Maximum Security

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by castaway01

He's a fine horse, but I have to admit that after reading your post my main thought is that I don't know what the hell you're talking about with these alleged critics of the horse. Where are they? They're not on this site. Every time the horse runs I hear people whine about the Derby DQ from now 10 months ago, but from what I read everyone on the Internet is a member of the Maximum Security fan club. Who are all these critics and naysayers? I swear some of you must live in a bubble somewhere.

Yup.

It's this inane narrative that supposedly if someone doesn't think ( fill in the blank, but in recent years it's been Zenyatta, Songbird, and apparently now Maximum Security ) are not just great but generationally defining race horses, then you are a hater. What these horses have in common is that they win, pretty much every time....and when they ultimately lose, there is some major excuse that will be defended endlessly, whether legit or not ( like the narrative that Songbird supposedly actually won the BC photo...perhaps one of the stupidest things you will ever hear ). However, legitimate excuses for horses that have the nerve to not win every time ( the latest example being Tacitus ) are dismissed out of hand by these same people. As though winning somehow supersedes intelligent analysis, and losing precludes it.

Maybe it's a desperate need to defend a bad opinion. I don't know, and I don't really care, but it is both tiresome and amusing. The notion that someone can both have high respect for a certain horse while also not elevating it to some foolish sense of greatness shouldn't be that hard to understand. Apparently, for some, it's very hard.

[cj]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Yup.

It's this inane narrative that supposedly if someone doesn't think ( fill in the blank, but in recent years it's been Zenyatta, Songbird, and apparently now Maximum Security ) are not just great but generationally defining race horses, then you are a hater. What these horses have in common is that they win, pretty much every time....and when they ultimately lose, there is some major excuse that will be defended endlessly, whether legit or not ( like the narrative that Songbird supposedly actually won the BC photo...perhaps one of the stupidest things you will ever hear ). However, legitimate excuses for horses that have the nerve to not win every time ( the latest example being Tacitus ) are dismissed out of hand by these same people. As though winning somehow supersedes intelligent analysis, and losing precludes it.

Maybe it's a desperate need to defend a bad opinion. I don't know, and I don't really care, but it is both tiresome and amusing. The notion that someone can both have high respect for a certain horse while also not elevating it to some foolish sense of greatness shouldn't be that hard to understand. Apparently, for some, it's very hard.

The funny thing about Songbird is that in that photo, she was beaten by a legitimately great horse IMO.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by cj

The funny thing about Songbird is that in that photo, she was beaten by a legitimately great horse IMO.

Well, she sure had one effort that was better than any of the mentioned horses ever ran, coincidentally when they took her out of her comfort zone.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Yup.

It's this inane narrative that supposedly if someone doesn't think ( fill in the blank, but in recent years it's been Zenyatta, Songbird, and apparently now Maximum Security ) are not just great but generationally defining race horses, then you are a hater. What these horses have in common is that they win, pretty much every time....and when they ultimately lose, there is some major excuse that will be defended endlessly, whether legit or not ( like the narrative that Songbird supposedly actually won the BC photo...perhaps one of the stupidest things you will ever hear ). However, legitimate excuses for horses that have the nerve to not win every time ( the latest example being Tacitus ) are dismissed out of hand by these same people. As though winning somehow supersedes intelligent analysis, and losing precludes it.

Maybe it's a desperate need to defend a bad opinion. I don't know, and I don't really care, but it is both tiresome and amusing. The notion that someone can both have high respect for a certain horse while also not elevating it to some foolish sense of greatness shouldn't be that hard to understand. Apparently, for some, it's very hard.

I agree with this in general, but Tacitus is a habitual loser and at this point his fans (who seem to mostly be based in New York) are pretty clearly wrong.

[aaron]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Yup.

It's this inane narrative that supposedly if someone doesn't think ( fill in the blank, but in recent years it's been Zenyatta, Songbird, and apparently now Maximum Security ) are not just great but generationally defining race horses, then you are a hater. What these horses have in common is that they win, pretty much every time....and when they ultimately lose, there is some major excuse that will be defended endlessly, whether legit or not ( like the narrative that Songbird supposedly actually won the BC photo...perhaps one of the stupidest things you will ever hear ). However, legitimate excuses for horses that have the nerve to not win every time ( the latest example being Tacitus ) are dismissed out of hand by these same people. As though winning somehow supersedes intelligent analysis, and losing precludes it.

Maybe it's a desperate need to defend a bad opinion. I don't know, and I don't really care, but it is both tiresome and amusing. The notion that someone can both have high respect for a certain horse while also not elevating it to some foolish sense of greatness shouldn't be that hard to understand. Apparently, for some, it's very hard.

Andy,
It is very hard for the players who have been around to consider most or any of the current horses generational. The reason for this is that just don't run enough
races. The most spectacular of the recent I witnessed was Arrogate hands down, but he didn't last long enough in my opinion to be considered generational.Years ago great horses did lose races for various reasons {weight,taking a shot at a distance not their best etc.} In today's racing there is really no handicap division that captures the public.This hurts the sport and in my opinion hurts horses from being generational.If I had to pick a recent horse that I would consider generational it would probably be Zenyatta.Mostly won on synthetic,but probably would have been excellent on dirt if given more races on that surface.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by aaron

Andy,
It is very hard for the players who have been around to consider most or any of the current horses generational. The reason for this is that just don't run enough
races. The most spectacular of the recent I witnessed was Arrogate hands down, but he didn't last long enough in my opinion to be considered generational.Years ago great horses did lose races for various reasons {weight,taking a shot at a distance not their best etc.} In today's racing there is really no handicap division that captures the public.This hurts the sport and in my opinion hurts horses from being generational.If I had to pick a recent horse that I would consider generational it would probably be Zenyatta.Mostly won on synthetic,but probably would have been excellent on dirt if given more races on that surface.

