Although it would take the fun out of endless and sometimes educational debates
(Hey, this big Invasor debate seems to have kept anyone from mentioning
Biancone\'s problems at Keeneland), it is possible that Racing could set
standards in certain areas,and Greatness/ Immortality could be quantified to an
extent.
1) Minimum qualifications for a colt/horse to enter stud duty: Lets say for
example that no horse would be allowed to enter stud in the US unless he was
a) a stakes winner or b) graded stakes placed or c) had minimum earnings of
$300,000 and d) had to have started 10 times. You can play with a, b, c, and d
however you want, but the end result would be a stouter gene pool and a possible
end to equine early retirement.
You could still have stallions standing that did not meet the qualifications
listed above, but their progeny would not be permitted to compete in Graded
stakes races.
2) Minimum requirements for Eclipse Award winners in all categories including
Horse of the Year. If no animal in a certain category meets the stated
requirements, whatever they might be, no Eclipse is awarded in that category.
3) Minimum requirements for entry into the Racing Hall of Fame.
Another Standard should be \"No Turf Raced animals qualify for Greatness\".
Secretariat getting beat multiple times by olders and winning off on the turf pretty much illustrates the quality of the turf animal and general turf competition.
In the \"Invasor Thread\" someone mentioned Ouija Board as a great one? The mare lost more races than she won. Assuming she was good on turf as far as turf horses go can an under .500 turf record speak any more eloquently upon what turf racing really is?
It\'s a pace crap shoot sprint to the finish while trying not to get blocked while you lose ground.
On the other hand Invasor was undoubtedly a good \"modern horse\" and probably should be allowed to breed. However having it all end with a sesamoid is a little troubling.
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Although it would take the fun out of endless and
> sometimes educational debates
> (Hey, this big Invasor debate seems to have kept
> anyone from mentioning
> Biancone\'s problems at Keeneland), it is possible
> that Racing could set
> standards in certain areas,and Greatness/
> Immortality could be quantified to an
> extent.
>
> 1) Minimum qualifications for a colt/horse to
> enter stud duty: Lets say for
> example that no horse would be allowed to enter
> stud in the US unless he was
> a) a stakes winner or b) graded stakes placed or
> c) had minimum earnings of
> $300,000 and d) had to have started 10 times. You
> can play with a, b, c, and d
> however you want, but the end result would be a
> stouter gene pool and a possible
> end to equine early retirement.
>
> You could still have stallions standing that did
> not meet the qualifications
> listed above, but their progeny would not be
> permitted to compete in Graded
> stakes races.
>
> 2) Minimum requirements for Eclipse Award winners
> in all categories including
> Horse of the Year. If no animal in a certain
> category meets the stated
> requirements, whatever they might be, no Eclipse
> is awarded in that category.
>
> 3) Minimum requirements for entry into the Racing
> Hall of Fame.
Actually, Chuckles, your points about turf racing - large fields, narrow crowded
courses,unpredictable pace scenarios - are all salient. But IMO John Henry is
Immortal, and I am sure that he lost more than half of his races.
Actually, CtC, I was the one who mentioned Ouija Board as the best runner I
have seen in the seven years of the 21st Century. She showed up for the BC 3
straight years, prevailing twice. She ran against the best European males and
was competitive. She is a Grade 1/ Group I winner on 3 continents.You are the
resident Tesio here, so maybe you can explain to me why they chose Kingmambo
as her first match.
Actually, Chuckzapper, I was trying to expand the circumference of
the circle of Greatness/ Immortality which was being debated here; very few
turfers/females/Euros were being mentioned.
Actually, Clownvasor, I am trying to figure out what was in the water/soil in
the 1970s. Three American Triple Crown winners plus Alydar plus the Bid plus
Forego plus Ruffian plus Shuvee plus others. And, during the 70s, I believe four
English Triple Crown winners -- Nijinsky, Grundy, Troy and the Minstrel.
These are fun debates, Chuckdiarmidia, so long as nobody mentions Bellamy Road
(-5 TG, 120 Beyer) as one of the great ones.
????
Isn\'t the minimum requirement to be a stud something like someone else will pay for it? so the rules are set by simple good old econimics. thanks goodness .
Basket:
Actually, that is no longer the minimum requirement. A prominent NY Breeder has
a stallion so \"valuable\" he will pay owners of mares to breed to said stallion.
But I see your point about the free market. Hell, if a stallion can make wood,
breed him until he is exhausted. That will assure us that we can have horses
running 15 hours a day 7 days a week at the Racinos; eventually the breed will
become so unsound that Polytrack will be too unforgiving and they will be
bouncing along on a surface manufactured by Sealy Posturepedic.
