California Chrome - Hall of Fame???

[PowerUpPaynter]

Good day,

Do you guys think California Chrome is a Hall of Fame horse? I personally think so. He started his career with a mountain of critics and since has silenced them all. If he adds a Breeders Cup Classic its a no brainer but even if he don't I think he is worthy.

Whats your take?

Cheers

[cj]

Do horses really start careers with critics? Outside The Green Monkey, I can't think if that ever happening.

[Racetrack Playa]

YES

[ronsmac]

Good day,

Do you guys think California Chrome is a Hall of Fame horse? I personally think so. He started his career with a mountain of critics and since has silenced them all. If he adds a Breeders Cup Classic its a no brainer but even if he don't I think he is worthy.

Whats your take?

CheersI think he has to finish off the year with another eclipse award.

[JustRalph]

Do the purse winnings make it automatic?

[castaway01]

California Chrome has a somewhat similar career to Silver Charm.

Silver Charm
Career record: 24 12-7-2

Wins include:
Del Mar Futurity (1996)
San Vicente Stakes (1997)
Kentucky Derby (1997)
Preakness Stakes (1997)
San Fernando Stakes (1998)
Clark Handicap (1998)
Dubai World Cup (1998)
Kentucky Cup Classic Handicap (1998)
San Pasqual Handicap (1999)
Goodwood Stakes (1998)
Strub Stakes (1998)

California Chrome
Record: 22 13-3-1

Wins include:
San Diego Handicap (2016)
Dubai World Cup (2016)
San Pasqual Stakes (2016)
Hollywood Derby (2014)
Kentucky Derby (2014)
Preakness Stakes (2014)
Santa Anita Derby (2014)
San Felipe Stakes (2014)
Graduation Stakes (2013)

So yeah, I think he makes the Hall of Fame.

[no breathalyzer]

Is this even debatable? Of course he is a HOF horse

[PowerUpPaynter]

Is he a top 10 colt/horse of the 2000's? Id say so.

[VeryOldMan]

California Chrome has a somewhat similar career to Silver Charm.
[. . .]
So yeah, I think he makes the Hall of Fame.
Great research and analogy - snipped only to shorten the thread's appearance.

CC is the biggest money winner of all time. Won 2 legs of the Triple Crown, wasn't disgraced in the third, won the richest race in the world and has won G1s at 4+.

I'm not taking him in a fantasy race at even weights in their prime against the likes of Secretariat, Seattle Slew, Spectacular Bid, Affirmed, Dr. Fager, Forego, etc., etc. - but CC has earned an HOF entry in my view.

[bobphilo]

The way Frosted is going, Chrome may not even get the Eclipse for Older Horse or HOTY.

[alydar]

Never caught the Chrome fever, but clearly he is HOF worthy.

[Fager Fan]

Is this even debatable? Of course he is a HOF horse

Ditto.

[EMD4ME]

Ditto.

Ditto the Ditto :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Valuist]

If he doesn't win one more race or hit the board one more time, he's still in.

[Donttellmeshowme]

The way Frosted is going, Chrome may not even get the Eclipse for Older Horse or HOTY.



Thats very debatable. Chrome ate him up in Dubai.

[tanner12oz]

Yes..

[bobphilo]

Thats very debatable. Chrome ate him up in Dubai.
Frosted threw in a sub par performance in that race, just as Chrome has himself on occasion. We'll have to see what happens now that he is back in form when there is a rematch. Hope both go in the BC Classic. Don't see anybody beating Frosted if he maintains his form. Of course that is an if, as with any horse. We shall see.

[VeryOldMan]

Iis there any doubt about CC being in the Hall of Fame at this point? Biggest money winner of all time, won 2/3 of Triple Crown, won richest race in the world, came back at an "advanced" age to race now, etc.

Even as diluted the talent pool might be compared to the "old days" - CC has to be in there now.

I just wish we could have seen an old school rivalry of CC v American Pharoah like we saw with Seattle Slew v. Affirmed and Affirmed v. Spectacular Bid, etc.

[v j stauffer]

Biggest No-Brainer in the history of mankind.

California Chrome is HOF worthy and then some.

He'll have my vote :cool:

[castaway01]

I just wish we could have seen an old school rivalry of CC v American Pharoah like we saw with Seattle Slew v. Affirmed and Affirmed v. Spectacular Bid, etc.

You were on the rail for Seabiscuit vs. War Admiral back in your college days too, weren't you VOM?

[castaway01]

Biggest No-Brainer in the history of mankind.

California Chrome is HOF worthy and then some.

He'll have my vote :cool:

I had a little Chrome vs. Charm comparison earlier, since they've got the same major victories (Derby, Preakness, World Cup). Care to weigh in on who'd win a match race?

[bobphilo]

Iis there any doubt about CC being in the Hall of Fame at this point? Biggest money winner of all time, won 2/3 of Triple Crown, won richest race in the world, came back at an "advanced" age to race now, etc.


I'm not saying that he should never be in the HOF. I admire the decision to keep him racing after his 3YO season. I admire the fact that he took on all world comers in Dubai but the question isn't even relevant until his racing career is over. I didn't even see this much outpouring of support for AP, clearly the best horse of our generation.
As for the so-called disadvantage of "advanced age", the fact is that horses do not fully mature until they are 6. The fact that he got a breather as a 4YO helped with that. Let's not turn an advantage into a disadvantage.

[v j stauffer]

Frosted threw in a sub par performance in that race, just as Chrome has himself on occasion. We'll have to see what happens now that he is back in form when there is a rematch. Hope both go in the BC Classic. Don't see anybody beating Frosted if he maintains his form. Of course that is an if, as with any horse. We shall see.

If all make it to the Classic. You will faint when you see what price Frosted goes off at. He'll be much longer than you might think. Of course for you that's great.

In recent years horses like him have been a correct auto toss in West Coast BC Classics.

Still a long way to go.

Best of luck!

[v j stauffer]

I had a little Chrome vs. Charm comparison earlier, since they've got the same major victories (Derby, Preakness, World Cup). Care to weigh in on who'd win a match race?

I'd have to take Chrome.

I was at Del Mar playing in a tournament when he ran in the San Diego fresh off returning from Dubai.

I bet on Dortmund who ran absolutely lights out huge.

At dinner that night I started to think more about the race and got the feeling if Dortmund had run 5 lengths faster Chrome would still have found a way to have his neck in front.

Silver Charm was a truly great horse.

My gut feeling is CC is a generational type talent.

[the little guy]

Is he a top 10 colt/horse of the 2000's? Id say so.


Who's 11th?

[VeryOldMan]

You were on the rail for Seabiscuit vs. War Admiral back in your college days too, weren't you VOM?

Fun stuff. Let me tell you about it whppersnapper . . . and get off my lawn!

