How should we define Greatness?

[Posts: 181Joined: 25 Sep 2010, 00:08]

Royal Ascot is almost upon us and we have two horses, both unbeaten multiple Group 1 winners that have so far demonstrated that they are vastly superior to their contemporaries, but can they both be regarded as greats if not what criteria should we use to measure greatness.

Some might argue that a horses' peak level of ability should be used. Harbinger put up an absolutely stunning performance in the King George, unfortunately he didn't get the chance to reproduce that effort, but as this was way above what he had done before does he deserve to called great based on one outstanding performance.

Some may contend that a horse must put up a series of outstanding efforts such as those produced by Black Caviar and Frankel, two horses that have proved time and again that they are truly outstanding at what they do.

Still this is not enough for some, some judges consider a great horse has be versatile and able to win top class races over a variety of distances, be it sprinters having to win over a mile or milers winning over middle distances, conversely this argument doesn't seem to apply so much to middle distance horses having to prove themselves over shorter trips. For example people do not question the brilliant Sea Bird because he didn't win a 2000 Guineas or Poule d'essi de Poulins and rightly so. Having said that some might crib Dayjur or Abernant because they never won over a mile yet both were truly brilliant sprinters. The same with Tudor Minstrel and indeed Frankel both way,way ahead over a mile but in the eyes of some not great because they're milers.

Does versatility make a very,very good horse a great horse? Lets look at horses that won the 2000 Guineas and went on to win G1's over 12F, I've purposely chosen that spread as the difference from 8-10 or 10-12, I think is not that great a step. Since the pattern race system was introduced this boils down to Brigadier Gerard, El Gran Senor, Dancing Brave, Nashwan, Golan, Sea The Stars and Camelot. Leaving aside Camelot as he's still in training and the world is his oyster, lets look at what the others achieved. And did they produce truly outstanding performances at both distances.

Firstly Brigadier Gerard, unquestionably a great miler and his 2000 Guineas win can truly be called a great win from a outstanding multiple G1 winner and a champion 2 year-old. His King George was a weak renewal the second Parnell raced for 5 seasons his only G1 win was over 1M6F the 3rd Riverman never won beyond 9F. Would The Brig have turned up never mind won if Mill Reef was there. El Gran Senor, again fantastic performance in the Guineas and beating none other than Rainbow Quest in the Irish Derby, shows he had the potential to be outstanding at both distances but that Derby defeat and the fact he only raced against own generation puts a question mark on that. As a winner of the Eclipse, King George and Arc, Dancing Brave was outstanding at middle distances, his 2000 win was from sprinter Green Desert, but he won with ease and I have little doubt he would have been the champion miler of his generation. Nashwan looked terrific over middle distances in the summer and he beat a decent field in the Guineas, but he certainly wasn't the best miler that year that was Zilzal and Old Vic was rated as good as him over 12F, so can a horse that possibly or even probably not the best of his generation over either distance be regarded as great. Golan won a weak Guineas, Tamburlaine never won another race and the 3rd never won above G3 and Galileo was a far superior 12F horse. Sea The Stars won a weak Guineas, Delegator regularly get beat in lesser company, Fame and Glory is running in Cup races he beat Cavalryman and Youmzain in the Arc again both have been comprehensively beaten on umpteen occasions by average Group class horses, again do these victories make Sea The Stars great or the best of a bad bunch. On the grounds of versatility, then of the above bunch I would say that only Dancing Brave deserves his place but I don't think that's a prerequisite of greatness and certainly Brigadier Gerard, at least of the others deserves to called a great.

Personally, I don't think it matters over what trip a horse excels, as long as he/she consistently shows outstanding ability, ability far in excess of anything else can produce then that makes them great. Let's hope Black Caviar and Frankel can reaffirm their undoubted brilliance at Royal Ascot and enshrine their names in the pantheon of the greats.

[Posts: 2266Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 16:22]

great·ness/ˈgrātnis/

Noun:

The quality of being great, distinguished, or eminent.

They both are.

[Posts: 728Joined: 09 Jan 2011, 14:48]

The idea of "true greatness" is purely subjective and as such, is down to the individual. Given that pretty much no horse is ever unanimously lauded as a great, should a person consider any particular horse to be a great then that person is fully entitled to hold said horse in such a position.

