Which race horses are better, american or non american,?

Question

i mean how would secretariat do againsts non americas best? who was non americas best? would secretariat have won the melbourne cup or wateva

Answer 1

The question is really kind of pointless, like comparing apples to oranges.

The different styles are too many and too varied to really be able to answer the question as it is asked.

Answer 2

It depends on who you get to answer this question.  Everyone thinks that their own horses are the best.  And ordinary people rarely know anything at all about racing in other countries.  Even among us... we're horse enthusiasts and whenever there is a question about 'who is your favorite horse' or 'who was the greatest horse ever,' I have yet to see ANYONE list a horse from another country as the best.  And at the risk of being reprimanded for saying this, you'll notice that Newmarketsalsa is from the UK and lists one of her horses as the best.  [Before I get yelled at, I will state that I know that she didn't make the list and it was supposed to be an objective list and stuff...  I find it interesting that that international list made by experts doesn't conform to the Americans' list of top 20th century horses...  I mean the American experts rating their horses decided that Man O War was the best, but the international experts left him out of the top 10.  And the Americans thought that Spectacular Bid was 10th of their horses in the century while the internationals ranked him higher while leaving out 7 horses the Americans thought were better than Spectacular Bid.]  I'm not saying that I'm above the bias... I'm certainly not.

I think it completely depends on what you want the horse for.  American and International racing is so substantially different.  If you're looking for a horse to run over a long turf course with lots of broad sweeping turns and hills and things, then you'll certainly find that international horses are better.  If you're looking for a horse to run around a left handed oval with sharper turns on dirt, then almost certainly, the Americans will win.  There's some question regarding who would be the best on a left handed oval with sharper turns over the turf... international horses generally do not deal with sharper turns very well but they do very well over the turf.  And it depends on the turf's surface... It rains a lot in England and not so much in California... CA turf courses are harder than those in England... a CA horse probably won't like softer grass and UK horses may not like the harder grass.  Everyone was nearly certain that Dylan Thomas was gonna win the BC Turf... news reports said that he was the best, easiest, most for sure horse to bet on in the entire BC... but he didn't even make very much of a factor in the race.  And when he lost, everyone blamed the course whereas when Curlin won the Classic, no one mentioned the course... Curlin was just the best horse and the others weren't afforded the excuse.  So the english horse is still said to be the best over the turf, ignoring the idea that English Channel could actually have been the best.

The thing I find to be difficult about this question is that it's extremely hard to compare.  You'll find us arguing constantly about which American horse was better than another and those questions are extremely hard because it's very difficult to compare across the years.  Your question asks us to compare horses across the years and surfaces.  How can we really decide who would have won between the greatest international turf horse and Secretariat.  To make it objective we'd probably have to straighten out the race, but should we run it on dirt or turf?  maybe turf since Secretariat won over both surfaces... but would that give an advantage to an international horse?  Despite the fact that Secretariat is number two on that list, lets remember that he holds the world record for a mile and a half.

aside from the surfaces, we also have to worry about distances.  whenever I watch an international race, I'm always surprised by how slow the horses are going... it looks like a fast canter rather than a gallop... they pace themselves differently.  Americans like to see faster sprinting speeds.  Jockeys appreciate the extreme differences between the styles of racing... they have to completely alter their style of riding depending on where they are.

So I don't think you're ever going to find a truly objective answer to this question.  Non-Americans aren't going to give American horses enough credit and Americans aren't going to give international horses enough credit.  Your question is kinda for the international community...  by asking how Secretariat would do against international horses, since Americans know very little about international racing, you're necessarily asking non-americans because they're the only ones who know about other horses.  As such most of your answers (the ones that attempt to do any comparison at all) will probably say that international horses are better.

My personal opinion is that you could put whoever you wanted against Secretariat in the Belmont... he could have raced 200 horses... nothing would have mattered... Secretariat was going to win that race.

I knew Newmarketsalsa would comment on my mentioning the list... I said I knew it was by experts, not her... and I pointed out the the problems of making such a list and the inconsistencies with the American list compiled by the Blood-Horse.

The statements on Dylan Thomas confirm my statements... they think he's still the best, just lost for the turf being wet.  They still think he'd beat English Channel on any other day.  Whereas when Curlin won over the slop everyone says he was the best despite the fact that Lawyer Ron, Any Given Saturday, and Street Sense were all clearly affected by the slop.

