Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 05-18-2018, 07:36 PM   #31
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spalding No! View Post
Arrogate, Gun Runner, and California Chrome were the best and most consistent of a thoroughly bad group of American older horses over the past 3 seasons.

These horses routinely beat up on horses like Breaking Lucky (1 for 14 lifetime on dirt), Neolithic (non-stakes winner eligible for NW3X), Hoppertunity (a 7yo), Keen Ice (3 for 24 lifetime), Mubtaahij (1 for his last 16), and Win The Space (winless in 2 years, 0 for last 11), and Dortmund (winless since 2015).

Arrogate defeated Gun Runner while that one was clearly a cut below his peak and his stamina suspect. Exaggerator blitzed Gun Runner a couple of times, too, in 2016. In fact Gun Runner's fastest efforts were his final 2 career starts (probably had more left in the tank, should have stayed in training).

California Chrome was never a fast horse and arguably his career was resurrected by the sheer fact that he stayed in training while stronger rivals (Shared Belief) fell by the wayside. The ride he got in the 2016 BC Classic was criminal. If I didn't know any better, I'd say Espinoza got his breeding right to American Pharoah personally from Baffert in the paddock right before the race. From the 5/8 pole to the 1/4 pole he did nothing but look around for Arrogate while floating himself wide.

Gun Runner suddenly got good when he started getting sent to the lead in relatively paceless races in short fields. He had to out-duel Collected a couple of times who was decent for about 4 races, faced claimers in a pair of his stakes wins, and hit the 110+ Beyer range a couple of times. Sounds like Collected should be mentioned in the "great" category himself considering those credentials.

Not sure why the Dubai World Cup holds any real significance in terms of historical importance. It is perennially a weak field made up of turf horses, old horses specifically trotted out during the Dubai carnival to fill races, and decent NA starter or two. Arrogate was bumped at the start and wrangled back and because he collars Gun Runner, he's Secretariat. California Chrome has the saddle slip all the way back into bucking bronco territory and he still wins off by open lengths, I guess he's better than Affirmed.
This is a pretty good analysis IMO.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-18-2018, 08:00 PM   #32
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
Spalding, just out of curiousity what horses would you consider as great this Century here in the u.s.?
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-18-2018, 08:57 PM   #33
Spalding No!
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMB@BP View Post
Spalding, just out of curiousity what horses would you consider as great this Century here in the u.s.?
Not enough consistency and definitely not enough of the best of the sophomore crops returning to race at 4 and 5 years of age to witness (or designate) as "great".

There have certainly been several "one offs" that put horses on the path, but none that I can see showed the requisite repeatability. Arrogate's Travers, Candy Ride's Pacific Classic, Frosted's Met Mile, Quality Road briefly at 3 and briefly at 4, Aptitude's Jockey Club Gold Cup, Midnight Lute's Forego, and obviously a handful of Ghostzapper races scattered across 3 racing seasons fit the bill. Tiznow was superb at 3, comfortable versus his elders without much foundation, but injury derailed any further development and he won on sheer guts late at 4.

A couple of 3yos would have been interesting to see develop: Point Given, American Pharoah, Afleet Alex, Bernardini, Smarty Jones, and Empire Maker.

Among those with a bit of consistency, I don't think we're seeing anything from the 3 discussed in this thread (Gun Runner, Arrogate, California Chrome), that we haven't seen already from horses like Mineshaft, Curlin, Congaree, Medaglia D'Oro, and Lemon Drop Kid.
Spalding No! is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-19-2018, 05:55 AM   #34
Fager Fan
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
I don't want to be lumped in with that assumption. Nothing would surprise me either way with any trainer these days.
There is no other explanation for the 7 horses that dropped dead.
Fager Fan is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-19-2018, 01:09 PM   #35
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spalding No! View Post
Not enough consistency and definitely not enough of the best of the sophomore crops returning to race at 4 and 5 years of age to witness (or designate) as "great".

There have certainly been several "one offs" that put horses on the path, but none that I can see showed the requisite repeatability. Arrogate's Travers, Candy Ride's Pacific Classic, Frosted's Met Mile, Quality Road briefly at 3 and briefly at 4, Aptitude's Jockey Club Gold Cup, Midnight Lute's Forego, and obviously a handful of Ghostzapper races scattered across 3 racing seasons fit the bill. Tiznow was superb at 3, comfortable versus his elders without much foundation, but injury derailed any further development and he won on sheer guts late at 4.

A couple of 3yos would have been interesting to see develop: Point Given, American Pharoah, Afleet Alex, Bernardini, Smarty Jones, and Empire Maker.

Among those with a bit of consistency, I don't think we're seeing anything from the 3 discussed in this thread (Gun Runner, Arrogate, California Chrome), that we haven't seen already from horses like Mineshaft, Curlin, Congaree, Medaglia D'Oro, and Lemon Drop Kid.
Thanks for responding.

This is why I wanted a reference because the definition of great and its usage can lead to much different perceptions.

I generally use great as an adjective to describe something that was much better than average, memorable, or deserving of highlighting to separate from others in similar range.

Under your usage its a much more limited word to be used.

For example, I had a great breakfast this morning. I would remember the place I went and the food I had should anyone ask when or where I had a great breakfast. I could use this description more than once a year should I run into the same type of quality. Its not only reserved for the select few. I have a much broader definition of great.

Likely my great is probably closer to your average. Like Inside Information, who really had a brief career of 17 starts and only 6 grade 1 wins, I would consider her great. A horse like Midnight Lute who 13 starts and 3 grade 1 wins was great IMO.
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-19-2018, 02:13 PM   #36
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMB@BP View Post
Thanks for responding.

This is why I wanted a reference because the definition of great and its usage can lead to much different perceptions.