The idea of versatility being an essential rule for greatness isn't one that translates into other sports. Lance Armstrong wasn't reknowned for being a sprinter nor is Mark Cavendish much of a climber. Bobby Moore wouldn't have made much of a striker as much as Lionel Messi isn't built to be a defender. Even in National Hunt racing, few people would begrudge Denman the title of a great despite the fact he wouldn't have had the speed to trouble top two milers and Istabraq will always be regarded as a great even though he just wasn't the same horse over two and a half miles.

Yes versatility is an admirable trait but the lack of it shouldn't be allowed to detract from a horses great performances.

[Posts: 1030Joined: 24 Apr 2011, 00:59]

Talking Frankel and Black Caviar it would be interesting to know individuals opinion of the Greatest Mare and the Greatest Colt of all time.

I'd kick of with SCEPTRE
http://community.tvg.com/t5/History-and ... d-p/451553
as one of the Greatest Mares
and undoubtedly HYPERION
http://www.tbheritage.com/Portraits/Hyperion.html

The latter bred by Lord Derby who also bred OUIJA BOARD, yet to produce a Group winner
URBAN SEA is another Mare who could be defined as great having won the Arc and then producing a foal who achieved greatness himself SEA THE STARS.

Extremely interesting and thought provoking thread.

[Posts: 181Joined: 25 Sep 2010, 00:08]

I think Ribot sometimes gets overlooked when people talk of the greats, he must have been one helluva horse.

As far as horses I've seen personally in Europe I suppose Frankel and Shergar are as good as any colts I've seen. Among the filles Bosra Sham was electrifying at her best.

[Posts: 2032Joined: 06 Jun 2011, 14:34Location: Bury St Edmunds]

Miesque would be the filly.

Sadly her feats are unlikely to be matched. She defeated the colts at the highest level at 2,3 and 4 years of age in an era abundant with top quality mile performers. As a broodmare she produced classic winners and good sires. Her female descendants are still producing exciting prospects, last week Rumpelstiltskin's son Theatre won his maiden in impressive fashion and must be a live contender for pattern races later this season and next.

[Posts: 1302Joined: 17 Nov 2009, 01:13Location: Virginia]

Miesque would be the filly.

Sadly her feats are unlikely to be matched. She defeated the colts at the highest level at 2,3 and 4 years of age in an era abundant with top quality mile performers. As a broodmare she produced classic winners and good sires. Her female descendants are still producing exciting prospects, last week Rumpelstiltskin's son Theatre won his maiden in impressive fashion and must be a live contender for pattern races later this season and next.

I would argue that Dahlia's record is more impressive.
1973 Champion 3yo Filly In England
1973 Horse Of The Year In England
1974 Champion Grass Horse (tri)
1974 Champion Older Mare In England
1974 Horse Of The Year In England
1975 Champion Older Mare In England
1973 1st Washington D. C. International H. [G1] $150,000
1974 1st Man O' War S. [G1] (BEL) $100,000
1974 1st Canadian International S. [G2] (WO) $125,000
1976 1st Hollywood Inv. H. [G1] (HOL) $200,000
1974 3rd Washington D. C. Int'l S. [G1] (LRL) $150,000
1976 3rd Century H. [G1] (HOL) $100,000
1972 1st Prix Yacowlef (FR)
1973 1st Prix De La Grotte [G3] (FR)
1973 1st Irish Guinness Oaks [G1] (IRE)
1973 1st King George & Queen Eliz. S. [G1] (ENG)
1973 1st Prix Niel [G3] (FR)
1973 1st Prix Saint-Alary [G1] (FR)
1974 1st Grand Prix De Saint-Cloud [G1] (FR)
1974 1st King George & Queen Eliz. S. [G1] (ENG)
1974 1st Benson And Hedges Gold Cup [G1] (ENG)
1975 1st Benson And Hedges Gold Cup [G1] (ENG)
1972 2nd Prix Des Reservoirs (FR)
1973 2nd Prix De Diane [G1] (FR)
1975 2nd Grand Prix De Deauville [G2] (FR)
1973 3rd Poule D'Essai Des Pouliches [G1] (FR)
1974 3rd Coronation Cup S. [G1] (ENG)
1974 3rd Prix Du Prince D'Orange [G3] (FR)
1975 3rd Prix Du Prince D'Orange [G3] (FR)
1975 3rd King George-queen Eliz. Diamond S. [G1] (ENG)

As a broodmare she produced:
Dahar - millionaire, 4-time G1 winner
Dahlia's Dreamer - G1 winner, dam of G1 winning hurdler Racey Dreamer
Dahlia's Image - stakes placed, granddam of Rite of Passage
Decadrachm - G1 stakes-placed
Delegant - G1 winner
Llandaff - G2 winner, champion sire in Switzerland
Miss Dahlia - dam of G2 winner Capital Plan
Rivlia - millionaire, 2-time G1 winner
Wajd - G2 winner, dam of Nedawi, Wall Street

[Posts: 181Joined: 25 Sep 2010, 00:08]

Miesque would be the filly.

