| Join for Free

Ticker

From DRF (The Inside Post): Mylute will not run in Belmont Stakes 2013. Posted 2 hours ago
Eblouissante breezed 4f :49.17 (18/44) at Belmont (dirt Training) on 5-22. Posted 7 hours ago
Giant Finish will make his next start in Belmont Stakes 2013. Posted 11 hours ago
Unlimited Budget is expected to face males in Belmont Stakes 2013. Posted 2 days ago
Verrazano will make his next start in the Pegasus Stakes at Monmouth on 6-16. Posted 2 days ago
Dreaming of Julia will make her next start in the Mother Goose at Belmont on 6-22. Posted 2 days ago
Game On Dude worked 4f in :50.60 (28/36) at Santa Anita on 5-20. Posted 2 days ago
Overanalyze, breezing for Belmont Stakes 2013, went 4f in :47.50 (3/34) at Belmont (dirt training) on 5-19.Posted 3 days ago
2013 Belmont Stakes hopeful Palace Malice breezed 4f in :47.49 (2/34) at Belmont Park (dirt training) on 5-19. Posted 3 days ago
Coffee Clique romps in the Selene Stakes!Posted 3 days ago

Ride
Cougar II
against other champions!

Cougar II

1966 - Horse
Deceased
5 fans5

4 favorites4

[Edit]

Owner(s):

Mary F. Jones -

Trainer:

Charles Whittingham

Bred:

(CHI) by Haras General Cruz

Pedigree:

Tale of Two Cities - Cindy Lou by Madara

Rating:

8.28/10

Profile

Pedigree

Progeny

Siblings

Photos

What the Horse Racing Nation is saying about Cougar II...

Cougar II

COUGAR II is the horse that hooked me into this great game! ~ Dell Yount

Show All 4 Comments
travel_vic · A quietly almost great one. Imported to North America by then caller at Anita, Joe Hernandez, we saw his first start at Del Mar where he won at odds he would NEVER be at that level again.......Classy fellow ran third to Secretariat when they met. · 72 days ago ·

like

2

2
amino998 · Loved that long tail streaming behind as he mowed 'em down. Too bad Mary Jones made all the money. · 72 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · As you recall she was the heir to the Flosheim Shoe fortune and when she had differences with Shoemakers ride and let him go, all the newspapers reported "Mary gives Shoe the boot!" · 72 days ago ·

like

0

0
amino998 · Shoe stuck it to her with Kennedy Road as Charlie swept the 73 Hollywood Gold Cup. · 72 days ago ·

like

0

0

Pincay Looks Back on Big 'Cap Success

Regarded by many as the greatest rider of all-time, Laffit Pincay, Jr., won the Santa Anita Handicap five times. His first triumph in North America’s oldest continuously run “Hundred Grander” came 40 years ago, aboard the Charlie Whittingham-conditioned Cougar II, who was the 3-2 favorite and 126-po...Read More

Show All 0 Comments

Alydar, Affirmed, Secretariat, Criminal Type - June 24th

Affirmed, ridden by Laffit Pincay Jr., became the first horse to top $2 million in earnings after he won the Hollywood Gold Cup.Read More

Show All 0 Comments

Cougar II

Cougar II fans need to vote for him, there's someone who is rather uneducated about racing and doesn't comprehend that this was a phenomenal horse and is ranking him down all the time. It's ridiculous. Vote him up!

Show All 1 Comments
morethanready111 · What a runner! In the money in 44 of 50 starts! And in the money in 34 of 38 in the USA, all stakes! That 88% in the money stat is unreal after that many starts. · 365 days ago ·

like

0

0

Cougar II

I find it strange when horses like Cougar II, Zenyatta and Cigar get dismissed by people who ask, "Who did they beat?" while the same people endlessly praise horses who ran in a time when there were almost no horses in training at all.

