Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You know Commentator is being labeled in this
> string as not quite a Great Horse but a good
> horse. Didn't he beat Saint Liam in the Whitney
> who was a Great Horse. And Saint Liam was nosed
> out by Ghostzapper who was a Great Horse. 0

So if the Raiders beat the Broncos and the Broncos beat the Colts....this puts them on the same level as the Colts?? C'mon Charm...thats a terrible analogy.

> Invasor and Bernardini both just retired and they
> were Great Horses.

Based on what criteria?? Bernardini is great because why?? He finished 2nd in the BC Classic and never raced as a 4YO?? He won some nice races as a 3YO, but who did he beat?? Invasor....I'll accept him although I think he gets dusted by truly great horses.

With what Street Sense and Rag
> to Riches have accomplished this classifies them
> as Great Horses.

Please tell me you're kidding.

> What are we all doing sitting around lusting for
> the 70's all over again when there are dozens and
> dozens of Great Horses already in the New
> Century......

Charm, I hope your comments are in jest.

Horses must meet all criteria that Chuckles presented, not just one. Otherwise, the list of great horses will number 1000.

Great is the single most overused word in the English language. Running a big figure, or winning a GR 1 race does not make someone great. Sometimes its hard to quantify just what great is, but you know it when you see it. Maybe the current racing scene doesn't lend itself to horses proving themselves as in the past, but when its suggested that horses such as Street Sense/Bernardini/etc..are great......in the next breath I expect these same people to tell me that Papa John makes great pizza.

P-Dub