CC is putting together a very nice career. Unconventional, but I'm appreciating it particularly that he's racing at an "advanced" age in this day and age. Not sure how anyone could keep him out of the HOF given that he, for better or worse, is the all-time leading money winner. That has to count for something, even though we all can argue about him v. Curlin, Cigar, Skip Away, etc., etc., etc. on the relevance of $$

[Cratos]

If all make it to the Classic. You will faint when you see what price Frosted goes off at. He'll be much longer than you might think. Of course for you that's great.

In recent years horses like him have been a correct auto toss in West Coast BC Classics.

Still a long way to go.

Best of luck!
Vic, I value your opinion and I always read your posts with interest, but if Frosted continues his winning ways he will either be favorite or not worse than second favorite in this year’s Breeders’ Cup if he is entered to run.

Additionally, whether Chrome is a HOF I will say based on the pre-Breeders’ Cup era standards my answer would be a cautious yes; given today’s standards of the current Breeders’ Cup era standards my answer is run him in this year’s Breeders’ Cup and I will then decide.

[no breathalyzer]

California Chrome is going to have a special yr. Beholder is running for 2nd at best

[dilanesp]

I'm not saying that he should never be in the HOF. I admire the decision to keep him racing after his 3YO season. I admire the fact that he took on all world comers in Dubai but the question isn't even relevant until his racing career is over. I didn't even see this much outpouring of support for AP, clearly the best horse of our generation.
As for the so-called disadvantage of "advanced age", the fact is that horses do not fully mature until they are 6. The fact that he got a breather as a 4YO helped with that. Let's not turn an advantage into a disadvantage.

I think California Chrome is better than American Pharaoh.

[horses4courses]

There is no shortage of horses who are/were faster than Chrome,
But, you know what? He's got that latent charisma.
Zenyatta was similar. Definite Hall of Fame material. :ThmbUp:

[ronsmac]

California Chrome has a somewhat similar career to Silver Charm.

Silver Charm
Career record: 24 12-7-2

Wins include:
Del Mar Futurity (1996)
San Vicente Stakes (1997)
Kentucky Derby (1997)
Preakness Stakes (1997)
San Fernando Stakes (1998)
Clark Handicap (1998)
Dubai World Cup (1998)
Kentucky Cup Classic Handicap (1998)
San Pasqual Handicap (1999)
Goodwood Stakes (1998)
Strub Stakes (1998)

California Chrome
Record: 22 13-3-1

Wins include:
San Diego Handicap (2016)
Dubai World Cup (2016)
San Pasqual Stakes (2016)
Hollywood Derby (2014)
Kentucky Derby (2014)
Preakness Stakes (2014)
Santa Anita Derby (2014)
San Felipe Stakes (2014)
Graduation Stakes (2013)

So yeah, I think he makes the Hall of Fame.Silver Charm was a good horse but I never thought Hall of Fame when I was watching him run. Like most Hall of Fames. They're really the Hall of really goods not the best of the best. No slight to Silver Charm but he was good but not a great horse in my opinion. So do I think Chrome will make the Hall of Fame? Of course. Do I think he's a Hall of Fame horse? Not yet.

[Cratos]

I think California Chrome is better than American Pharaoh.
I believe that you believe that, but to help me understand your belief please elucidate by any acceptable metrics in horseracing you choose why you hold such belief.

For the record, I rank American Pharoah as the best of his generation and an all-time great

[horses4courses]

I believe that you believe that, but to help me understand your belief please elucidate by any acceptable metrics in horseracing you choose why you hold such belief.

For the record, I rank American Pharoah as the best of his generation and an all-time great

I'm nowhere near as clever as you are with numbers,
but having played and watched horses for close to 50 years,
I have no doubt that you're correct. It wouldn't be close.

[castaway01]

Silver Charm was a good horse but I never thought Hall of Fame when I was watching him run. Like most Hall of Fames. They're really the Hall of really goods not the best of the best. No slight to Silver Charm but he was good but not a great horse in my opinion. So do I think Chrome will make the Hall of Fame? Of course. Do I think he's a Hall of Fame horse? Not yet.

Gotta disagree. Finishing first or second in 20 major races including winning the Derby and Preakness and Dubai World Cup is Hall of Fame worthy. He also slugged it out with some solid horses in those years. You're right that Silver Charm was not Secretariat but he's a Hall of Famer.

[PhantomOnTour]

HOF or not...it's just nice to see a top level dirt runner with 22 starts, and still running.

[castaway01]

Fun stuff. Let me tell you about it whppersnapper . . . and get off my lawn!

CC is putting together a very nice career. Unconventional, but I'm appreciating it particularly that he's racing at an "advanced" age in this day and age. Not sure how anyone could keep him out of the HOF given that he, for better or worse, is the all-time leading money winner. That has to count for something, even though we all can argue about him v. Curlin, Cigar, Skip Away, etc., etc., etc. on the relevance of $$

I don't think the money counts THAT much (except to the owners, haha). If it did the most recent horse would always be the best as purses as always rising. If you use that criteria for baseball (salary), for example, every great player would have played in the past 10 years and C.C. Sabathia and Torii Hunter would be in the 10 greatest players of all time. Still, Chrome is a Hall of Famer. I don't think he's better than any of the horses you listed but he's done enough to make it.

[dilanesp]

I believe that you believe that, but to help me understand your belief please elucidate by any acceptable metrics in horseracing you choose why you hold such belief.

For the record, I rank American Pharoah as the best of his generation and an all-time great

Well, I think longevity is a big deal. And I also think repeatedly winning in open competition is a big deal. And I also think running in a lot of races is a big deal.

American Pharoah was a very good horse who did none of those things.

[Robert Fischer]

I don't consider him an all time great, but I have no problem seeing him selected.
Stellar résumé, fan favorite, nice story. :ThmbUp:

Go Chrome!

[depalma113]

Well, I think longevity is a big deal. And I also think repeatedly winning in open competition is a big deal. And I also think running in a lot of races is a big deal.

American Pharoah was a very good horse who did none of those things.

Please stop.

[classhandicapper]

I think speed figures are borderline irrelevant in these generational comparisons because of figure drift and other issues, but Silver Charm's crop was one of the better ones you are going to come across by any standard. I'd take Silver Charm over CA Chrome without much hesitation. On the flip side, I think Chrome is proving to be a lot better than some of his critics thought. His career is also not over. If he sweeps the rest of the year his record on dirt will be pretty sensational.

American Pharoah was better than both of them. I think we barely scratched the surface of what AP would have done if he ran at 4. Then again, we were lucky to have seen beyond the Belmont.

[bobphilo]

I think California Chrome is better than American Pharaoh.
Not even close. AP won the Triple Crown and the Breeder's Cup Classic, Chrome failed to win either.

[PowerUpPaynter]

The way Frosted is going, Chrome may not even get the Eclipse for Older Horse or HOTY.


Frosted can not get the classic distance much better at 1 1/8 and under. He will get gobbled up if he went to the BC Classic.