Show All 1 Comments
cocoa2 · I find it strange when a human can't read. · 371 days ago ·

like

4

4

Cougar II

COUGAR II was in the money 88% of the time after a 50 start career, with 40 of those 44 in-the-money starts being in stakes races. That's incredible. His in-the-money percentage matches FOREGO (also at 88%), and it is far, far, far better than the in the money records of many other superb runners, including: JOHN HENRY, DAHLIA, SEABISCUIT, ASSAULT, CARRY BACK, SHUVEE, NODOUBLE, CRIMSON SATAN, FORT MARCY, GAMELY, NATIVE DIVER, STRAIGHT DEAL, T.V. LARK, GALLORETTE, ANCIENT TITLE, RIVA RIDGE, AUTOBIOGRAPHY, EXCELLER, KEY TO THE MINT, KENNEDY ROAD, TYPECAST, LADY'S SECRET, PRECISIONIST, BAYAKOA, BEST PAL, SWORD DANCER, STYMIE, POLYNESIAN, DEVIL DIVER, BEWITCH, DISCOVERY, SIR BARTON, IMP, GREY LAG, EXTERMINATOR, VIGORS, BIG SPRUCE, etc.

Show All 37 Comments
MikeSek · ***In 27 Grade 1 starts COUGAR II was only out of the money twice, both on horribly soft & yielding turf courses. If not for those conditions he would likely be at 100% in the money. Races were not graded in the USA until 1973, so I will call his starts in the 1971 and 1972 versions of those races "Grade 1 equivalents."**** · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
MikeSek · Let's take a look at the percentage of stakes wins and placings (total) for some great horses: COUGAR II - 50 starts, 22 stakes placings (40 total stakes placings), 80%: ROUND TABLE - 66 starts, 44 total stakes placings, 67%: FOREGO - 57 starts, 37 total stakes placings, 65%: JOHN HENRY - 83 starts, 47 total stakes placings, 56%: SHUVEE - 44 starts, 24 total stakes placings, 55%: GALLORETTE - 72 starts, 39 total stakes placings, 54%: FORT MARCY - 75 starts, 39 total stakes placings, 52%: DAHLIA - 48 starts, 24 total stakes placings, 50%: SEABISCUIT - 89 starts, 38 total stakes placings, 43%. I could go on and on, and COUGAR II would look better than many more horses throughout history. I just gave you a small sampling. 40 stakes placings from only 50 starts is clearly an amazing achievement. This is a great, great horse. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
cocoa2 · NO one ever said he wasn't a great. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · Like Cocoa no one ever said Cougar II wasn't a great horse. My only issue with your statements is your lack of respect for a horse like Imp. She raced 171 times and beat some of the best horses of her generation. She started as a threeyr old 50 times. In that day and age it was not uncommon to race two even three times a week. Grey lag percentages of wins are low mainly because he ended up at 13 and 14 yrs old racing in cheap claimers in Canada until his former owner was embarrassed by his plight. Exterminator many times raced in two grueling races in Canada and the US in the same week. Notably when he won a race in Canada only to be shipped two days later to face MOW in the Saratoga Cup carrying 133. MOW obviously was scratched. Many of these old timers had racing careers that would have broken down any modern horse but was the norm then. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · I am sure in your percentages you factor in the level of competition that Cougar faced. He raced if my memory serves me in Chile before coming to the US. I doubt they had say the same type of horses that say Exceller raced against and defeated in Europe or the Us. He also has the distinction of being the only horse to beat to triple crown winners in one race. Gallorette faced some of the best handicap males in the country and won. One of the last things you don't take into account is that for many great fillies and mares, imp and Gallorette among them, there were very few only female races in those days so those mares had to go up against the males. It says more about them that they won consistently. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
Jackie999 · The level of competition Cougar II faced? Are you joking? In the USA he made 38 starts and was in the money 34 times - all of them stakes races! Seriously, his "level of competition" was the highest level of competition. He ran with horses like Secretariat, Riva Ridge, Fort Marcy, Daryl's Joy, Big Spruce, Susan's Girl, Manta, Shuvee, Tinajero, West Coast Scout, Kennedy Road, Unconscious, Triple Bend, Key to the Mint, Onion, Summer Guest, Royal Owl, etc., etc., etc., and the list goes on and on and on. He is obviously one of the most incredible racehorses to ever set foot on a racetrack in the USA. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · My point Jackie is that it is not a good indicator to compare statistics with the level of horses. Yes Cougar raced against Secretariat and Riva Ridge in the Marlboro cup. I believe he was the one left up the track in that one. Racing against and beating are two different things. My point is that in counting in starts in Chile and winning stakes was not the same as winning in the USA. Also comparing horses of different eras when horses back then made several starts a week. Also horses like Seabiscuit and Stymie started out in claiming races and did not hit a stakes race, in Stymies case for over a yr and not until Jacobs claimed him. Also I never claimed that Cougar was not a great horse, but was lamenting that statistics comparing horses of different eras based just on win percentages are misleading. You might have gotten that point if you actually read my posts or even more importantly know something about the history of horse racing. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
