Aside from the BC, there's little difference between 20 years ago and 40 years ago. Even within an era, a G1 race today might be a G2 race next year. I agree that hypothetical races are subjective and unknowable. That is exactly my point, and why I do not assume to know what the result might have been. What's confusing is the way you keep switching between 'best/better' and 'greatness'. I would not argue that Pharoah is a great horse because of his accomplishments. But I would argue that those accomplishments made him better than horses he's never raced against. This too is speculation, as subjective and unknowable as a hypothetical race. Horses like Citation, Bid and Fager are considered great because of what they did on the track, which included far more than just winning big purses and prestigious races. There are many aspects to greatness. Accomplishment is just one of them.
Couldn't find the way to fix this, but Hunter O'Riley
broke his maiden at Churchill last out
Okay no problem, that makes more sense. You can just click the edit button when you make mistakes, right?
And you don't think those things apply from one race to another today? Now that's being clueless.
I compared Chrome to fellow 3yo's, and I would hardly consider last year another era. My question was, would you say Chrome was better because he won those races when Shared Belief was out with an injury, and was Bayern the best because he beat them both in the Classic. I still say Pharoah is the most accomplished 3yo of the era, and definitely one of the best, but I disagree that 'best' and 'accomplished' are synonymous. There are horses from the past 25 years that were as good and better than he was I'll stick to the accepted definitions of those words.
1. of the most excellent, effective, or desirable type or quality.
unrivaled, second to none, without equal, nonpareil,unsurpassed, peerless, matchless, unparalleled, unbeaten,unbeatable, optimum, optimal, ultimate, incomparable, ideal, perfect;
None of these definitions can be applied to Pharoah outside of quality horses that he's actually raced against with any kind of certainty. Let alone horses from the past 20 years.
1.highly trained or skilled, very skillful : having or showing the skill of an expert, very successful : having done or achieved many good or important things, established beyond doubt or dispute
successful, virtuoso, master,consummate, complete, proficient, talented, gifted, adept, adroit, deft,dexterous, able, good, competent, capable, efficient, experienced,seasoned
1. something that has been achieved successfully.
achievement, act, deed, exploit, performance, attainment, effort, feat
And the difference between the past of 20 years ago and 2 months ago is what? Isn't it equally dumb saying that one horse is better than another without them ever facing each other when you yourself are saying they need to be in the same race to know which one is best?
You make him sound like an 80 year old man.
That's not right...what's he supposed to do for the other 165 days!...
Then I'm sure that you could also say with the same certainty that Chrome was better than Shared Belief last year because he won the SA Derby, Kentucky Derby and Preakness and Shared Belief didn't. And let's not forget he finished ahead of him in the Classic too.
Hunter O'Riley looks more like a turfer, but finally broke his maiden on the main track at Churchill last month in a race that came off the grass. Interesting to see what he does here with Saez on board.
Copyright © 2010 -
other passionate horse racing fans!