P-Dub;

By "argument" I meant only that the rivalry evoked - and continues to evoke - passionate barroom arguments that are both unsolvable and everlasting. And the 1989 TC campaign does not bring back "painful memories" ... watching EG put SS away at the top of the stretch and draw off to win by 8 is a very pleasant memory, thank you. The point of the post was that the four races were compelling precisely because the two horses were both so good and special, AND, because of the various circumstances under which the races were run. Sorry if you could not savvy that. I'll try to be clearer in the future.

So, it's not fair that EG won at Belmont with its wide-sweeping turns and an outside bias? But is is fair if SS wins over (very slow) CD slop that EG clearly detested, or, by a nose over the rail/speed-biased Pimlico strip while Pat Day rode the most boneheaded race of his entire career? You say EG had it "his way" in the Belmont. OK. I suggest that the circumstances above are tantamount to SS having it "his way" at CD and Pim. Where does that leave us?

I could not find the "mile-and-a-half-horse" quote in NY Times archives. Could have been in the Form, or in the News or the Post ... or, perhaps my recall is faulty.

I will grant you that the BC at Gulfstream was - effectively - the rubber match, and that SS won that one handily (over a speed-favoring surface with a brilliant ride by McCarron). I will also grant you that SS was the handier, more flexible and adaptive horse, and that it is logical to assert that this makes him a "better" racehorse than EG. But - and this is the basis of the "argument" - you will never be able to convince me that SS on his best day, was faster than EG on his best day. And I know I will never be able to convince you of the reverse. Which is why exchanges like this will go on as long as there remains people who were lucky enough to be racing fans in 1989.

Cheers!

Bob