[PowerUpPaynter]

Who's 11th?

duh thats easy 11 is clearly Drosselmeyer


just kidding

[PowerUpPaynter]

I think California Chrome is better than American Pharaoh.



Come on. What was Pharoah's beyer in the Classic? AMerican Pharoah is #1 of the 2000's bar none. Lets not debate it. Triple Crown champ who put away Frosted several times.

[Fager Fan]

I think speed figures are borderline irrelevant in these generational comparisons because of figure drift and other issues, but Silver Charm's crop was one of the better ones you are going to come across by any standard. I'd take Silver Charm over CA Chrome without much hesitation. On the flip side, I think Chrome is proving to be a lot better than some of his critics thought. His career is also not over. If he sweeps the rest of the year his record on dirt will be pretty sensational.

American Pharoah was better than both of them. I think we barely scratched the surface of what AP would have done if he ran at 4. Then again, we were lucky to have seen beyond the Belmont.

Maybe. They lose the right to what-ifs when they retire early though.

Maybe he was more mature than his class so that's why he won the TC, along with having an unflappable demeanor who didn't let the circus surrounding him turn him into a horse who runs off and beats himself like we've seen with many others. He sure didn't seem to be beating much and remarkably had the pace handed to him almost every time.

Would he be able to beat Frosted in that one's past two? There is a price to pay with early retirement. Longevity is very important as that is how the horse proves it.

[Cratos]

Well, I think longevity is a big deal. And I also think repeatedly winning in open competition is a big deal. And I also think running in a lot of races is a big deal.

American Pharoah was a very good horse who did none of those things.
I hope you realize that you have made a specious argument which I have no rebuttal; it is impossible to change sentiment.

[no breathalyzer]

I think California Chrome is better than American Pharaoh.


:ThmbUp: Me too... i don't care if no one agrees with this.

[bobphilo]

Maybe. They lose the right to what-ifs when they retire early though.

Maybe he was more mature than his class so that's why he won the TC, along with having an unflappable demeanor who didn't let the circus surrounding him turn him into a horse who runs off and beats himself like we've seen with many others. He sure didn't seem to be beating much and remarkably had the pace handed to him almost every time.

Would he be able to beat Frosted in that one's past two? There is a price to pay with early retirement. Longevity is very important as that is how the horse proves it.
Didn't beat much??? Only dominated a crop that included Frosted, Firing Line and Dortmund and then went on to beat older horses in the BC Classic.

[Fager Fan]

Didn't beat much??? Only dominated a crop that included Frosted, Firing Line and Dortmund and then went on to beat older horses in the BC Classic.

Frosted was average last year. Dortmund ran bad the only time they met. Does Firing Line exist or is he an urban legend?

They handed the BCC to him when the only decent speed ran like a chicken to the Dirt Mile.

Don't forget that the only time AP got hooked on the front, he lost. He'd have found more to hook him had he stayed racing this year.

[castaway01]

I think speed figures are borderline irrelevant in these generational comparisons because of figure drift and other issues, but Silver Charm's crop was one of the better ones you are going to come across by any standard. I'd take Silver Charm over CA Chrome without much hesitation. On the flip side, I think Chrome is proving to be a lot better than some of his critics thought. His career is also not over. If he sweeps the rest of the year his record on dirt will be pretty sensational.

American Pharoah was better than both of them. I think we barely scratched the surface of what AP would have done if he ran at 4. Then again, we were lucky to have seen beyond the Belmont.

I agree with every word of this.

[bobphilo]

Frosted was average last year. Dortmund ran bad the only time they met. Does Firing Line exist or is he an urban legend?

They handed the BCC to him when the only decent speed ran like a chicken to the Dirt Mile.

Don't forget that the only time AP got hooked on the front, he lost. He'd have found more to hook him had he stayed racing this year.
The only reason he lost in the Travers was that Espinoza stupidly let him engage in the even stupider challenge by Lezcano in the fastest 2nd half fraction in the race's history. He still fought on gamely for 2nd after putting away Frosted's insane early challenge.
The reason he was not challenged early in other races is because other riders were smart enough to realize that they would be destroyed in taking him on early. It's not like he got away with dawdling early fractions. Check out CJ's pace and speed figures for his races.

[Donttellmeshowme]

Its not even debatable. CC deserves to be in the Hall of Fame and probably will.

[Fager Fan]

The only reason he lost in the Travers was that Espinoza stupidly let him engage in the even stupider challenge by Lezcano in the fastest 2nd half fraction in the race's history. He still fought on gamely for 2nd after putting away Frosted's insane early challenge.
The reason he was not challenged early in other races is because other riders were smart enough to realize that they would be destroyed in taking him on early. It's not like he got away with dawdling early fractions. Check out CJ's pace and speed figures for his races.

I saw the horse race. He got lucky in that others in his age group were devoid of front-running speed. If he couldn't hang with Frosted when that one hooked him, Liam's Map would've jerked his head off.

This is why longevity is important because taking on varied horses over several campaigns allows a horse to prove he can beat others when they are at the top of their game and also overcome pace and other challenges.

[bobphilo]

I saw the horse race. He got lucky in that others in his age group were devoid of front-running speed. If he couldn't hang with Frosted when that one hooked him, Liam's Map would've jerked his head off.

This is why longevity is important because taking on varied horses over several campaigns allows a horse to prove he can beat others when they are at the top of their game and also overcome pace and other challenges.
If you expect top horses to race beyond their 3YO season you are out of touch with today's economic reality. CC is a rare exception because farms were reluctant to breed to him based on his less than "stellar pedigree". They concluded that the would do better on the track than the breeding shed.
Liam's Map connections wisely decided that to go head to head with him would be crazy considering what happened to Frosted when he tried that. In any case, except for the Travers where he was ridden stupidly, he had shown that he could be rated off an insane early pace and win that way too.

[Fager Fan]

If you expect top horses to race beyond their 3YO season you are out of touch with today's economic reality. CC is a rare exception because farms were reluctant to breed to him based on his less than "stellar pedigree". They concluded that the would do better on the track than the breeding shed.
Liam's Map connections wisely decided that to go head to head with him would be crazy considering what happened to Frosted when he tried that. In any case, except for the Travers where he was ridden stupidly, he had shown that he could be rated off an insane early pace and win that way too.

Since when does economic reality matter when looking at what a horse accomplished on the track?

What happened to Frosted? How about what happened to AP when he tried to run with Frosted? Liam's Map would've jerked his head off. He was faster than AP.

[bobphilo]

Since when does economic reality matter when looking at what a horse accomplished on the track?