Yes, we know that dirt and turf times are different... I pointed that out myself... at length.  Secretariat could and did run on anything.  That doesn't mean that we can compare the American and international horses.  But it still means that no horse from anywhere at any time has ever come close to Secretariat over a mile and a half on the dirt.

Well I don't mean that Dylan Thomas isn't great...    I'm just trying to point out that when it comes to turf, the presumption is that the international horses are better.  Dylan Thomas comes in with the presumption that he's the greatest horse over the turf and that it'll be an easy win for him.  He didn't win, but he leaves and everyone still says he's the best turf horse.  Had it been an international dirt horse who came in to race in the Classic and everyone thought he was great, the presumption would have been for the American horses because of the dirt... see what I mean?  Like say instead of coming for the Classic last year, Invasor came for the classic this year...  say he wasn't really proven against American horses yet... he'd won the Uruguayan Crown and he'd won some races in the US and he raced in Dubai, but was racing in the BC Classic for the first time... then say Curlin won... we would assume that Curlin really was the best horse...  we wouldn't make excuses for Invasor... we'd just say that Invasor was a great international horse, but couldn't stand up to the American horses.  But when Dylan Thomas comes over to race in the Turf, he has the presumption that he will win, then when he doesn't, we still presume that he's the best but was beaten by the soft turf.  And it's all because we like to see horses run over a dirt oval while you like to see horses run around a grass course.  The presumption is that since we focus on the dirt, our dirt horses are better... and since you focus on the grass, your grass horses are better.  

Personally I was thrilled when English Channel won... he's a wonderful horse... if you didn't see his BC prep, you should look it up and watch how he squeezed through when there wasn't really a gap... he brushes the rail and as soon as there's any bit of daylight, he pushes through and wins by over 2 lengths.  I feel about the Turf, the same way I felt about all of the BC card... I wish we had seen a race over fast dirt and firm turf so we could really see who was the best horse rather than just seeing which horse could handle the slop/soft turf.  Maybe Dylan Thomas would have won or maybe English Channel... either way I wish we knew for sure which horse was better.

Answer 3

Racing started in England, and I'm sorry to telll you that the best racehorses have nearly always raced in Europe.  Have you heard of Eclipse, Hyperion, Arkle, Brigadier Gerard,  Ribot, Sea Bird, Mill Reef, Grundy, Bustino, Dancing Brave, Montjeu?  If not, I suggest you look them up!

I very much doubt Secretariat would have won the Melbourne Cup - it is run over 2 miles and he never attempted anything near that distance, though I don't deny he was a very good horse.

The problem with trying to compare American racing to racing in the rest of the wrold is that you run the vast majority of your races on dirt, and everyone else mainly uses turf.  The form does not always transfer - look at how bad Cigar ran on turf before switching to dirt.  Also, these days American horses are permitted to run on what are essentially drugs - no other racing nation in the world allows this and until the US falls into line with everyone else it will be hard to compare form.

In 2000 a group of experts got together and compared all the racehorses to have run across the world in the 20th century, this was their top ten:

1. Sea Bird

2. Secretariat

3. Ribot

4. Brigadier Gerard

5. Citation

6. Hyperion

7. Tudor Minstrel

8. Mill Reef

9. Spectacular Bid

10. Bayardo

Update - I'd like to agree with the next answerer: this really is an objective question and people will always favour their own country's horses.  This is why I used the above list, which was compiled by experts, and not my own opinion.

On the subject of Dylan Thomas, the problem was not the course but the condition of it - Dylan Thomas does not run well on soft ground, as we say "he likes to hear his hooves rattle", and you did not see his true capabilities.  On the day the best horse won, but if you matched the two horses again on a faster surface it would probably be a different outcome.

I'd also point out that Secretariat holds the World Record for a mile and a half on dirt, and a run on turf is not comparable.

I'm not trying to be argumentative!  I actually think Dylan Thomas is the second best turf horse in the world in 2007 - the best being Maduro, who unfortunately suffered a career ending injury before the Arc.  This is not just my opinion - check the World Thoroughbred Rankings: http://www.horseracingintfed.com/resourc...

The best horse won on the day, but remember Shahrastani beat Dancing Brave in the Epsom Derby, but that does not mean he is the better horse!