cocoa2 · Jackie, running with Secretariat doesn't make you a great. You have to beat him. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
jackie999 · Quality-wise, COUGAR II was a better racehorse than those you're mentioning. As for the "you have to beat him" in order to be great (relating to Secretariat), that makes Angle Light, Prove Out and Onion great now? Cougar wasn't "up the track" in the Marlboro Cup. Go watch the race, it's on Youtube, he was a fast closing third. He was also 7 years old at the time and at the end of a long career. And this stuff you're bringing up about Chile sure doesn't address the fact that he raced in America 38 times and placed in 34 of those starts. And all 34 of those were stakes races. And his career total added up to 40 stakes wins and placings from 50 starts. That's incredible. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
cocoa2 · Jackie, if your going to take me literally you are not going to last long. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
morethanready111 · At least I'm happy that you agree that The Big Cat was fabulous. He was a tiger! · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
jackie999 · I will last in this discussion as long as we are all having fun and enjoying the great Cougar II. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · Jackie. Cougar was a great. I am not denying that. I am merely pointing out that comparisons of horses that raced in other eras, particularly Imp who raced in the late 1890s is not a fair comparison. Nor is it an apt comparison when you take a horse like Stymie who raced for the better part of his early career as a claimer to denigrate his performances later on. As to being in Chile, Mikesek s stakes analysis shows his seasons in Chile. So remove them from your statistics is all I am saying. And as to Cougar being 7 and was at the top of his game, Kelso ran some of his best races at 7 and 8. Certainly he beat some of his best opposition in Gun Bow, Ridan, Jaipur and Beau Purple. And as to rewatching the race with Secretariat etc., I was there that day. I remember the race well. As Icy has said many times, it is hard to compare horses of many different eras when tracks were different, weight assignments etc. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · I like Cougar alot and always have, but greater than Exterminator, no. Greater than Discovery, no. Greater than Imp, no. Greater than John Henry, no, greater than Gallorette or Seabiscuit, no. Which is just my opinion. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
jackie999 · I think Cougar was greater than Discovery, Exterminator, Seabiscuit, etc., and definitely better than Gallorette. I am not putting those horses down, though, because they're all clearly great. He and John Henry are a toss-up. I don't know what to say about Imp, other than she doesn't really compare to the Top 25 greats, and she couldn't even hold a candle to Cougar either; she was from a crop of about only 1,500 horses too. I think it's much easier to distinguish yourself amongst a few thousand horses because it's a lot easier to look really good when there's quite literally no one else around. During his entire career Cougar II was a consistently remarkable horse, and his record, especially in stakes (40 placings) attests to this fact). Just my opinion. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
morethanready111 · For Cougar II to make 50 career starts and have 40 of them be stakes placings is an excellent statistic. That's 80% of his starts! Then you have the 88% in the money when you consider all races. And for those statistics to be better than all those horses listed above, in the initial post of the thread by mikesek, surely must have some meaning. I think it means he belongs on the list of greats, and that he surely ranks ahead most of them listed...maybe all of them. After all, his 88% career, in the money percentage, beats all those horses, and he ran at the top level of the game too. He and Forego, for example, out of all those horses listed, are at 88%! Sometimes you just have to let the facts stand...they are what they are. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · Jackie. Don't start the foal crop issue. Imp started 171 times and was in the money 126 times. Cougars stakes results are great. I personally defend horses like Imp Artful and others that have been forgotten by the mists of time. · 372 days ago ·