This thread was about great horses, and why there seems to be less of them and
why their careers tend to be so short; the type of breeding regimen you seem to
advocate assures that we will have huge fields of nondescript runners so that we
might all bet those nickel superfectas which are sure to save racing.
Alright Richie,
I will give you Bellamy Road and his negative 5 falling way short of great!! That was easy.
As I look at the thorographs for Wednesday\'s Belmont card and see that Commentator has run four negative 5\'s, I am struck that as far as TG figures go, Commentator is probably the fastest horse in history. I guess he has 4 of the top 7 or 8 figures ever given out.
So, how do we classify horses like that. I don\'t vote for \"great\", but he has to be better than \"good\".
Jimbo,
We need to establish a Greatness Committee. Being fans and handicappers we have no vested interest other than the integrity and sanctity of the sport and protecting the Hall of Greatness. We don\'t need to kiss Trainers and Breeders tails so we probably have more independence than anyone. Even if some of the candidates being considered have screwed us out of a bet or two.
We also need diversification so I nominate:
jimbo66
Chuckles_the_Clown2
NC Tony
Mall
Razzle
Indulto
Mark Hopkins
Barry Irwin
The committee themselves gets to set the standards. Similar to the Graded Stakes Committee. They can actually go back in history and \"set the record straight\" if they so choose and declare a horse no longer worthy a being called great. Call it a house cleaning of sorts.
This is the only fair and balanced way. Don\'t you agree.
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alright Richie,
>
> I will give you Bellamy Road and his negative 5
> falling way short of great!! That was easy.
>
> As I look at the thorographs for Wednesday\'s
> Belmont card and see that Commentator has run four
> negative 5\'s, I am struck that as far as TG
> figures go, Commentator is probably the fastest
> horse in history. I guess he has 4 of the top 7
> or 8 figures ever given out.
>
> So, how do we classify horses like that. I don\'t
> vote for \"great\", but he has to be better than
> \"good\".
He hasn\'t dusted the best of his generation Jim. Three of the superfigs were in state bred company, and one of them was a wire job over the old Kee surface (sloppy track no less). He\'s faced very good horses four times, and got buried three.
Somewhere between good and great sounds ok to me.
Jimbo:
My final words on \"Great\", unless that Crafty Clown draws me back into the fray.
Frosted Flakes, we know they are \"Grrreat!\"
Archie and Edith\'s old Lasalle ran \"Great\".
It would be \"Great\" if I could break 90 tomorrow at Charleston Springs, but it
will be my first time over the track and that might be expecting too much.
Its OK with me if you want to call Commentator \"great\", but I am expecting some
\"great\" commentary from you during the upcoming Saratoga meet.
Thank You Silver, I accept the nomination and immediately propose the following standards for the Hall of Greatness:
1. 20 Career Starts
2. Winning Grade I at Ten Poles at Least Twice
3. Winning Grade I at Twelve Poles at least Once.
4. Setting a track record at least once.
5. Any horse/mare capable of running in the entire Triple Crown series and dodging races in said series to position for a shot at defeating the full Triple Crown Circuit competitors in a \"one time\" ambush forfeits all eligibility to the Hall of Greatness.
This is gonna thin the ranks some, but committee by dictatorship isn\'t easy, that is unless I\'m the dictator.
CtC
Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jimbo,
>
> We need to establish a Greatness Committee. Being
> fans and handicappers we have no vested interest
> other than the integrity and sanctity of the sport
> and protecting the Hall of Greatness. We don\'t
> need to kiss Trainers and Breeders tails so we
> probably have more independence than anyone. Even
> if some of the candidates being considered have
> screwed us out of a bet or two.
>
> We also need diversification so I nominate:
>
> jimbo66
> Chuckles_the_Clown2
> NC Tony
> Mall
> Razzle
> Indulto
> Mark Hopkins
> Barry Irwin
>
> The committee themselves gets to set the
> standards. Similar to the Graded Stakes Committee.
> They can actually go back in history and \"set the
> record straight\" if they so choose and declare a
> horse no longer worthy a being called great. Call
> it a house cleaning of sorts.
>
> This is the only fair and balanced way. Don\'t you
> agree.
I like your criteria and I also think you would be good member of a very select committee. Barry Irwin could not vote on any horse he owns however.
You know Commentator is being labeled in this string as not quite a Great Horse but a good horse. Didn\'t he beat Saint Liam in the Whitney who was a Great Horse. And Saint Liam was nosed out by Ghostzapper who was a Great Horse.
Invasor and Bernardini both just retired and they were Great Horses. With what Street Sense and Rag to Riches have accomplished this classifies them as Great Horses.