Also, I think we will have to wait decades for another mare to win a BC Classic and lose a second one in a photo. Look at other females who have run in it- even good ones. They don't come close to winning it.

[CaptainObvious]

Originally Posted by castaway01

He's a fine horse, but I have to admit that after reading your post my main thought is that I don't know what the hell you're talking about with these alleged critics of the horse. Where are they? They're not on this site. Every time the horse runs I hear people whine about the Derby DQ from now 10 months ago, but from what I read everyone on the Internet is a member of the Maximum Security fan club. Who are all these critics and naysayers? I swear some of you must live in a bubble somewhere.

His critics have their foot in their mouth, that’s why you can’t hear them.

It’s a bit disingenuous to claim Max is “America’s horse”.

Don’t you recall the run up to the derby? I heard a lot of “He ran in a claimer”, “his Florida derby was slow”, “his trainer is a doper”. Not to mention after he lost at Monmouth. There’s been some negativity surrounding this horse.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I agree with this in general, but Tacitus is a habitual loser and at this point his fans (who seem to mostly be based in New York) are pretty clearly wrong.

If you agreed at all, you wouldn't have needed to add your usual nonsensical and indefensible opinion. It's always an East Coast/West Coast thing with you and your inferiority complex. It's total BS.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by the little guy

If you agreed at all, you wouldn't have needed to add your usual nonsensical and indefensible opinion. It's always an East Coast/West Coast thing with you and your inferiority complex. It's total BS.

Andy, if you think Tacitus has excuses for all his losing, yes, that is pure east coast bias. You are too good a handicapper to objectively believe that.

[classhandicapper]

These debates are typically a function of one side getting overly literal about speed figures and the other side getting overly literal about a horse's record.

The REALITY is that both things matter.

The idea in horse racing is to get favorable position turning for home and to have enough left to outfinish the other horses. That's it. Races are not all out sprints where the goal is to maximize your speed figures.

That means, depending on a horse's style and how the race develops, its speed figure may or may not be maximized. And I'm not just talking about extreme paces. I'm talking about run of the mill races where a very good horse is only asked for its best through the stretch in order to win.

IMO, when a horse is winning consistently, it's typically exhibiting qualities of versatility, competitiveness, and ABILITY beyond just the speed figures its earning. Those abilities may not be much beyond a couple of 1/5ths of a second, but it's not an accident when a horse is stringing wins and accumulating a great record. That horse is almost always a bit better than you think off the numbers.

On the flip side, over time, a top horse should get a few races where given its style it has an opportunity or is forced to run really fast to win. If it's consistently much slower than some of the all time greats, then it's almost certainly not an all time great.

Maximum Security is obviously a very good horse that has long been better than his critics thought because they were too focused on some of his mediocre numbers or favorable trips, but he's also clearly not an all time great just because he's stringing wins in big races. He's not fast enough (so far) and he's not blowing horses out despite a style that should lead to some bigger wins if he was actually great (he's not a deeper closer just timing late moves)

He's going to have run faster and win more impressively to reach that status, but he does have time to develop further.

[classhandicapper]

Tacitus?

I've been a Tacitus fan for awhile. He's unquestionably had some rough trips against the grain of the track etc.. I even used him a few times. But really good horses overcome an occasional bad trip or race against the grain. That's how and why they accumulate great records. He's just a mediocre horse. Maybe he'll improve, but a lot of people (myself included) overrated him at one point.

[classhandicapper]

Songbird is another good example.

Overrated by the people that focused on her record and underrated by the literal speed handicappers. Very good, nowhere near all time great, though she almost beat an older mare I'd consider up close to that stratosphere.

(let's leave out her 4yo campaign where imo she clearly went backwards)

[CaptainObvious]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Songbird is another good example.

Overrated by the people that focused on her record and underrated by the literal speed handicappers. Very good, nowhere near all time great, though she almost beat one I'd consider up in that stratosphere.

(let's leave out her 4yo campaign where imo she clearly went backwards)

I was a Beholder man myself.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by CaptainObvious

I was a Beholder man myself.

Understandable.

Even Beholder was underrated at points in her career by literal speed figures. Her high 90s weren't particularly impressive. She just kept winning no matter what pace or trip got thrown her way doing just enough to get the job done. She eventually ran a bit faster later when it was required.

Of course, she wasn't going to beat horses that could consistently run a LOT faster, but there was obviously more in the tank than 98 or 99.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Understandable.

Even Beholder was underrated at points in her career by literal speed figures. Her high 90s weren't particularly impressive. She just kept winning no matter what pace or trip got thrown her way doing just enough to get the job done. She eventually ran a bit faster later when it was required.

Of course, she wasn't going to beat horses that could consistently run a LOT faster, but there was obviously more in the tank than 98 or 99.

The Pacific Classic convinced me on Beholder. Yeah, those weren't Hall of Famers behind her, but there were several stakes winners in the field. And she just blew them off the track. I don't need a speed figure to evaluate that.