like

1

1
buckpasser · Just one word about stakes races, there are so many more stakes opportunities, turf stakes, fully and mare etc etc. in Imps day, there were sprints and distance races up to two miles. She won both types with heavy imposts. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · If yor yardstick for measuring horses of different eras, you need to take into account how many stakes races they actually had an opportunity to win. To me, some of the older horses are greater because their opportunities to win a stakes was less than today. So to me their accomplishments speak volumes when their opportunities were so limited · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · That first line should read-- if your yardstick for measuring the greatness of horses of different eras is stakes victories, · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
jackie999 · The number of horses "around" has everything to do with it. As I said, Imp was one of 1,500 horses born that year. There were about 1,500 horse born each year during that period of time, so the pool of horses was tiny. It doesn't mean a horse isn't great, but it does mean that there's something to consider when wondering just how great - and that's the size of the pool of horses. By the time Cougar II came to America, for example, in 1970, there were tens of thousands of horses around. Distinguishing yourself in that Age says something. No, of course it doesn't "necessarily" mean a horse is "great" or "greater" because of the size of a particular foal crop, but that information does make you wonder when there are just a few horses in existence. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
cocoa2 · jackie, let's say that in 2013 20,000 horses are born. One beats all the others by a lot. The others never hit good times and are failures at stud and breeding, hoever the one is good. The next year a dramatic decrease happens, only 2,000 horses born. However 2 of the horses break all the records with higher weights and bad trips. Which horse is better, the horse from 2013 or horses from2014? · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
Mikesek · COUGAR II was ranked by Daily Racing Form in their Free Handicap as the 2nd best horse in America in 1972, just behind ACK ACK. In 1972 and 1973 he was ranked by DRF as the best turf horse in America. He was the champion turf horse of 1972. He was usually the favorite and/or highweight in his races. That in the money ratio, over all, is spectacular, and being placed in so many stakes races is a stunning achievement. In 1972, within 3 weeks' time, he won an 11 fulrong turf stakes in 2:11, a new world record that stood for a long time, and then he ran 8-1/2 furlongs on dirt in 1:39-1/5, coming from 16 lengths out of it, running his mile in 1:33-1/5. His time that day was the second fastest 1-1/16 miles ever ran on dirt and missed SWAPS' world record by 1/5. Nothing can diminish this horse, history speaks for itself. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
Mikesek · I meant to say that he was ranked the 2nd best horse in America, on dirt, for 1971, and in 1972 and 1973 he was ranked #1 on turf. Sorry for the error. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
Mikesek · And what about the fact that COUGAR II defeated FORT MARCY, twice, on firm turf courses, once by 3 lengths, and once by a head? FORT MARCY was a champion and a great horse who ran successfully against DR. FAGER and DAMASCUS, losing to the former by a little ove a lenght, and giving the latter a nose defeat. I'm giving credit - lot's of it - where it's due, and that's to COUGAR II. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · Mikesek. I Remember Fort Marcy well. I saw him race on many occasions. The Tidal handicap is one race that I remember well. I am not diminishing Cougar. I am upset that you and Jackie are diminishing the accomplishments of other great horses who raced in other eras. By the way when you are talking about foal crops actually your numbers for certain horses, Cougar included. If you have a horse say Kelso who raced for nine years--his competition is NOT just his crop but the best of other crops as well. Imp raced several years and raced always against males. She won the Metropolitan and Suburban over several years. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
jackie999 · You're right about the foal crop thing, but when Imp was born it was during a decade where there were only about 1,500 to 2,000 foals born each year. Still, I do think she was a phenomenally giften racehorse, and an iron horse to boot. When Cougar II raced there were a lot more horses around, in general, and he was good from 2 through 7 years of age. I wasn't trying to put down horses from the past, because I think all the horses we discussed are great. · 372 days ago ·

like

0

0
footlick · I am so tired of this foal crop size debate. More foals does not mean better horses. The more horses foaled each year the more watered down the bloodlines are. More does not mean better. · 371 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · footlick mjust not be aware of the golden theorem of statistical analysis · 371 days ago ·

like

0

0
footlick · if you want to buy into the notion that because the foal crop size was larger, then the horse was better than one with a smaller foal crop size, travel_vic, you go right ahead. It is absurd. · 371 days ago ·

like

0

0
jackie999 · I don't think I said that because a foal crop was bigger that the best horse of that crop is "better" than a horse from a small crop. However, distinguishing yourself, year after year, like Cougar II, for example, in a time when there were 20,000+ foals being born every year sure seems like it could be a bigger accomplishment than distinguishing yourself at a time when there were 1,500 horses born every year. The size of the group of which you are "the best" does have something to do with it. It doesn't have "everything" to do with it, just "something" to do with it. As for Man O' War, though, he was setting records at a time when racing in this country wasn't very old and the entire number of Thoroughbreds born and bred to that point wasn't big. · 371 days ago ·

