Sidebar

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm not a big fan of using the clock or speed figures for historical comparisons.

The dirt surfaces are not the same now as they were years ago due to efforts to improve safety. The training and drug use is different and all speed figures have tended to drift faster/slower over time.

Looking at margins of victory, accomplishments of the horses behind, and their trips etc.. seems like an imperfect but better approach for this kind of comparison.

Going back to the 70s when I started, imo this one looks to be top 5-10 in "talent". He belongs in the conversation with some of the best I've ever seen. The problem is that we've seen some horses be spectacularly sharp for short periods & not sustain it. IMO part of greatness is sustaining that peak. Otherwise it's just a great "performance" or two.

So for me personally, I don't care what the clock or figures say. IMO the talent is there for elite greatness, the best was "likely" to come further down the line, but for me personally without proof, he has to be ranked just below the very best I've seen. It really would have been nice to see a few more races because assuming soundness there's no way a horse is at his peak after 6 races.

Right. Remember Arrogate looked otherworldly for 4 races.