How did all the horses after the top 20 get such low rankings? Excellent horses such as Cigar, Desert Vixen, Riva Ridge, Ancient Title, Sunday Silence, Susan's Girl, Cougar II, Fort Marcy, Ferdinand, etc., keep getting lower and lower scores. It makes no sense. It would be good for the scores to go up instead of down all the time.
My Juliet was better, but Candy Eclair was almost as good.
She wasn't a great horse. She was a nice horse.
Why would she have any rating at all?
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.
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!
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.
At least I'm happy that you agree that The Big Cat was fabulous. He was a tiger!
Here's another great, phenomenal runner who keeps getting worse scores all the time. Absurd.
It's amazing how you people keep ranking great horses down, down, down all the time.
Copyright © 2010 -
other passionate horse racing fans!