What are we all doing sitting around lusting for the 70\'s all over again when there are dozens and dozens of Great Horses already in the New Century......
Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know Commentator is being labeled in this
> string as not quite a Great Horse but a good
> horse. Didn\'t he beat Saint Liam in the Whitney
> who was a Great Horse. And Saint Liam was nosed
> out by Ghostzapper who was a Great Horse. 0
So if the Raiders beat the Broncos and the Broncos beat the Colts....this puts them on the same level as the Colts?? C\'mon Charm...thats a terrible analogy.
> Invasor and Bernardini both just retired and they
> were Great Horses.
Based on what criteria?? Bernardini is great because why?? He finished 2nd in the BC Classic and never raced as a 4YO?? He won some nice races as a 3YO, but who did he beat?? Invasor....I\'ll accept him although I think he gets dusted by truly great horses.
With what Street Sense and Rag
> to Riches have accomplished this classifies them
> as Great Horses.
Please tell me you\'re kidding.
> What are we all doing sitting around lusting for
> the 70\'s all over again when there are dozens and
> dozens of Great Horses already in the New
> Century......
Charm, I hope your comments are in jest.
Horses must meet all criteria that Chuckles presented, not just one. Otherwise, the list of great horses will number 1000.
Great is the single most overused word in the English language. Running a big figure, or winning a GR 1 race does not make someone great. Sometimes its hard to quantify just what great is, but you know it when you see it. Maybe the current racing scene doesn\'t lend itself to horses proving themselves as in the past, but when its suggested that horses such as Street Sense/Bernardini/etc..are great......in the next breath I expect these same people to tell me that Papa John makes great pizza.
Thats the problem. people paying for horses who are bred by crooked legged stallions is like a blackjack player taking a hit on 20 who\'s seated right next to you. He messes up the entire game, not just for himself, but for the other players. Just because a person is willing to pay for a young horse doesn\'t mean that young horse should exist.
supply and demand, market forces, etc doesn\'t help the breed. There are too many greedy breeders retiring and breeding bad horses to other bad horses and getting badly built runners who are disasters waiting to happen.
Street Sense won the BC Juvy and the Derby, the only horse to ever do so. Rags to Riches won the Belmont, the first Filly in 100 years to do so. This makes both of them, at a minimum, Great Horses by todays standards.
I didn\'t set the bar that is just where it has been placed. At a level where it is not that difficult to jump over.
A couple of cruising Grade I wins, a win in a TC race or the BC Classic or Dubai, or any two of the three, and you are instantly a Great Horse.
Street Sense and Rags to Riches should actually retire NOW. While they are still at the Immortal level...........
I think one of the criteria should be you must have earned your fast figures against a field stronger than statebreds, limited winner allowance horses, or on a super speed biased surface. ;-)
Some of the criteria seems flawed - Bernadini doesn\'t merit the \"greatness\" status - with me or racing fans in general . . . if a horse like Berni gets in , then the door is open for too many other ( perhaps non-deserving ) Horses .
Running a great race or two should not IMO necessarily mean to install a \"great horse\" status - with some exceptions like a Da Hoss for instance or Sarava and Go And Go, but definitely not Bernardini . The Preakness and Belmont should be viewed on a sliding scale of being less of importance than the Kentucky Derby .
Also - The greatness committee membership should be expanded to include bobphilo , who - is extremely knowledgeable about the game and it\'s history , plus will keep many of you honest ...
Silver Charm is laboring under the assumption that he is a nominated or accepted member to the Hall of Greatness Committee.
The fact is that Street Sense has been a good horse at Churchill Downs and Churchill Downs only. Away from his preferred strip hes been merely another hard trying horse. Certainly NOT a great one.
Rags on the other hand violated Cardinal 5 of the originating tenets. Rags, ambushed the Triple Crown field when they were already banged up from participating in the entire series.
If Rags is to be considered great the committee will make that determination either at the end of this year or next, but to be considered at all she will have to run the table on her division in the interim. If she can\'t beat her own sex from here in, obviously the Belmont was a freak race won in about a TFig of 3.
Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Street Sense won the BC Juvy and the Derby, the
> only horse to ever do so. Rags to Riches won the
> Belmont, the first Filly in 100 years to do so.
> This makes both of them, at a minimum, Great
> Horses by todays standards.
>
> I didn\'t set the bar that is just where it has
> been placed. At a level where it is not that
> difficult to jump over.
>
> A couple of cruising Grade I wins, a win in a TC
> race or the BC Classic or Dubai, or any two of the
> three, and you are instantly a Great Horse.
>
> Street Sense and Rags to Riches should actually
> retire NOW. While they are still at the Immortal
> level...........