What happened to Frosted? How about what happened to AP when he tried to run with Frosted? Liam's Map would've jerked his head off. He was faster than AP.
Economic reality is why it is not realistic to expect top horses to run past their 3YO seasons. Would you you deny Secretariat's greatness because he was retired early.
What happened to Frosted? He got beat by trying to run with a superior horse like AP. Anybody who knows anything about pace knows that neither AP nor Frosted had a chance after the boneheaded ride by both their jockeys.
Why are you so sure that AP would have stupidly gone head to head with Liam's Map in the BC Classic? He had previously shown the ability to rate off a fast early pace and win, so unless Espinoza had another attack of the stupids, he could have just as easily rated and won again. That's why Liam's Map connections decided to not take him on in the Classic. Just like your hero Dr. Fager, others found that it was suicide to try to go with AP early. that's a tribute to both horses greatness.

[outofthebox]

Love California Chrome. He will be in the HOF for sure. But he is not a great horse. Shared Belief toyed with him. Dortmund is a nice horse, nowhere in American Pharaohs league, and they were head bobbing to the wire. Love CC durability, been handled beautifully by his connections.

[Fager Fan]

Economic reality is why it is not realistic to expect top horses to run past their 3YO seasons. Would you you deny Secretariat's greatness because he was retired early.
What happened to Frosted? He got beat by trying to run with a superior horse like AP. Anybody who knows anything about pace knows that neither AP nor Frosted had a chance after the boneheaded ride by both their jockeys.
Why are you so sure that AP would have stupidly gone head to head with Liam's Map in the BC Classic? He had previously shown the ability to rate off a fast early pace and win, so unless Espinoza had another attack of the stupids, he could have just as easily rated and won again. That's why Liam's Map connections decided to not take him on in the Classic. Just like your hero Dr. Fager, others found that it was suicide to try to go with AP early. that's a tribute to both horses greatness.

So you're suggesting I dumb down my standards for horses because some retire early? It doesn't matter the reason, if they don't show longevity then it's a mark against them for lack of a better word. I'm particularly not going to give the owners of these horses a pass. Lack of proving soundness and true greatness via longevity and adversity is why the horses have become more fragile. I'm not going to reward them by giving their horse a pass when their record doesn't look so hot in comparison to past (and present) horses who racked up far more over a longer period.

I'm surprised a handicapping forum can be so enthralled with AP. He was very good but not once did he give us a wow moment like Frosted's race, or GZ, or Holy Bull, or show excellence over a long period like Cigar and Skip Away. AP finally got a decent number (but not a wow) when he won his last race.

Songbird is doing similar right now, and I'd have my misgivings about her place among the best horses if she doesn't start putting up some excellent times and/or prove herself over other top competitors and show longevity.

[ronsmac]

Economic reality is why it is not realistic to expect top horses to run past their 3YO seasons. Would you you deny Secretariat's greatness because he was retired early.
What happened to Frosted? He got beat by trying to run with a superior horse like AP. Anybody who knows anything about pace knows that neither AP nor Frosted had a chance after the boneheaded ride by both their jockeys.
Why are you so sure that AP would have stupidly gone head to head with Liam's Map in the BC Classic? He had previously shown the ability to rate off a fast early pace and win, so unless Espinoza had another attack of the stupids, he could have just as easily rated and won again. That's why Liam's Map connections decided to not take him on in the Classic. Just like your hero Dr. Fager, others found that it was suicide to try to go with AP early. that's a tribute to both horses greatness. Did you see Holy Bull's Travers or Seattle Slew's Derby and Preakness? I've seen great horses overcome fast pace duels and win. Difficult yes, impossible no. Both Hall of Famers.

[Cratos]

Love California Chrome. He will be in the HOF for sure. But he is not a great horse. Shared Belief toyed with him. Dortmund is a nice horse, nowhere in American Pharaohs league, and they were head bobbing to the wire. Love CC durability, been handled beautifully by his connections.
The best post thus far in the thread on this subject.

[Frost king]

Well, I think longevity is a big deal. And I also think repeatedly winning in open competition is a big deal. And I also think running in a lot of races is a big deal.

American Pharoah was a very good horse who did none of those things.

What big races has California Chrome won in North America? Besides winning restricted races as a 3 yr old, he has never won a Grade 1 race in North America. Yeah he won a race in Dubai, but he also got beat by a 7 yr old donkey in the same race. If you take out the two races from Dubai, this horse right now looks pretty mediocre. Hasn't run an open race outside of California. From this vantage point, he has a big bankroll, but very light on Hall of Fame credentials.

[bobphilo]

So you're suggesting I dumb down my standards for horses because some retire early? It doesn't matter the reason, if they don't show longevity then it's a mark against them for lack of a better word. I'm particularly not going to give the owners of these horses a pass. Lack of proving soundness and true greatness via longevity and adversity is why the horses have become more fragile. I'm not going to reward them by giving their horse a pass when their record doesn't look so hot in comparison to past (and present) horses who racked up far more over a longer period.

I'm surprised a handicapping forum can be so enthralled with AP. He was very good but not once did he give us a wow moment like Frosted's race, or GZ, or Holy Bull, or show excellence over a long period like Cigar and Skip Away. AP finally got a decent number (but not a wow) when he won his last race.

Songbird is doing similar right now, and I'd have my misgivings about her place among the best horses if she doesn't start putting up some excellent times and/or prove herself over other top competitors and show longevity.
So I guess you'd have to dumb down your standards to consider Secretariat great because he was retired after his 3YO season?
I'm surprised that someone posting on a forum called Pace Advantage, or any handicapper, would totally ignore pace and speed figures in their arguments.
American Pharoah earned the highest TFUS figure in their history in the BC Classic, tied only with Frosted's incredible Met Mile. His other speed and pace figures were also extraordinary. It's not his fault that other horses wisely choose not to be destroyed by trying to challenge him early. Frosted tried that in the Travers and payed the price.

[dilanesp]

If you expect top horses to race beyond their 3YO season you are out of touch with today's economic reality. CC is a rare exception because farms were reluctant to breed to him based on his less than "stellar pedigree". They concluded that the would do better on the track than the breeding shed.
Liam's Map connections wisely decided that to go head to head with him would be crazy considering what happened to Frosted when he tried that. In any case, except for the Travers where he was ridden stupidly, he had shown that he could be rated off an insane early pace and win that way too.

I agree that the economics will cause most owners to stop racing TC winners.

But that doesn't mean we have to pretend that horses whose careers go like that should get credit for things they "would have" acxomplished with less greedy ownership.

[dilanesp]

Economic reality is why it is not realistic to expect top horses to run past their 3YO seasons. Would you you deny Secretariat's greatness because he was retired early.
What happened to Frosted? He got beat by trying to run with a superior horse like AP. Anybody who knows anything about pace knows that neither AP nor Frosted had a chance after the boneheaded ride by both their jockeys.
Why are you so sure that AP would have stupidly gone head to head with Liam's Map in the BC Classic? He had previously shown the ability to rate off a fast early pace and win, so unless Espinoza had another attack of the stupids, he could have just as easily rated and won again. That's why Liam's Map connections decided to not take him on in the Classic. Just like your hero Dr. Fager, others found that it was suicide to try to go with AP early. that's a tribute to both horses greatness.

