Certainly in the discussion. Two year old eclipse, Two of the five major thre year old preps, and a derby winner first crop. I think Gallant Fox might have had a TC winner in his first crop though (or second I'm not sure).
Ok I understand that running 10 for a first time with a horse is difficult and the closer he's ran to that distance the better. This is the whole reason the major preps (at 9 which is two turns) exsist. Like with Destin not having ran past 8.5 even though that's two turns when he went to the Derby was probably a bad idea (though the rest was a positive aspect) Maybe two of these (which AP got and Nyquist didn't) would be even better but running three starts or more pre derby is too much when you want to complete the TC(Dortmund) nowadays and at the very least puts you at a disadvantage. Should Nyquist have ran his first start at 8.5 not 7 in hindsight? Maybe it would have helped. At the end of the day though Nyquist still did win the Derby in very nice time so I don't know how much blame we can put on that for the Preakness especially with the mud.
Well the Belmont part's happened today. He might have ran more if not for the sickness. I think even more so that this will be it for him. I think the Haskell is the most likely option is he runs again(9 furlongs will be good for him). Yeh them going to Florida didn't make sense. While they ended up beating Mohaymen (who looked better at the time)it didn't make sense why they would go cross country instead of continuing to dominate California in Affirmed esque fashion (Exagerrator wasn't even seen as good as Mor Spirit at the time)
Agree with points 1,3,4. In regards to point two (you already know I think the crop was awesome) yeh the crop was "brittle" but so are most crops. Point 5 that early speed horses (Beholder, LM, Speed Roller) were told to miss the BCC was ludicrous. Those connections made the right choice (or what they felt was the right choice) for their horses.
2007 was a great crop and there's an argument to be made for it being better than 2015. 2015 is better on paper though. At least we're having this argument and not whether 2014 is better(which the Chromies brought out of thin air). Three year olds don't challenge olders as much in the JCGC because the BCC has taken away it's status as the championship race(although it does happen still)
2015 was an incredible crop. Much stronger than this year and 2014 for sure. Not HC's (or any of the closers in that race) fault AP was allowed to set his own pace. Also what are plodders except less visually pleasing closers who need horses to be even more tired than otherwise?
Yeh we would have though differently about them because Slew faced weak TC completion then came in fourth in the Swaps after getting burned out. Affirmed followed up his TC and the Jim Dandy with a DQ in the Travers a loss to Seattle Slew and a clunker in the JCGC after an early duel with Seattle Slew where he faded to fifth. Those horses ended their three year old seasons with something to prove and AP didn't.
Yeh me complaining about the tri state area is trivial I will admit lol. Still Frosted doesn't have a regional problem. Horses used to run almost exclusively in New York and aside from the Derby and Preakness never left. Only recently with the rise of California, Florida and even Arkansas racing has the whole "you can't win at New York" line become a valid critique. Frosted was last coming out of the gate and had difficulty navigating through the field and forced Frosted to go way outside. Might not have been his best day but with a better trip he should have been on the board. In the Derby Frosted. I hope this is the last time you'll deny that Frosted had bad trips in those races :)
None of her strong years were at 2 and 3 and even as an older she only faced the boys twice (going 1-1) The rarity of any sort of unbeaten is what made her a legend.
Well my opinion on this is how the sport was set up. There's a reason TC races for three year old are the biggest races and there's a reason handicap horses carry weight (because otherwise the best horse would win all the time) I'm the one basing my standards of greatness over how the sport is set up and who are the one(and DD) making an arbitrary definition. This is why the whole carrying weight thing really doesn't matter, weight isn't necessary at 3 because horses are less developed and the best horse loses more often. Weight is only around to level the playing field. Carrying weight is certainly not whaqt defines greatness if the entire reason horse (in most cases) carries it is because they are superior or inferior to the field they're facing by a certain margin. Even weights is not a weight "advantage" it simply means the horses aren't developed so there is no need for man to tip the scales. You can think older horses are the most exciting all you want (and youre case is compelling those races you listed were all nice) but I'm just saying they don't define greatness because they never have.
Also no "physical issue" MoW might have had makes up for him being given 5 pounds, the race being on a track Sir Barton's feet couldn't run on and being given a hardly professional jockey who had never ridden the horse before. The reasons you have stated are not compelling at all. MoW romped to win by 7 and in 2.03. Traditionally being two and three have been the key to be considered great. That's why so many of the top top colts have been retired after 3 (Colin, MoW, Gallant Fox, Count Fleet, Citation if his owner didn't want him to be a millionaire and Secretariat) Racing at 4 has simply been something nice to add to your resume but a horse can't be great or as great after being an elite older and having skipped those years entirely (Zenyatta cough cough)
Copyright © 2010 -
other passionate horse racing fans!