I'll admit that I bet against him in the derby and I had a crummy triple crown streak this year, which isn't my usual MO. Burnsy is a facts kind of guy though, I detest (try to avoid) emotion because that's how one makes bad choices. Trying to compare these two horses at this point is a joke. Secretariat ran 8 times as a 2yo and won HOY, never happen again probably, the way these horses train today. He set at least 5 track records combined on both surfaces, I believe one of the turf ones was a worlds record at that time. Horses back then ran bruised and nicked...Secretariat was probably better at 90%, will Lebron sit out tomorrow night if his knee needs a brace? Lebron is Secretariat, AP is a really good race horse. There's dominating and then there's DOMINATING, AP is the first one and Secretariat was the latter.,,,,,so far anyway. He could win or run well even at 90%, at 100% Secretariat could go to levels that are one of a kind over both surfaces. That's raw talent.

Now here's where I really piss people off. I think Point Given was as good as AP, as far as Baffert horses go (so far). Look at his Preakness, Belmont, Haskell and Travers....he didn't get the big "Triple Hype" but watch the replays, particularly the Belmont and Travers he wins during that streak like one of the best. Hand ride jokes and 3 wide during the entire Belmont. Obviously AP is a great horse but he has more to do before its even a close comparison to one of the greatest. Give me a break.....what are people on these days? Because the internet is a barrel of laughs reality.

The fractions were affected too, tracks were just much harder with less cushion.

I'm floored by this. Accomplished as much, Cj? By how many lengths?

What happened to your mantra, when you've often stated its difficult to compare horses across generations/eras?

Are you forming your opinion of American Pharoah, at this point in time, being as good as Secretariat on your figures? Your methods, variant, etc? As Ralph noted, how can anyone ignore, visually, the difference in the two horses?

One can't rewrite history, and sacrilege isn't the point at all. The point is pure performance on the racetrack. You feel this horse's records remain unbroken because he caught an era with a harder racing surface. You may not have many in your camp.

I know I cannot compare and argue with you, but this is one time that if you're proven wrong, hopefully, you'll come back to this statement you've made and admit it. Because this is off the charts. And this crowd, just like yourself, is bright enough not to wear Big Red Blinkers.

Third person - really? :)

I love this thread. AP gets credit in my book for winning the TC after a 37 year absence; but I'm not willing to put him in the "all time" great pending his future record. The fact that we're even discussing this issue is really cool!

I've said speed wise. I can compare accomplishments.


2yo Eclipse check
Triple Crown check
Less losses check
Less wins check (negative one)

People are reading way too much into what I'm saying. I don't think you can compare races from this far apart. But accomplishment wise, what is the difference? Where Secretariat really drew away from others was the Belmont and after, not before.

What is the real difference in accomplishments to this point? I don't see much difference. Apparently that is blasphemy.

The Secretariat crowd wants to suck the joy out of horseracing.

Everything has got to be about Secretariat!

Well, guess what?

I'm sick and tired of the Secretariat crap.

It's getting old...

We have got our own triple crown winner now...


Let's move on, it is 2015, for crying out loud!!

You said previously: "AP has had to run over deeper tracks than horses in 1970s" (very rough paraphrase). Assuming the track depth claim is correct (I'm sure you have researched the matter), it flatters the 2015 horse over the 1970s horse. Point to AP.

But the 1973 horse did not run on Lasix. You believe Lasix is beneficial to the performance of most horses (you said as much in another thread and I totally agree). The lack of Lasix flatters the 1973 horse's performance vs the 2015 horse's performance. Point to Sec.

Your above point is only relevant when comparing a 2015 horse to an "Age of Lasix" (1980ish forward) horse.

Blame CJ he made the comparison. To be fair, he used the word "potentially," I believe.

Why would that upset anyone? It's a perfectly reasonable assertion.

The telemiter. Track records. Which stand to this day. That is a big deal to me. Your mileage varies.

I'm starting to think you're a leg-puller.

There is no such thing as the quadruple crown.

Settle down - if AP wins the Breeders Cup Classic after his Triple Crown he will be setting the modern standard for a Quadruple Crown.

He still has work to show us where he rates v. your man Dr. Fager (a true legend, IMO), Secretariat, Forego, Affirmed, Seattle Slew, Kelso, Spectacular Bid, Citation, etc., etc.

Originally Posted by Bullet Plane The Secretariat crowd wants to suck the joy out of
 

yes because he is the benchmark for greatness in a race horse.

I think it is possible American Pharoah is as good as Secretariat. To this point, he
 

what makes him maybe as good as Secretariat?because someday he may run as fast as Secretariat? from a speed standpoint which these are race horses right? he has not even suggested he can be as fast as Secretariat period. so what am i missing in this comparison? that said this horse truly can be one of the great ones but this comparison is way to premature.