Honestly, I think Secretariat's early retirement is a knock on him.

But Secretariat at least ran a ton as a three year old, beat older horses multiple times, ran on different surfaces, etc. If he had only run 3 times after the Belmont with just 2 perfect trip wins, that would be a seriously weaker record.

[dilanesp]

What big races has California Chrome won in North America? Besides winning restricted races as a 3 yr old, he has never won a Grade 1 race in North America. Yeah he won a race in Dubai, but he also got beat by a 7 yr old donkey in the same race. If you take out the two races from Dubai, this horse right now looks pretty mediocre. Hasn't run an open race outside of California. From this vantage point, he has a big bankroll, but very light on Hall of Fame credentials.

Refusing to count a horse's best races is a noce way to denigrate him.

[cj]

What big races has California Chrome won in North America? Besides winning restricted races as a 3 yr old, he has never won a Grade 1 race in North America. Yeah he won a race in Dubai, but he also got beat by a 7 yr old donkey in the same race. If you take out the two races from Dubai, this horse right now looks pretty mediocre. Hasn't run an open race outside of California. From this vantage point, he has a big bankroll, but very light on Hall of Fame credentials.

This is just silly.

[mostpost]

What big races has California Chrome won in North America? Besides winning restricted races as a 3 yr old, he has never won a Grade 1 race in North America. Yeah he won a race in Dubai, but he also got beat by a 7 yr old donkey in the same race. If you take out the two races from Dubai, this horse right now looks pretty mediocre. Hasn't run an open race outside of California. From this vantage point, he has a big bankroll, but very light on Hall of Fame credentials.
The whole idea that you consider the Kentucky Derby a restricted race and equate that with a race for Illinois breds is just beyond bizarre. The very best three year olds in the country race in the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness. Many of the best raced in the Santa Anita Derby.

Do you propose that we allow older horses to race in the Triple Crown? Three year olds at that time of the year are not mature enough to beat older horses.

California Chrome has done more than enough right now to be elected to the Hall of Fame. I think he will do more.

[dilanesp]

The whole idea that you consider the Kentucky Derby a restricted race and equate that with a race for Illinois breds is just beyond bizarre. The very best three year olds in the country race in the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness. Many of the best raced in the Santa Anita Derby.

Do you propose that we allow older horses to race in the Triple Crown? Three year olds at that time of the year are not mature enough to beat older horses.

California Chrome has done more than enough right now to be elected to the Hall of Fame. I think he will do more.

The importance of the Derby as a restricted race is that it is only as strong as the crop. Whereas a big handicap, or Dubai, or the BC Classic, draws the best horses from several crops, including as well late bloomers.

To choose an example, the toughest race Ferdinand ever won was almost certainly his Breeders' Cup Classic and not his Derby, and the reason for that is precisely that the BC Classic included top horses from crops both older (Skywalker) and younger (Alysheba).

[Fager Fan]

The importance of the Derby as a restricted race is that it is only as strong as the crop. Whereas a big handicap, or Dubai, or the BC Classic, draws the best horses from several crops, including as well late bloomers.

To choose an example, the toughest race Ferdinand ever won was almost certainly his Breeders' Cup Classic and not his Derby, and the reason for that is precisely that the BC Classic included top horses from crops both older (Skywalker) and younger (Alysheba).

A restricted race can also have in it the best athletes of any age so they need to be looked at individually, not to ever say a G1 is necessarily harder than a lower grade, or that a restricted race is less difficult than an open race.

Immediately I think of 2007. The best horses that year were a trio of 3yos named Curlin, Street Sense and Hard Spun. I couldn't even tell you who the top older male was that year.

[dilanesp]

A restricted race can also have in it the best athletes of any age so they need to be looked at individually, not to ever say a G1 is necessarily harder than a lower grade, or that a restricted race is less difficult than an open race.

Immediately I think of 2007. The best horses that year were a trio of 3yos named Curlin, Street Sense and Hard Spun. I couldn't even tell you who the top older male was that year.

That's absolutely true, but only in some years. Other years, such as Giacomo's Derby, the race is weaker.

The best test of horses is open competition.

[clocker7]

I've never understood why CC is not given great credit for his 2014 BC Classic performance. It is my belief that Chrome was never in ideal condition after his injury that year, but still put in some impressive performances anyway.

In the Classic, he had a wide post and ran 3 wide all away around. Yet, at the end, he was within an eyelash of those who had shorter paths. But more importantly, he was running faster than anybody at the end.

Just watch it again. Easily, he was the best horse in the race.

[castaway01]

I've never understood why CC is not given great credit for his 2014 BC Classic performance. It is my belief that Chrome was never in ideal condition after his injury that year, but still put in some impressive performances anyway.

In the Classic, he had a wide post and ran 3 wide all away around. Yet, at the end, he was within an eyelash of those who had shorter paths. But more importantly, he was running faster than anybody at the end.

Just watch it again. Easily, he was the best horse in the race.

Well, most of us think he should be in the Hall of Fame, so one race aside, in the end it appears he's getting a lot of credit.

[the little guy]

That's absolutely true, but only in some years. Other years, such as Giacomo's Derby, the race is weaker.

The best test of horses is open competition.

Actually, Giacomo's Derby was a pretty solid field, which included Afleet Alex, Flower Alley, and Bellamy Road. Of those three, only Afleet Alex wasn't badly compromised by trip/dynamics. Flower Alley got a hilariously bad ride.

[Fager Fan]

That's absolutely true, but only in some years. Other years, such as Giacomo's Derby, the race is weaker.

The best test of horses is open competition.

I think we just determined that the best test is the best competition, not something as potentially arbitrary and meaningless as race condition including grading and age.

[dilanesp]

I think we just determined that the best test is the best competition, not something as potentially arbitrary and meaningless as race condition including grading and age.

I'd be OK with that if people wouldn't fawn over the TC races, which are often overrated.

But in rhe world we live in, it's important to remind people that the BC Classic and Dubai are far tougher races to win than a TC race.

[Fager Fan]

I'd be OK with that if people wouldn't fawn over the TC races, which are often overrated.

But in rhe world we live in, it's important to remind people that the BC Classic and Dubai are far tougher races to win than a TC race.

Yes and no. They may have tougher competitors (the BC almost always. The DWC not so much when 2/3 or more of the field aren't the world's best dirt horses).

The Derby is 20 horses, and the horse has to be primed and lucky for that single instant in time, he'll never have another chance. So it's about odds probably more than competitors.

[classhandicapper]

I've never understood why CC is not given great credit for his 2014 BC Classic performance. It is my belief that Chrome was never in ideal condition after his injury that year, but still put in some impressive performances anyway.

In the Classic, he had a wide post and ran 3 wide all away around. Yet, at the end, he was within an eyelash of those who had shorter paths. But more importantly, he was running faster than anybody at the end.

