- This topic has 48 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Harbinger, (performance-wise but not consistency-wise) today deserves to be rated a "great".
Timeform have been at pains to point out they have never termed Harbinger "great", Ginge.
Are you going against
party line
on this one?
It was a great
performance
Cav. I believe you’ll find: Any performance woth a rating of 140 or more is a "Great" performance according to Timeform.
So no, I am not going against the party line.
Is Harbinger a "Great"?
Depends what you take in to account.It is possible his form will be rated down by the end of the season, in witch case he won’t be a "Great".
Value Is EverythingThe term great in my mind has to take a horses achievements into account, rightly or wrongly.
Stoute’s comments, as attributed in today’s RP, are, I think, just about the best summing up of the situation regarding Harbinger’s claims to greatness, and who in the world would know better than the great trainer himself.
"The Hardwicke gave you a peek of what he could be and he confirmed it in the King George. If he could have remained at that plateau then we could have had a world champion on our hands."
- Total Posts 17716
He could of been a great but unfortunately winning just one group one, no matter how impressively, does not make a horse an all time great. If it does then some people are very easily impressed..
His performance in The King George was brilliant but he did nothing special as a two year old, and did basically nothing as a three year old, excuses maybe but his only successfull term was as a four year old. Obviously horses can peak at different times but a horse who won his maiden at three and then flopped when asked serious questions later that year hardly goes down as a true great.
An all time great for me anyway is a horse who proves it at all levels, 2,and 3, and then also 4 if staying in training. And might I add at varrying distances too.
I will remember the performance as being great not the horse..
- Total Posts 17716
I was at Ascot on the day when Harbinger won the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes, and whilst it was undoubtedly a very impressive performance, I didn’t leave the course feeling that I had just seen an all-time great.
For me, a great horse is one that proves himself / herself consistently over all types of courses, distances and states of going, and of all the horses that I have seen over the last 40 years or so (on the flat at any rate), the one who epitomised that was the magnificent Brigadier Gerard.
I could not rate Harbinger anywhere close to the wonderful Brigadier !
Very well said.
True greats need to prove it. Harbinger did not, an injury stood in his way, those who consider him a true great I dare say are basing that on what he could of been rather than what he actually did.
Sea The Stars, Goldikova – these are modern time greats. Harbinger should not be mentioned in the same breath..
Agree with the sentiments in this thread.
His performance in the King George was fantastic, yet he would need to have had many races like those under his belt, before his injury, to have been classed as an ‘all time great’.
It’s a shame that injury has stopped us from potentially seeing what else Harbinger could have achieved, he will be remembered for his performance at Ascot most recently, and rightly so, but not as an all time great.
- Total Posts 17716
I think the problem is sometimes we are all guilty of getting ahead of ourselves.
There were some who thought St Nicholas Abbey could be the next great, some who thought Workforce also.
And all after one visually impressive performance…
He could of been a true great, he had all the signs, but we will never know.
.
I’m always slightly amazed at what people think needs doing to establish a horse worthy of "great" status. Many horses greatness status is based on one win over-riding anything else.
Those that believe a horse has to win multiple Group 1’s to be a "True Geat", must also believe it’s possible for a "True Great" (multiple winner) to be beaten fair and square by a horse who is not a "True Great" (one or two Group 1’s). i.e. For the "TRUE GREAT" NOT TO BE THE BEST HORSE.
That makes no sense to me.
A true great should surely be the horse capable of the BEST form. What’s the point of having a true great with inferior ability?Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
There were some who thought St Nicholas Abbey could be the next great, some who thought Workforce also.
Oh I didn’t realise these horses were finished, I expect to see Workforce and St Nicholas Abbey running in a 0-100 handicap soon then.
Thanks for the heads up
GT – haven’t a lot of the ‘true greats’ been beaten at one time or another by a horse of lesser ability. So, I’d contend, it’s perfectly possible for true greats to be beaten by horses who are their inferiors without detracting from their ‘truly great’ status in any way.
Dancing Brave by Shahrastani
Nijinsky by Lorenzaccio
Mill Reef by My Swallow
The Brigadier by Roberto
Sea The Stars by Driving SnowGT – haven’t a lot of the ‘true greats’ been beaten at one time or another by a horse of lesser ability. So, I’d contend, it’s perfectly possible for true greats to be beaten by horses who are their inferiors without detracting from their ‘truly great’ status in any way.
Dancing Brave by Shahrastani
Nijinsky by Lorenzaccio
Mill Reef by My Swallow
The Brigadier by Roberto
Sea The Stars by Driving SnowAnd not forgetting –
Sea Bird II by Grey Dawn
- Total Posts 17716
Why does no one ever talk about Bayardo?
Would there be anyone who knew someone that saw him run?
Ok If Workforce was retired after the Derby without running again would he be a true great?
Afterall he did win his classic in a record breaking time?
Harbinger is not a racing great, his performance was breathtaking but I would want to see that at least 2 or 3 times again before considered a true great.. Injury stood in his way but that doesnt give him an automatic pass to presume he would of done this 2 or 3 times again…
Just unlucky he could not prove himself again one way or the other..
"Gingertipster" wrote: Those that believe a horse has to win multiple Group 1’s to be a "True Geat", must also believe it’s possible for a "True Great" (multiple winner) to be beaten fair and square by a horse who is not a "True Great" (one or two Group 1’s). i.e. For the "TRUE GREAT" NOT TO BE THE BEST HORSE.
That makes no sense to me.
A true great should surely be the horse capable of the BEST form. What’s the point of having a true great with inferior ability?Ah Ginger, that makes no sense. Because a true great is a horse who is the best around at his/her time, the superior animal.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.