Sadly her feats are unlikely to be matched. She defeated the colts at the highest level at 2,3 and 4 years of age in an era abundant with top quality mile performers. As a broodmare she produced classic winners and good sires. Her female descendants are still producing exciting prospects, last week Rumpelstiltskin's son Theatre won his maiden in impressive fashion and must be a live contender for pattern races later this season and next.

I would argue that Dahlia's record is more impressive.
1973 Champion 3yo Filly In England
1973 Horse Of The Year In England
1974 Champion Grass Horse (tri)
1974 Champion Older Mare In England
1974 Horse Of The Year In England
1975 Champion Older Mare In England
1973 1st Washington D. C. International H. [G1] $150,000
1974 1st Man O' War S. [G1] (BEL) $100,000
1974 1st Canadian International S. [G2] (WO) $125,000
1976 1st Hollywood Inv. H. [G1] (HOL) $200,000
1974 3rd Washington D. C. Int'l S. [G1] (LRL) $150,000
1976 3rd Century H. [G1] (HOL) $100,000
1972 1st Prix Yacowlef (FR)
1973 1st Prix De La Grotte [G3] (FR)
1973 1st Irish Guinness Oaks [G1] (IRE)
1973 1st King George & Queen Eliz. S. [G1] (ENG)
1973 1st Prix Niel [G3] (FR)
1973 1st Prix Saint-Alary [G1] (FR)
1974 1st Grand Prix De Saint-Cloud [G1] (FR)
1974 1st King George & Queen Eliz. S. [G1] (ENG)
1974 1st Benson And Hedges Gold Cup [G1] (ENG)
1975 1st Benson And Hedges Gold Cup [G1] (ENG)
1972 2nd Prix Des Reservoirs (FR)
1973 2nd Prix De Diane [G1] (FR)
1975 2nd Grand Prix De Deauville [G2] (FR)
1973 3rd Poule D'Essai Des Pouliches [G1] (FR)
1974 3rd Coronation Cup S. [G1] (ENG)
1974 3rd Prix Du Prince D'Orange [G3] (FR)
1975 3rd Prix Du Prince D'Orange [G3] (FR)
1975 3rd King George-queen Eliz. Diamond S. [G1] (ENG)

As a broodmare she produced:
Dahar - millionaire, 4-time G1 winner
Dahlia's Dreamer - G1 winner, dam of G1 winning hurdler Racey Dreamer
Dahlia's Image - stakes placed, granddam of Rite of Passage
Decadrachm - G1 stakes-placed
Delegant - G1 winner
Llandaff - G2 winner, champion sire in Switzerland
Miss Dahlia - dam of G2 winner Capital Plan
Rivlia - millionaire, 2-time G1 winner
Wajd - G2 winner, dam of Nedawi, Wall Street

Although Allez France was not a outstanding success at stud, she was clearly a better filly/mare than Dahlia on the track. Don't get me wrong Dahlia was absolutely top class but I do believe they met 6 times and Allez France beat her every time.

That is a stat that cannot be argued against!

[Posts: 3957Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 11:39Location: Sacramento,CA.]

I would rate Dawn Run as the greatest mares who ever set foot in Cheltenham or any other race course for that matter.

[Posts: 12271Joined: 22 Dec 2007, 19:24]

Greatness can only be measured in ability (how good a horse is).
Sea The Stars was a "Great" because he produced some performances of the highest standard. Absolutely nothing to do with winning the 2000 Guineas, which was a performance a long way below the standard of a "Great" racehorse. You can not have "greatness" reliant on the standards of rivals. Had there been a real top class miler in the field for the Guineas then Sea The Stars would not have won... And therefore in some people's eyes not been a "Great", despite his vastly improved efforts over middle-distances. So to disqualify a horse for not being "veratile" enough is ridiculous.

You can have "great versatility", but that does not make a "Great" racehorse. Camelot won't be a true "Great" even if he goes on to win the St Leger, unless improving his performance rating significantly. He won a poor Guineas. Had he been around in many other years that performance would not have been good enough to win a Guineas. To argue that winning a Guineas, Derby and St Leger automatically makes a horse "Great", when winning those three races depended on his rivals being a poor bunch... is crazy. Otherwise, you end up with a so called "Great" with vastly inferior form to just a "good" horse from another (more taxing) year.