Just watch it again. Easily, he was the best horse in the race.

I agree.

imo the track was mildly tilted towards speed that day (though it's hard to see that in the charts because so many races were ridden very aggressively). The race development also changed after the rough start. The top 3 finishers went 1-2-3 around the track and CC was rallying despite the wide trip. imo he was definitely better than Bayern that day (who benefited from biased tracks and slow paces several times during that year). I was ranting about that for awhile. I think their subsequent campaigns was further evidence of that.

[mostpost]

I'd be OK with that if people wouldn't fawn over the TC races, which are often overrated.

But in rhe world we live in, it's important to remind people that the BC Classic and Dubai are far tougher races to win than a TC race.
The Triple Crown races are by far the toughest races a three year old can run in during the first half of the year. They have the largest, most competitive fields. They take place over a period of five weeks. The best horses in the crop compete in one or more. They are the toughest series of races in which a three year old is allowed to compete. It doesn't matter if the Big Cap has a stellar field or if the Donn has Man O War racing against Seabiscuit, the Triple Crown is the pinnacle of the three year old season and should not be underrated.

[mostpost]

I'd be OK with that if people wouldn't fawn over the TC races, which are often overrated.

But in rhe world we live in, it's important to remind people that the BC Classic and Dubai are far tougher races to win than a TC race.
As I said, I don't think the Triple Crown races are overrated. So the question becomes how highly do we rate a horse who finished first, first and fourth in the triple crown; then finished first, second and third (beaten a nose and a neck) in the DWC/BCC combo?
I would say very highly!!

[Fager Fan]

The Triple Crown races are by far the toughest races a three year old can run in during the first half of the year. They have the largest, most competitive fields. They take place over a period of five weeks. The best horses in the crop compete in one or more. They are the toughest series of races in which a three year old is allowed to compete. It doesn't matter if the Big Cap has a stellar field or if the Donn has Man O War racing against Seabiscuit, the Triple Crown is the pinnacle of the three year old season and should not be underrated.

You assume they run in all 3. If they don't, it's all out the window.

[cj]

You assume they run in all 3. If they don't, it's all out the window.


He specifically said the best horses in the crop compete in one or more.

[dilanesp]

The Triple Crown races are by far the toughest races a three year old can run in during the first half of the year. They have the largest, most competitive fields. They take place over a period of five weeks. The best horses in the crop compete in one or more. They are the toughest series of races in which a three year old is allowed to compete. It doesn't matter if the Big Cap has a stellar field or if the Donn has Man O War racing against Seabiscuit, the Triple Crown is the pinnacle of the three year old season and should not be underrated.

I don't think it's possible to underrate the TC. It gets all the attention. It soaks up all the oxygen.

Which is exactly why it is inevitably going to be overrated.

This isn't new. Before the last 30 years or so, nobody judged horses great solely based on wins in 3 year old classics. The only horse I can think of who even possibly qualified as an exception was Count Fleet, who got injured after the Belmont, and maybe Ruffian. Every other "great" horse had extensive campaigns in open competition. That was how a horse established greatness-- in handicaps, against horses of multiple generations, carrying weight, running over different tracks, etc. The horses rated right at the top of lists of great horses-- Man O' War, Citation, Swaps, Dr. Fager, Secretariat, Spectacular Bid-- all had extensive records against open competition.

And meanwhile, horses who did very little after the 3 year old classics, like Omaha, made nobody's list of great horses.

Yes, the Triple Crown is overrated. It measures who has the right combination of ability and racing luck against their own cohort for 5 arbitrary weeks in July. It doesn't, and can't, measure greatness.

[classhandicapper]

I think the trick with the Triple Crown races is to understand that the quality of the races is probably not as high as a legit very solid Grade 1 race for older horses (in that snapshot of time), but that's mostly because the horses haven't fully developed yet. With normal development, those top couple of horses would often turn out to be STRONGER than the older horses.

Here's why.

The open races for older are often populated with horses that were not the very best 3yos from the prior 2 years. The very best ones often get retired early. So it's the second tier 3yos and late developers that blossom into the leading older horses.

For example, American Pharoah is gone. So Frosted is taking over the older division in the east even though one could argue he was the 4th best 3yo of that crop after AP, Dortmund (who may develop further) and Firing line (who had a serious injury).

[dilanesp]

I think the trick with the Triple Crown races is to understand that the quality of the races is probably not as high as a legit very solid Grade 1 race for older horses (in that snapshot of time), but that's mostly because the horses haven't fully developed yet. With normal development, those top couple of horses would often turn out to be STRONGER than the older horses.

Here's why.

The open races for older are often populated with horses that were not the very best 3yos from the prior 2 years. The very best ones often get retired early. So it's the second tier 3yos and late developers that blossom into the leading older horses.

For example, American Pharoah is gone. So Frosted is taking over the older division in the east even though one could argue he was the 4th best 3yo of that crop after AP, Dortmund (who may develop further) and Firing line (who had a serious injury).

That's true, but the flip side is that they also catch late bloomers. For instance, the Forego who was specatcular in the New York handicap division in the mid-1970's was far, far better than the Forego who ran 4th in Secretariat's Derby.

Game on Dude is the most recent example of this. He was decent as a 3 year old in May and June, but was very tough to beat when he got older and matured.

[Fager Fan]

He specifically said the best horses in the crop compete in one or more.

Then I don't follow the importance of them being run in 5 weeks.

People need to get over race names, gradings, and conditions. Just look at the horses in the field. That is the only thing that is important.

[classhandicapper]

That's true, but the flip side is that they also catch late bloomers. For instance, the Forego who was specatcular in the New York handicap division in the mid-1970's was far, far better than the Forego who ran 4th in Secretariat's Derby.

Game on Dude is the most recent example of this. He was decent as a 3 year old in May and June, but was very tough to beat when he got older and matured.

But the Secretariat that dominated Forego would have still been better than him if he developed normally and raced at 4. Perhaps the gap would have narrowed, but I think Secretariat would still have been better.

[Cratos]

But the Secretariat that dominated Forego would have still been better than him if he developed normally and raced at 4. Perhaps the gap would have narrowed, but I think Secretariat would still have been better.
I am a fan of both Secretariat and Forego, but if Secretariat had run as a 4yo Forego would have had to improve a lot to close the gap between the two of them and the proof of that assertion can be found in Secretariat’s last 10 lifetime races.

Secretariat wasn’t just better than Forego, he was a lot better at 3yo than the matured Forego ever was and that is saying lot, but we are talking about Secretariat.

[Fager Fan]

I am a fan of both Secretariat and Forego, but if Secretariat had run as a 4yo Forego would have had to improve a lot to close the gap between the two of them and the proof of that assertion can be found in Secretariat’s last 10 lifetime races.

Secretariat wasn’t just better than Forego, he was a lot better at 3yo than the matured Forego ever was and that is saying lot, but we are talking about Secretariat.