like

0

0
jackie999 · Did you know that the Jockey Club estimates that 15,000 foals were born in the USA from 1890 to 1899? So Imp, for example, didn't have much to run against. And from 1910 to 1919, Man O' War's decade, it was 18,857. The 1960's saw 182,533, or 10 times more horses than the 1910's. Then came the real boom in the size of foals crops. The only thing foal crop size does is make suspect a horse who distinguished itself amongst a tiny group of horses. It just has to give you a moment of pause. I notice Cougar II got the "who did he run against" routine, but Man O' War certainly doesn't get that, and Imp didn't get it either. The horses who deserve that question don't get it because it's a "historical fact" how great they are - and there's no examination of facts - they're just forgiven for having faced no one. · 371 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · It might not be that they faced no one. It might be because they were so dominant no one remembers their opponents or what is probably more accurate is that very few people today have any real knowledge of the horses in other eras. Also as I said before one of the corallaries of your crop theory is that there less stakes races in those days. Fewer specialty races i.e. few filly and mare races, turf racing was virtually nonexistent since Coney Island Club at Sheepshead Bay installed the first turf track which incidentally Imp won a turf race as well. Fewer stakes races means fewer opportunities to win one. Also whether you are aware or not she held track records for mile ans 1/16. Mile 1/4. Mile and1/2 and mile and 3/4. · 371 days ago ·

like

0

0
buckpasser · MOW also gets the who did he run against. As he faced only Sir Barton who at the time was having problems with his feet and was pulled up in the match race. MOW is always criticized for not meeting Exterminator and many stories abound that Riddle ducked him. So no Cougar is not the only one gets who did he run against. · 371 days ago ·

like

0

0
footlick · Increased numbers does not mean increased quality. · 371 days ago ·

like

3

3
icyhotboo · In any sport you can only face the available competition. Champions and contenders in all sports when comparisons are made over a period of time come up against this same question but the answer is always the same as aformentioned. Being a boxing fan I hear this same argument coming up repeatedly. It's hard enough to figure out who was horse of the year let alone horse of the century. Give them all the respect their due for just participating. Sure some were better than others but unless you run against each other 10 times like Affirmed and Alydar you really can't tell. Dr. Fager and Damascus, Spectacular Bid and Affirmed, Seattle Slew and affirmed, Nashua and Swaps, etc.are prime examples. · 371 days ago ·

like

2

2
buckpasser · Icy. You said it best · 371 days ago ·

like

0

0

Cougar II

A month ago this fabulous horse was at 8.50 and now he's at 8.32. Looks like someone has a vendetta, or they just don't know anything about horse racing. He was in the money 44 times from 50 starts, had 40 stakes wins and placings. The horse is great. Knock it off already.

Show All 0 Comments

Cougar II

He could definitely beat almost all of the horses ranked ahead of him.

Show All 3 Comments
travel_vic · If the race was long enough...This one was a very deep closer and when you go up against speed. like an Ack Ack that takes too big a late move to get there. · 516 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · If the race was long enough...This one was a very deep closer and when you go up against speed. like an Ack Ack that takes too big a late move to get there. · 516 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · comparing trans generationally is a joke to begin with: NOTHING about racing was the same even ten years ago with alll the drugged champions akin to the baseballers who hit home runs. Top of the phoney list is the Brown Out, Big Brown · 516 days ago ·

like

0

0

Cougar II

The memories are still so vivid! Simply amazing.

Show All 2 Comments
travel_vic · ran 2nd to HOY ACK ACK and third to HOY Secretariat and actually played surrogate to win HOY for Ack Ack after shipping east and destorying their best in his place, · 558 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · saw his first North American start at Del Mar too · 558 days ago ·

like

0

0

Cougar II

Just because some fan got carried away a while back and scored everyone down just to score him up doesn't mean that you should vote this horse down. He most definitely belongs in the Top 100. Look at his race record, it's spectacular.

Show All 2 Comments
travel_vic · You and I both know that Mike...loved the BloodHorse articel · 565 days ago ·

like

0

0
travel_vic · People forget he ran third to Secretairat and 2nd to Ack Ack and that is good company · 565 days ago ·

like

0

0

Cougar II

Here's a link to an article I wrote for Bloodhorse online about COUGAR II: http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/racinghub/archive/2011/10/01/Remembering-the-Cougar.aspx

Show All 0 Comments

Cougar II

This was a great horse. It's ridiculous to see most of the horses ahead of him. He belongs in the top 50.