I generally use great as an adjective to describe something that was much better than average, memorable, or deserving of highlighting to separate from others in similar range.

Under your usage its a much more limited word to be used.

For example, I had a great breakfast this morning. I would remember the place I went and the food I had should anyone ask when or where I had a great breakfast. I could use this description more than once a year should I run into the same type of quality. Its not only reserved for the select few. I have a much broader definition of great.

Likely my great is probably closer to your average. Like Inside Information, who really had a brief career of 17 starts and only 6 grade 1 wins, I would consider her great. A horse like Midnight Lute who 13 starts and 3 grade 1 wins was great IMO.
Usually "great" as applied to an athlete means an all time great, not simply someone who delivers a great performance.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-19-2018, 02:23 PM   #37
Lemon Drop Husker
Veteran
 
Lemon Drop Husker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 11,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
Usually "great" as applied to an athlete means an all time great, not simply someone who delivers a great performance.

Well, you added "all time" as an adjective to make great more than it is.


According to Dictionary definitions, this is the meaning of great:


ADJECTIVE

  1. of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average.
    "the article was of great interest" · [more]

    synonyms: considerable · substantial · pronounced · sizeable · [more]



  2. of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average.
    "the great Italian conductor" · [more]

    synonyms: prominent · eminent · preeminent · important · [more]






As we see, above normal or average is what great is known to be.



I prefer to use excellent and then elite as being above great to mention further and better performances for horses and athletes.
Lemon Drop Husker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-19-2018, 02:31 PM   #38
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
Usually "great" as applied to an athlete means an all time great, not simply someone who delivers a great performance.
I cant tell you how many times great is used with athletes, I dont except that premise and can record a weeks worth of talk shows on espn and have it uttered 50 times, at least.
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-19-2018, 10:10 PM   #39
Redbullsnation
THEY SEND IN THE MAN
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 263
Are we gonna have ANOTHER Triple Crown winner?
__________________
@skytalkertv
Redbullsnation is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-20-2018, 07:54 AM   #40
Thomas Roulston
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lakehurst, NJ
Posts: 1,035
One High Echelon-like win in a Triple Crown race does not a GOAT candidate make.
Thomas Roulston is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-20-2018, 09:10 AM   #41
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
Usually "great" as applied to an athlete means an all time great, not simply someone who delivers a great performance.
I agree. Otherwise we specifically say "great performance" instead of great to kind of indicate it was an individual great effort as opposed to something the athlete does regularly.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-20-2018, 03:24 PM   #42
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
I agree. Otherwise we specifically say "great performance" instead of great to kind of indicate it was an individual great effort as opposed to something the athlete does regularly.
How do we compare? Nobody really knows. Is Clayton Kershaw not great because Cy Young won 511 games? Is Johnny Unitas not great because his records are all virtually gone?

Sports change. Being dominant in your own era is pretty much the only real measure of greatness in my opinion. Comparing across eras is fun for discussion but there really is no right or wrong answer. Mostly people have a recency bias anyway, either positive or negative. To some there will never be another Secretariat or Jim Brown, while others think Gun Runner and Sidney Crosby are the best ever.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-20-2018, 03:44 PM   #43
Parkview_Pirate
Registered User
 
Parkview_Pirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by papillon View Post
...GOAT creep just struck me as funny...
While I agree with your basic premise of GOAT creep, I don't see the humor in it, other than the potential for taunting those who climb on board the GOAT train early, and the horse goes bad.

I would expand the trend of "perception of extremes" to many other aspects of life. If a NBA star scores 50, or an NHL star gets a hat trick, they are the GOAT, at least to the younger viewers and fans of the team. If the stock market goes up or down 1%, it's a "surge" or a "plunge". If a royal gets married, the sermon delivered is the GOAT. If the U.S. intervenes overseas as part of diplomatic policy, the reaction is divided into the "nuke them 'till they glow" and "let's stay the hell out" camps. If a school shooting happens, the same polarization takes place - "get rid of all the guns" or "...from my cold dead fingers", rather than any rational discussion originating from agreed upon common ground.

It's a reflection of society's ills, and does not bode well for any of us.
Parkview_Pirate is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-20-2018, 04:44 PM   #44
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
How do we compare? Nobody really knows. Is Clayton Kershaw not great because Cy Young won 511 games? Is Johnny Unitas not great because his records are all virtually gone?

Sports change. Being dominant in your own era is pretty much the only real measure of greatness in my opinion. Comparing across eras is fun for discussion but there really is no right or wrong answer. Mostly people have a recency bias anyway, either positive or negative. To some there will never be another Secretariat or Jim Brown, while others think Gun Runner and Sidney Crosby are the best ever.
This isn't a terrible argument, but the flip side is if changes in the sport reduce the number of athletes doing great things, people should not move the goalposts.

We just had California Chrome and Game on Dude. So long careers are still possible. So why waste the term "great" on a 4 race wonder?
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2018, 07:33 AM   #45
biggestal99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
How do we compare? Nobody really knows. Is Clayton Kershaw not great because Cy Young won 511 games? Is Johnny Unitas not great because his records are all virtually gone?

Sports change. Being dominant in your own era is pretty much the only real measure of greatness in my opinion. Comparing across eras is fun for discussion but there really is no right or wrong answer. Mostly people have a recency bias anyway, either positive or negative. To some there will never be another Secretariat or Jim Brown, while others think Gun Runner and Sidney Crosby are the best ever.
LOL. Yes how you compare Johnny U to Tom Brady? you only can go when you have seen or saw tapes.

and you are also correct, there are no right or wrong answers. Its ones persons opinion.

You make your case; others make theirs and thats it the great unsolved.

Thanks CJ for the clarity in thought.

Allan
biggestal99 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.