Secretariat looked very mature physically at 3 (which is part of the reason why he's thought by many to be the first steroid horse, along with his early fertility issues, etc). He still should've been very good at 4 but it's not just other horses maturing he would've had to deal with, but also giving weight instead of always in receipt of weight.

[dilanesp]

Secretariat looked very mature physically at 3 (which is part of the reason why he's thought by many to be the first steroid horse, along with his early fertility issues, etc). He still should've been very good at 4 but it's not just other horses maturing he would've had to deal with, but also giving weight instead of always in receipt of weight.

Yep.

[Cratos]

Secretariat looked very mature physically at 3 (which is part of the reason why he's thought by many to be the first steroid horse, along with his early fertility issues, etc). He still should've been very good at 4 but it's not just other horses maturing he would've had to deal with, but also giving weight instead of always in receipt of weight.
How physically matured Secretariat “looked” is irrelevant; it is how matured he was. Furthermore whether he was the first “steroid horse” is hyperbole that is debunked by logical afterthought.

How weight toted by the horse affects its performance is a far more complex calculation than simply observing the weight on the horse’s back.

Physics tells us that mass*acceleration equals force and by rearrangement acceleration equals force/mass; and work equals force*distance.

Therefore given Secretariat’s high acceleration an increased in mass wouldn’t have necessarily bothered him as it didn’t slow down Dr. Fager many years before.

[clocker7]

For decades I blew off any claim of steroid applications prior to the late '80s. Then I came across this article about star vets Alex Harthill and the later-discredited felon Mark Gerard using them as early as the late '60s.

How steroids were actually employed by them is still a mystery to me, but warning flags are permanently up until somebody reputable can allay all suspicions.

Read the whole thing or scroll down about 1/4 of the way.

https://www.kyderbybook.com/pages/learn-more-141

[PaceAdvantage]

For decades I blew off any claim of steroid applications prior to the late '80s. Then I came across this article about star vets Alex Harthill and the later-discredited felon Mark Gerard using them as early as the late '60s.

How steroids were actually employed by them is still a mystery to me, but warning flags are permanently up until somebody reputable can allay all suspicions.

Read the whole thing or scroll down about 1/4 of the way.

https://www.kyderbybook.com/pages/learn-more-141Of course steroids were in use back in the days of Secretariat."1958 - FDA Approves First Anabolic Steroid for Sale in US

The "Godfather of Steroids," Dr. John Bosley Zieglar, creates an anabolic steroid called Dianabol that is released by Ciba Pharmaceuticals with FDA approval. Dr. Zieglar noted the success of the Russian weightlifting team due to the use of testosterone in 1954 and began experimenting on US weightlifters. His creation synthesizes the strength-building properties of testosterone while minimizing the negative health effects.

Close to his death in 1983, Dr. Zieglar speaks out against his invention and says he wishes he had never created the anabolic steroid after seeing athletes abuse the drug. "You're telling me they hadn't found their way into at least SOME racing circles by 1972? When they've been on sale since 1958 or thereabouts? Hell, the Nazis were said to have been experimenting with steroids or steroid-like concoctions back in the 40s...they've been around a long time.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Of course steroids were in use back in the days of Secretariat.You're telling me they hadn't found their way into at least SOME racing circles by 1972? When they've been on sale since 1958 or thereabouts? Hell, the Nazis were said to have been experimenting with steroids or steroid-like concoctions back in the 40s...they've been around a long time.

I think a lot of people are under the impression that in the bygone era (say pre-1970) racing was drug-free. In reality, drugs have been in racing since the early 1900s, maybe earlier, I'm not sure. If you read "Crazy Good" (the story of Dan Patch, a harness horse from the early 1900s), you learn horses were drugged in the 1910s. The book didn't say this, but maybe it was even worse due to the lack of testing.

[clocker7]

Of course steroids were in use back in the days of Secretariat.You're telling me they hadn't found their way into at least SOME racing circles by 1972? When they've been on sale since 1958 or thereabouts? Hell, the Nazis were said to have been experimenting with steroids or steroid-like concoctions back in the 40s...they've been around a long time.
One can always guess about usage of anything, sure. And read rumors passed by people who didn't have first hand knowledge, absolutely. And figure odds that something might have happened ... that is what we do. Moreover, as someone who immerses myself in racing history going back to the 1800s, cheating in racing is a given.

But until I had read those passages that I linked above, I had never encountered any written material documenting the activities of those who used the stuff in or on racehorses at that particular point in time. I always had my suspicions about the late 60s and 70s and the sudden burst of megastars ... who doesn't? (In fact, I would add some others to the list, even without a scintilla of evidence and certain "pristine" reputations being involved: starting with P---- O--.) ;)

[dilanesp]

I think a lot of people are under the impression that in the bygone era (say pre-1970) racing was drug-free. In reality, drugs have been in racing since the early 1900s, maybe earlier, I'm not sure. If you read "Crazy Good" (the story of Dan Patch, a harness horse from the early 1900s), you learn horses were drugged in the 1910s. The book didn't say this, but maybe it was even worse due to the lack of testing.

Yeah. This extends beyond horse racing too. I laugh when I hear some baseball fan compare the "cheaters" of the steroid era to other generations of ballplayers who "played clean", for instance.

[Fager Fan]

How physically matured Secretariat “looked” is irrelevant; it is how matured he was. Furthermore whether he was the first “steroid horse” is hyperbole that is debunked by logical afterthought.

What? The physical maturity of a horse is actually seen.

My statement wasn't hyperbole, and the circumstantial evidence of what he did on the track, how muscled he was, and his lack of fertility early at stud means that "logical afterthought" has debunked nothing.

How weight toted by the horse affects its performance is a far more complex calculation than simply observing the weight on the horse’s back.

Physics tells us that mass*acceleration equals force and by rearrangement acceleration equals force/mass; and work equals force*distance.

Therefore given Secretariat’s high acceleration an increased in mass wouldn’t have necessarily bothered him as it didn’t slow down Dr. Fager many years before.

Again, what? I'm actually laughing at what you posted.

The weight-carrying ability of horses is interesting. It's about the size and build of the horse. I'll emphasize the build as there are smaller breeds who can outcarry larger breeds. There is enough variety in Thoroughbreds, particularly with their backs (being short or long-coupled) and stifles that they don't all have equal weight-carrying ability. One can only know how much a horse can carry or give by asking him to do so and then seeing the result.

[Fager Fan]

One can always guess about usage of anything, sure. And read rumors passed by people who didn't have first hand knowledge, absolutely. And figure odds that something might have happened ... that is what we do. Moreover, as someone who immerses myself in racing history going back to the 1800s, cheating in racing is a given.

But until I had read those passages that I linked above, I had never encountered any written material documenting the activities of those who used the stuff in or on racehorses at that particular point in time. I always had my suspicions about the late 60s and 70s and the sudden burst of megastars ... who doesn't? (In fact, I would add some others to the list, even without a scintilla of evidence and certain "pristine" reputations being involved: starting with P---- O--.) ;)

Quit being coy. :) Who is P---- O--?