One of my favourite horses was Persian Punch, he had great guts and consistency over many years. But his form was not of the very top quality.

You can have great versatility, great consistency and great temperament/bravery, but to be a true "Great", you must perform to a great standard.

[Posts: 2032Joined: 06 Jun 2011, 14:34Location: Bury St Edmunds]

Greatness can only be measured in ability (how good a horse is).
Sea The Stars was a "Great" because he produced some performances of the highest standard. Absolutely nothing to do with winning the 2000 Guineas, which was a performance a long way below the standard of a "Great" racehorse. You can not have "greatness" reliant on the standards of rivals. Had there been a real top class miler in the field for the Guineas then Sea The Stars would not have won... And therefore in some people's eyes not been a "Great", despite his vastly improved efforts over middle-distances. So to disqualify a horse for not being "veratile" enough is ridiculous.

You can have "great versatility", but that does not make a "Great" racehorse. Camelot won't be a true "Great" even if he goes on to win the St Leger, unless improving his performance rating significantly. He won a poor Guineas. Had he been around in many other years that performance would not have been good enough to win a Guineas. To argue that winning a Guineas, Derby and St Leger automatically makes a horse "Great", when winning those three races depended on his rivals being a poor bunch... is crazy. Otherwise, you end up with a so called "Great" with vastly inferior form to just a "good" horse from another (more taxing) year.

One of my favourite horses was Persian Punch, he had great guts and consistency over many years. But his form was not of the very top quality.

You can have great versatility, great consistency and great temperament/bravery, but to be a true "Great", you must perform to a great standard.

The 2000 Guineas is very very rarely won with a "great" performance by your logic. It is often won by a horse making seasonal debut and hopefully by a horse that will improve as their classic season progresses.
Sea the Stars beat among others Rip Van Winkle in that race who achieved a higher rating at a mile as a 3yo than Sea the Stars. While not "great", RVW was a good enough miler to suggest that Sea the Stars was capable of very good form at that distance. As he only ran at the distance once in his classic year and won, it is a false claim to say that he definitely was not a great miler due to lack of evidence as much as it is to suggest Frankel is not a great 10f horse until he attempts the distance.

[Posts: 3432Joined: 06 Jul 2007, 11:38]

Two horses with the letter K spring to mind - both from different continents and different centuries.

Kinscem, for her 54 undefeated races across Europe and American horse Kelso, who was phenomenally successful over many seasons in America.


As far as European greatness is concerned, I will leave it to ex champion jockey, Joe Mercer, to sum it up :

when rating the greats of the turf he said :

At the very top there is Ribot and Sea Bird - and then Nijinsky... and just below them is my fella ( Brigadier Gerard ) and Mill Reef... then the rest.

[Posts: 12271Joined: 22 Dec 2007, 19:24]

Sea the Stars beat among others Rip Van Winkle in that race who achieved a higher rating at a mile as a 3yo than Sea the Stars. While not "great", RVW was a good enough miler to suggest that Sea the Stars was capable of very good form at that distance. As he only ran at the distance once in his classic year and won, it is a false claim to say that he definitely was not a great miler due to lack of evidence as much as it is to suggest Frankel is not a great 10f horse until he attempts the distance.

RVW and Mastercraftsman improved as the season went on EF. They were nowhere near their best at Newmarket. STS beat Delegator 1 1/2 lengths with Gan Amhras just 3/4 of a length further back. Those performances in the 2000 and Derby undoubtedly showed STS's potential to do even better; but they can not in themselves be rated as "Great". I am not saying STS was "definitely not" a "Great miler", it's "possible" he'd have gone on to be just that. What I am saying is he can not be rated as a great miler, because he did not prove it on the racecourse. There are many horses over the years that show "potential" to be great, but they can not be rated "great" unless proving it.
Am not knocking STS, one of my favourites.

STS was a "True Great" because of his ability (standard of form) shown at middle distances (after the Derby).

Frankel is a "True Great" because of his ability shown at a mile. Whether or not he goes on to be a great middle distance horse, his form at a mile already entitles him to be a "True Great".

Whether or not Black Caviar wins or runs to form in the Diamond Jubilee, she is a "True Great" because of brilliant sprint performances already produced. We are just lucky to see her race in Britain.