5 or so best horses in the US in the last 15 years.

Hard Spun was better.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

Hard Spun was better.

Agreed. Hard Spun was a beast.

[cakes44]

Okay so clearly Perfect Drift and Lava Man are the arguing points. Maybe even throw Game On Dude in there. No one has argued the 9 other horses on my list, and that is only since 2003. How in the world is Commentator among the all-time greats if he might not even be among the top 10 since 2003 according to nearly everyone on here, which was my original point?

[declansharbor]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Agreed. Hard Spun was a beast.

He would've been a SCARY good miler. One of my favorites. Absolutely crazy that 2 of my top 5 favorites are Porter owned.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, by using the logic of money won, curlin is the best horse ever?

perfect drift was more lucrative over his career, doesn't mean he was better. to say otherwise would be the same as saying mark rypien was a better QB than dan marino, because rypien won a super bowl.

Your analogy is absurd. Mark Rypien would be a good analogy if I was claiming a horse was great because of a single race he won. If I claimed that Giacomo was better than Commentator because Giacomo won the Ky Derby, that would be like saying Rypien is better than Marino because Rypien won the Super Bowl.

When a horse wins millions of dollars and multiple graded stakes races over his career, that is the exact opposite of a one-hit wonder like Mary Rypien. Mark Rypien would be comparable to a horse that won one big race but never really did anything else.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Your analogy is absurd. Mark Rypien would be a good analogy if I was claiming a horse was great because of a single race he won. If I claimed that Giacomo was better than Commentator because Giacomo won the Ky Derby, that would be like saying Rypien is better than Marino because Rypien won the Super Bowl.

When a horse wins millions of dollars and multiple graded stakes races over his career, that is the exact opposite of a one-hit wonder like Mary Rypien. Mark Rypien would be comparable to a horse that won one big race but never really did anything else.

Rypien made the pro bowl twice. Just sayin

[Indian Charlie]

Yeah, I liked Rypien.

Dilfer though?

Derek Fisher has five rings himself!

He's better than LBJ.

[Kitan]

It depends on what basis you are comparing horses on. If it is based on races won, then the back to back BC Classics should put a name that I have not read yet here, Tiznow, near the top. If it's based on earnings, then it's Curlin. Etc, etc. It's always hard to compare even only a few years apart because unfortunately with the modern, fragile thoroughbred the competition is constantly changing. To most owners, the astronomical value at stud is worth much more than anything they can accomplish on the track and this becomes a priority. A lot of the most promising younger horses that could have turned into the best---Barbaro, Big Brown, Smarty Jones, for example---have retired young and so we don't know what they could have become. This is why we rarely see a true superstar these days and on the surface makes it appear that the handicap division is always on a decline.

For me, however, it has to be Ghostzapper. What he did at Lone Star that day is by far one of the most impressive performances I've seen. The running time. The field he beat. The effortless manner. And it wasn't just a one-off eye-catcher like Borrego. From 6f-10f he was as consistent as they come. Four G1s at four different distances. Wire to wire. Last to first. So versatile. What a horse.

It's unfortunate that the state of North American racing has gotten to the point of Commentator and Lava Man being considered amongst the GOATs. There is a difference between good and great. Right now, Shared Belief is good. If he continues his path and runs as such for the rest of his prime, then he can reach the echelons of greatness.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Yeah, I liked Rypien.

Dilfer though?

Derek Fisher has five rings himself!

He's better than LBJ.

I almost put dilfer in there too!

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Perfect Drift ended his career on a 19-race losing streak, even dropping three allowance races. Under no circumstances was he better than Commentator.



Commentator had injury issues. But when he was on his game, he was incredible.



Lava Man was incredibly overrated. Aside from his strong run in parts of 2005 and 2006, he was ordinary and has enjoyed an inflated standing by people all over the internet. Maybe it was because he was "the originals rags to riches."



That's just a few. I'll pull more PPs.

You're right. Commentator was better. I remember him winning 4 Hollywood Gold Cups in a row.

[Seattleallstar]

Commentator was much better than Lava Man, Lava Man beat Grade 2-3 type horses in those Gold Cups. Anytime faced with the competition that was a step above of what he was beating in socal, he failed miserably. Lava Man was a good horse but in no way was he a "great" horse. Lava Man never ever came close to defeating a horse the caliber of a St Liam, which Commentator did.

Lava Man and Game on Dude are pretty much the same, good horses who gained a popular following in Socal. Not great and not even in the conversations for best horses in the country. Grade 2 caliber horses that were able to pick off weak Grade 1 races

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Seattleallstar

Commentator was much better than Lava Man, Lava Man beat Grade 2-3 type horses in those Gold Cups. Anytime faced with the competition that was a step above of what he was beating in socal, he failed miserably. Lava Man was a good horse but in no way was he a "great" horse. Lava Man never ever came close to defeating a horse the caliber of a St Liam, which Commentator did.

Lava Man and Game on Dude are pretty much the same, good horses who gained a popular following in Socal. Not great and not even in the conversations for best horses in the country. Grade 2 caliber horses that were able to pick off weak Grade 1 races

Not in the conversation for best horses in the country...really? Grade 2 horses, the races they won and the figures they achieved strongly rebut that argument.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

You're right. Commentator was better. I remember him winning 4 Hollywood Gold Cups in a row.

You mean like being life and death to hold off world beaters Ace Blue and Super Frolic by a diminishing length? Or more like the same against Hall of Famers AP Xcellent and Big Booster in the same manner?

When you need to disparage one horse's accomplishments in order to make your argument for another, chances are fairly good that neither deserve to be in the conversation.