nobbyiscool
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 11, 2006
- 21,406
- 23,797
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
You've missed my point.
Weekend Hussler won 7 G1s. Very good horse, but doesn't seem renowned a 'champion' (at least from the knowledgable racing people that I know).
Mic Mac won 7 of his first 8, of which all but the first were in the city. Was unbeatable for a couple of months there - but despite a very good 3yo season (maybe even 4yo? memory is failing...), he's certainly not a champion.
Pierro must've won 4 G1s, had a winning record of 11/14 I think? Will be considered a very good horse, but not a champion. Along with the 2 horses above him.
With that said, MM wasn't a great example - should've gone with a Hot Danish type from around the same era.
edit: with all that said, I re-read and realised my bias was clear. Group 1s are not equal. Some are better than others, whether it's because of money, because of history, because of where they are... One thing that shouldn't be a consideration is distance.
And yet nearly all of our best G1 races are middle distance horses.
I wonder how many Australian horses over the last 20 years we'd consider great? And I wonder how many of them were sprinters?
Not many I don't think because aside from the Newmarket, there aren't great G1 races for sprinters to win (I wonder whether the average punter had even heard of a lot of the races, including G1s, that Black Caviar won). To be a "champion" in this country, I think you need to win Cox Plates, Doncasters, Epsoms, Caulfield Cups, Vic Derbies etc.
Contrast this with the Golden Slipper which, as a G1 race, is a worldwide abomination.
Perhaps this is the real reason that don't rate Pierro (or maybe under rate him) - he just didn't win the really great G1s.
Weekend Hussler won 7 G1s. Very good horse, but doesn't seem renowned a 'champion' (at least from the knowledgable racing people that I know).
Mic Mac won 7 of his first 8, of which all but the first were in the city. Was unbeatable for a couple of months there - but despite a very good 3yo season (maybe even 4yo? memory is failing...), he's certainly not a champion.
Pierro must've won 4 G1s, had a winning record of 11/14 I think? Will be considered a very good horse, but not a champion. Along with the 2 horses above him.
With that said, MM wasn't a great example - should've gone with a Hot Danish type from around the same era.
edit: with all that said, I re-read and realised my bias was clear. Group 1s are not equal. Some are better than others, whether it's because of money, because of history, because of where they are... One thing that shouldn't be a consideration is distance.
And yet nearly all of our best G1 races are middle distance horses.
I wonder how many Australian horses over the last 20 years we'd consider great? And I wonder how many of them were sprinters?
Not many I don't think because aside from the Newmarket, there aren't great G1 races for sprinters to win (I wonder whether the average punter had even heard of a lot of the races, including G1s, that Black Caviar won). To be a "champion" in this country, I think you need to win Cox Plates, Doncasters, Epsoms, Caulfield Cups, Vic Derbies etc.
Contrast this with the Golden Slipper which, as a G1 race, is a worldwide abomination.
Perhaps this is the real reason that don't rate Pierro (or maybe under rate him) - he just didn't win the really great G1s.