Name throwing

[Flighted Iron]

To All,

 It pains me to hear names of trainers thrown around loosely under the subject
of greatness.What really makes a trainer great? The ability to recognize talent
and management of the horse imo is the most important factor regarding thoroughbred racing. My bottom line: A trainers\' job is to condition the horse
and place it where it\'s competitive to WIN.If someone wants to know who are the
great trainers they need only to check the record book for victories and win
percentage.

[miff]

Iron,

Read the entire thread. It\'s NOT obvious to many who post here.Some actually think that some trainers have some magic ability that others do not(not talking drugs here)

Now your comments regarding checking the record books to ascertain who the great trainers are is not even close.A fair percentage of the \"record book\" great trainers of today are using illegal stuff which helps with their lofty win percentages.


Mike

[Lance]

\"If someone wants to know who are the great trainers they need only to check the record book for victories and win percentage.\"

So if we\'re applying this logic, would this make Scott Lake and Rick Dutrow  better trainers than Charlie Whittingham and Richard Mandella?

The latter two can\'t approach the win percentages of Lake and Dutrow.

[Flighted Iron]

Please tell me YOUR definition of a great trainer.

[Flighted Iron]

Would you agree we\'re talking about trainers and not the horses that have been
trained?

 Most of the sports I can think of there seems to be a pattern of establishing
who was great and so on and so forth.My gut is telling me it has to be along the
lines of a statistical nature.

  We count homers,hits,games won by pitchers,rbi,lifetime points scored,most rebounds,assists,yards passed,rushed and received,touchdowns passed,rushed and
received,etc...

  How are the coaches of all mainstream sports measured? Is it by WHO they coached
or by how many games the team won that they coached?

[Lance]

Interesting questions regarding how we measure greatness, and I appreciate the thought you put into them.

One thing to consider re. horse racing is that there\'s not just one playing field -- there are many. Whereas American baseball has the MLB, basketball has the NBA, and football has the NFL, thoroughbred horseracing has many \"leagues\" -- everything from Breeders Cup races to $2K claimers, Saratoga to Portland Meadows. Which means, it seems to me, that you have to consider both quality and quantity when defining greatness in this game, and that there\'s more to greatness than pure statistics.

Case in point: Russell Baze is the all-time-winningest jockey. But is he the greatest jockey of all time?

Dale Baird is the winningest trainer. Is HE the greatest?

For my money, the very best trainers are the ones who know how to squeeze the proverbial lemon in such a way that they consistently get their horses to peak when they want them to peak -- or in T-Graph parlance, run new tops or pair up -- in the biggest races in the world, when the pressure is intense and the prize enormous. I\'m talking about races like the KY Derby and the Arc.

Compare, for instance, Carl Nafzger\'s handling of Street Sense last year with Ken McPeek\'s handling of Harlan\'s Holiday in 2002. In Nafzger\'s case, he conditioned and managed his charge in such a way that the colt was ready for his best on the first Saturday of May. McPeek, on the other hand, brought an over-the-top hoss to Churchill, having already squeezed Harlan dry in the prep races. That, to me, is the difference between a good trainer and a great trainer.

But again, that\'s just my view, and I respect that others won\'t necessarily agree with me.

Good luck to you.

Lance

[fkach]

I like trainers that get high quality stock and slowly develop them into consistent high level champions without breaking down a bunch of them early in their careers, running them way past their peak, running them where they clearly don\'t belong etc.... When Shug was at his peak, IMO he was one notch below God in his developing and handling of horses.

For me, it\'s really tough to evaluate claiming trainers because I can\'t tell who is using what to turn horses around when they claim them. Other than for gambling purposes, the only thing I admire about some of the claiming trainers is the ability to spot horses properly. At least that\'s a skill I can try to measure. The rest is tougher to evaluate (at least for me).

[Flighted Iron]

It appears you believe winning big races as a trainer is the only entitlement
for anyone to utter greatness upon the essence?

[Flighted Iron]

Compare, for instance, Carl Nafzger\'s handling of Street Sense last year with Ken McPeek\'s handling of Harlan\'s Holiday in 2002. In Nafzger\'s case, he conditioned and managed his charge in such a way that the colt was ready for his best on the first Saturday of May. McPeek, on the other hand, brought an over-the-top hoss to Churchill, having already squeezed Harlan dry in the prep races. That, to me, is the difference between a good trainer and a great trainer.
 

    \"He conditioned and managed his charge in such a way that the colt was ready
for his best on the first Saturday of May\".

     I like removing \"on the first Saturday in May\".The essence of being a trainer.

[Flighted Iron]

You said \"by using what\". What are you inferring?

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Kinda a stretch to compare Street Sense to Harlan\'s Holiday isn\'t it?

Lance Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting questions regarding how we measure
> greatness, and I appreciate the thought you put
> into them.
>
> One thing to consider re. horse racing is that
> there\'s not just one playing field -- there are
> many. Whereas American baseball has the MLB,
> basketball has the NBA, and football has the NFL,
> thoroughbred horseracing has many \"leagues\" --
> everything from Breeders Cup races to $2K
> claimers, Saratoga to Portland Meadows. Which
> means, it seems to me, that you have to consider
> both quality and quantity when defining greatness
> in this game, and that there\'s more to greatness
> than pure statistics.
>
> Case in point: Russell Baze is the
> all-time-winningest jockey. But is he the greatest
> jockey of all time?
>
> Dale Baird is the winningest trainer. Is HE the
> greatest?
>
> For my money, the very best trainers are the ones
> who know how to squeeze the proverbial lemon in
> such a way that they consistently get their horses
> to peak when they want them to peak -- or in
> T-Graph parlance, run new tops or pair up -- in
> the biggest races in the world, when the pressure
> is intense and the prize enormous. I\'m talking
> about races like the KY Derby and the Arc.
>
> Compare, for instance, Carl Nafzger\'s handling of
> Street Sense last year with Ken McPeek\'s handling
> of Harlan\'s Holiday in 2002. In Nafzger\'s case, he
> conditioned and managed his charge in such a way
> that the colt was ready for his best on the first
> Saturday of May. McPeek, on the other hand,
> brought an over-the-top hoss to Churchill, having
> already squeezed Harlan dry in the prep races.
> That, to me, is the difference between a good
> trainer and a great trainer.
>
> But again, that\'s just my view, and I respect that
> others won\'t necessarily agree with me.
>
> Good luck to you.
>
> Lance

[Lance]

\"Kinda a stretch to compare Street Sense to Harlan\'s Holiday isn\'t it?\"

I think most of us would agree that Street Sense was the superior animal. I was simply talking about getting a horse to peak -- and McPeek definitely didn\'t get Harlan\'s Holiday to peak in the KY Derby; the T-Graph numbers show that he peaked prior to the run for the roses.

[Lance]

\"It appears you believe winning big races as a trainer is the only entitlement
for anyone to utter greatness upon the essence?\"

I believe that the cream tends to rise to the top in racing, just as it does in other sports. I\'m sure there are exceptions; for all I know, there might be a truly \"great\" trainer at Les Bois Park who\'s just never gotten his/her hands on serious horseflesh and who perhaps doesn\'t have the ambition or people skills to lure ultra-rich owners who can invest in grade A prospects.

But generally speaking, I think great trainers win great races.

Again, just my opinion.

[Badride]

There are probably a handful of guys at each major who really make a difference.   The rest is decided when the vet pulls up.   The majority of these guys are interchangable, very few really have a clue.

[miff]

\"But generally speaking, I think great trainers win great races\"


.....there are no great trainers, only great horses that make them look that way.




Mike