Show All 0 Comments

Cougar II

My ALL TIME --Favorite

Show All 0 Comments

Cougar II

Now the overly excited Cougar fan is ranking down literally every horse in the top 40 so that he can bring Cougar back up! LOL! Classic!

Show All 1 Comments
MikeSek · Even I, the major league COUGAR II fan, can keep this all in perspective. I have done my top 100 ranking of all time and COUGAR II comes in at #24. He's my favorite, and has always been #1 in my heart, but I can't say he's the #1 racehorse of all time just because I love him. Could he beat most anyone on his very best day? He sure could. Still, for me to say he is #24 of all time is sure ranking him way, way up there when you consider how many horses have competed in the USA since racing first started! He is One of the Ones! In this prior post I was just agreeing that some people are getting carried away by insulting some great horses, that's all, and I don't agree with that. · 749 days ago ·

like

0

0

Cougar II

Cougar was great. He had a beautiful presence and personality. He was consistent as they come, both on turf and dirt, in the money 44 of 50 times! Don't vote him down just because he has a few nutty fans.

Show All 1 Comments
MikeSek · I love seeing COUGAR ranked very high, I really do, because I think he deserves it. I just don't think great horses like DAMASCUS need to be ranked down at the same time. So I'm going to have to agree with you. I think it's one thing to give your favorite horse a vote of 10, which is fine, but it's another thing to hand out 3's and 4's to great horses like DAMASCUS at the same time. · 749 days ago ·

like

0

0

Cougar II

Why not just give your horse a vote of 10 and move on? What's with all the bad votes for other horses, with the purpose of elevating your favorite? I absolutely love COUGAR but this is silly.

Show All 0 Comments

Cougar II

Oh wow...now the phantom Cougar fan has gone even more bananas! This time he has knocked Damascus and Nashua down to 8.91. I thought this was about ranking the best horses of all time, not your favorites. Keep Cougar in the top 40 but you don't have to get ridiculous, and you don't have to denigrate other, greater, horses.

Show All 0 Comments

Cougar II

I'm as big a COUGAR II fan as any - maybe the biggest - but seriously folks...in the last 20 minutes someone rated DAMASCUS and NASHUA down from 9.0 to 8.96 just so they could move COUGAR II up. Do what you want, but I think you're getting carried away. How low a score did you give to DAMASCUS and NASHUA, two of the greatest horses of all time, to get them to drop like that? They deserve 10's, but you probably gave them 3's. They're far better than that.

Show All 1 Comments
morethanready111 · There is definitely a top 20 or 25 of all time, in which Cougar doesn't quite fit. He should come in right after that, though, because he was totally awesome. Giving bad votes to Damascus, Nashua, Whirlaway and Kelso to move Cougar into the top 10 or 20 is a little bit off base. What's wrong with him being at #30 or #35 where he belongs? · 750 days ago ·

like

0

0

Cougar II

Funny how the Cougar II fans keep ranking down Buckpasser and Damascus and other great horses, repeatedly, so they can rank Cougar higher. Buckpasser and Damascus, and even several others, deserve better, wouldn't you say?

Show All 1 Comments
morethanready111 · Don't get me wrong, though, Cougar was great, and he does belong somewhere in the top 40 or 50. I would personally rank him at #30. I am not putting this horse down by any means. · 752 days ago ·

like

0

0

Cougar II

I think maybe some people are getting carried away with voting for Cougar. He was a great horse, to be sure, and on his best day he could probably beat anyone or come very close to doing so, but I think Top 20 is slightly generous. He was equally good on turf and dirt, always carried top weight, and was the proverbial gem of consistency, so I would put him in the Top 50, most definitely. I just think putting him above Whirlaway, War Admiral, Kelso, Buckpasser, Ack Ack, Damascus, etc., is slightly over the top. However, I think this was a great horse.

Show All 2 Comments
jackie999 · He truly was a jewel. He was a ham, an attention-grabber, and he could run. He would run circles around the horses we have running today. · 761 days ago ·

like

0

0
MikeSek · COUGAR II sure was great. The editors at the Bloodhorse need to revise their book of the greatest 100 thoroughbreds and put him in there. I would definitely place him in the top 40. · 761 days ago ·

like

0

0