[Fager Fan]

Yeah. This extends beyond horse racing too. I laugh when I hear some baseball fan compare the "cheaters" of the steroid era to other generations of ballplayers who "played clean", for instance.

True, but that doesn't mean all cheating is equal. For example, Phar Lap was given "arsenic tonics" as part of his routine, and it was an overdose of arsenic that killed him (not the mafia). I guess that's cheating, but damn if I know how arsenic is going to make a horse run faster. Steroids, on the other hand, makes sense as to how that'd benefit the racehorse.

[VeryOldMan]

Quit being coy. :) Who is P---- O--?

You sound a little P----- O-- by the cryptic reference ;)

Just having some fun - I too was scratching my head at that one.

[Fager Fan]

You sound a little P----- O-- by the cryptic reference ;)

Just having some fun - I too was scratching my head at that one.

And I'm still scratching my head. He's got me with this one!

[clocker7]

Quit being coy. :) Who is P---- O--?
Let me preface this by declaring that it is in the spirit of the discussion above, where rumors and suspicions without proof or reliable sources formed the context. As one can tell by reading what I wrote, I'm not into careless innuendo or smears.

That being said, sudden out-of-body performances test one's credulity. Here's one that just plain boggles. Again, that is the only basis that I am posting this link, while having NOTHING else whatsoever to suspect the connections.

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/horse-racing-steve-haskin/archive/2008/08/04/The-Unbeatable-Horse.aspx

[Cratos]

Let me preface this by declaring that it is in the spirit of the discussion above, where rumors and suspicions without proof or reliable sources formed the context. As one can tell by reading what I wrote, I'm not into careless innuendo or smears.

That being said, sudden out-of-body performances test one's credulity. Here's one that just plain boggles. Again, that is the only basis that I am posting this link, while having NOTHING else whatsoever to suspect the connections.

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/horse-racing-steve-haskin/archive/2008/08/04/The-Unbeatable-Horse.aspx
I was there to see the Prove Out victory over Secretariat, but the details in the article gotten from the link you posted gave me a new insight about some of the things that occurred.

Thanks for posting the link to the article.

[Tom]

Then I don't follow the importance of them being run in 5 weeks.

People need to get over race names, gradings, and conditions. Just look at the horses in the field. That is the only thing that is important.

Might as well just go to FL or Pen, or Suf.....if that' all you see the game as.

[dilanesp]

Let me preface this by declaring that it is in the spirit of the discussion above, where rumors and suspicions without proof or reliable sources formed the context. As one can tell by reading what I wrote, I'm not into careless innuendo or smears.

That being said, sudden out-of-body performances test one's credulity. Here's one that just plain boggles. Again, that is the only basis that I am posting this link, while having NOTHING else whatsoever to suspect the connections.

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/horse-racing-steve-haskin/archive/2008/08/04/The-Unbeatable-Horse.aspx

My basic thinking is to discount all theories of how Secretariat got beat, except in his maiden race where the trouble was obvious.

I have 2 reasons for this:

1. Whenever you have a popular, high class horse, that horse tends to have lots of fans who simply refuse to accept that the horse might not be best on a particular day. Secretariat is such a horse. He has an enormous fan club, and if you read biographies they have excuses for every one of the losses. That makes me extremely skeptical.

2. Secretariat was clearly not a model of consistency. He got beat several times. The closer a horse is to an undefeated record, the more likely that the excuse might be valid. But Secretariat didn't fire every time, and the opposite was true too- he also ran off the charts in the Belmont.

So I feel the correct approach is to take the 1973 Woodward at face value.

[thaskalos]

My basic thinking is to discount all theories of how Secretariat got beat, except in his maiden race where the trouble was obvious.

I have 2 reasons for this:

1. Whenever you have a popular, high class horse, that horse tends to have lots of fans who simply refuse to accept that the horse might not be best on a particular day. Secretariat is such a horse. He has an enormous fan club, and if you read biographies they have excuses for every one of the losses. That makes me extremely skeptical.

2. Secretariat was clearly not a model of consistency. He got beat several times. The closer a horse is to an undefeated record, the more likely that the excuse might be valid. But Secretariat didn't fire every time, and the opposite was true too- he also ran off the charts in the Belmont.

So I feel the correct approach is to take the 1973 Woodward at face value.

Secretariat raced 21 times...and compiled a record of 16-3-1. What is your definition of a "model of consistency"?

[Fager Fan]

Might as well just go to FL or Pen, or Suf.....if that' all you see the game as.

Seems you don't understand my point?

Gradings and conditions don't define the quality of a field. We frequently see fields that are better than their title. G2s that are G1 quality. Allowance fields that could be a G3. And vice versa, when a G1 looks like a G2.

We don't need a grading to know when past greats beat top horses before the introduction of gradings. Or know that Affirmed had the toughest competition of all the TC winners.

Dig deeper than grading or the name of the race or whether it's age or sex restricted.

[Cratos]

What? The physical maturity of a horse is actually seen.

My statement wasn't hyperbole, and the circumstantial evidence of what he did on the track, how muscled he was, and his lack of fertility early at stud means that "logical afterthought" has debunked nothing.



Again, what? I'm actually laughing at what you posted.

The weight-carrying ability of horses is interesting. It's about the size and build of the horse. I'll emphasize the build as there are smaller breeds who can outcarry larger breeds. There is enough variety in Thoroughbreds, particularly with their backs (being short or long-coupled) and stifles that they don't all have equal weight-carrying ability. One can only know how much a horse can carry or give by asking him to do so and then seeing the result.
Keeping laughing because your two posts contradict each other; one is an inference and the other is an assertion.

[castaway01]

Secretariat raced 21 times...and compiled a record of 16-3-1. What is your definition of a "model of consistency"?

21 21-0-0

[Fager Fan]

Keeping laughing because your two posts contradict each other; one is an inference and the other is an assertion.

Well, that really clears things up.

[dilanesp]

Secretariat raced 21 times...and compiled a record of 16-3-1. What is your definition of a "model of consistency"?

A horse who basically duplicates the same performance every time.

[mostpost]

Good day,

Do you guys think California Chrome is a Hall of Fame horse? I personally think so. He started his career with a mountain of critics and since has silenced them all. If he adds a Breeders Cup Classic its a no brainer but even if he don't I think he is worthy.

Whats your take?

Cheers
Is there any doubt!!!

[no breathalyzer]

BEST HORSE I EVER SEEN!!!!!

[EMD4ME]

BEST HORSE I EVER SEEN!!!!!


Happy for you no breathalyzer :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[classhandicapper]

I think we can safely close this thread now. ;)

[ronsmac]

BEST HORSE I EVER SEEN!!!!!Very good horse, but best ever? lol