This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
On 21 November 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century. The result of the discussion was Moved to Blood-Horse magazine Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century. |
The article exists "as is" regardless if you disagree! The "100" rankings reflects what was determined by the sportswriters and historians at the time. As a published resource there is no room for debate under this specific topic (Blood-Horse Magazine's List) to adjust a name or position here and there. Can you disagree? Sure, but keep it to yourself as this isn't a pub to voice opinion.
It gets silly for all the Secretariat fans to waltz in and think it is of any value (or even humor) to slip in a change from 2nd to 1st. At the end of the day any changes made is considered vandalism and you may be subject to censure or banned from wikipedia. -- Kellsboro Jack ( talk) 13:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I have submitted to have the page protected to try and disuade the anonymous IP user to return to the discussion page. The user from the ISP Verizon Internet Services has consistently put Secretariat at the top of the list without explanation six times in the last four days. Unfortunately the request has been declined for now. imars ( talk) 19:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to leave the list as is as long as the quote stays up as is. I have worked in horse racing for over forty years. No sane human being could rank Secretariat 14th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.5.196 ( talk) 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I am returning content possibly posted by the IP user who is editing the list with the hopes of starting a discussion. imars ( talk) 19:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The ONLY reason Man O'War finished ahead of Secretariat is because one of the seven "experts" didn't even rank him in the top ten.
This is what panelist Bill Nack had to say about the ranking:
--There is some new information from author Bill Nack regarding the outcome of why Man'OWar was selected #1 in the The Blood-Horse poll. Mr. Nack was asked recently why Man'OWar was voted ahead of Secretariat for Horse of the Century, and Mr. Nack replied "I spent two days on the project. The final results were skewered when, I am told, one of the judges put Secretariat fourteenth on his top-100 list. I don't know who this particular voter was---individual voting has remained a secret on that panel---but it was an idiotic judgment that should have been dismissed out of hand. Had I known any voter would do such a thing, I'd have put Man o' War in fourteenth place just to counterbalance the loony. That would have leveled the playing field. Here was a horse who had broken three track records in all three Triple Crown races, including the controversial Preakness clocking, two of which records (Derby and Belmont) still stand today; whose 31-length Belmont Stakes victory, in which he earned a Beyer of 137, is by consensus regarded as the greatest performance by a racehorse in history; and yet here was a voter who concocted a list suggesting that Secretariat would have finished last, behind 13 horses, in a field made up of that voter's first 14 horses on the list. It warped the voting and thereby tainted the list."--
No informed racing fan takes this list seriously when somebody does something that dumb. You are NOT an "expert" if you discount Secretariat's rather overwhelming achievements.--Susan Nunes
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blood-Horse_magazine_List_of_the_Top_100_U.S._Racehorses_of_the_20th_Century"
The Bloodhorse panel member who placed Secretariat at No.14 holds no devilish responsibility for Secretariat not being placed at No 1 in the poll. He voted Citation No.1 and Man O' War (MOW) as No. 2. Had he awarded Secretariat the No. 3 position (instead of No. 14) MOW would still have accumulated a greater number of weighted winning votes and remained in the No. 1 position.
As for comments alleged to Mr. Nack, it is submitted that ethics should have persuaded that he recuse himself from the panel. The pecuniary royalties he has received from his acclaimed book about Secretariat creates a prima facie suspicion of impaired objectivity. The alleged statement that had he known of a panel member's vote which placed Secretariat at No. 14, he would have put MOW in 14th place, fosters a clear suspicion of his being in a seriously conflicted role as a self-anointed guardian. If such indeed be his view, why not simply have demanded the majority composition of panel members to be comprised of self-proclaimed Secretariat banner-carriers and be done with it.
Parenthetically: 100 (not just 7) journalists and others from within the American racing community participated in the Thoroughbred & Harness Racing Action 1988 "100 Greatest" poll, with MOW, Secretariat, Citation and Kelso finishing 1,2,3,4. In the tally, MOW finished comfortably ahead of Secretariat. However, among the vote results, MOW received 2 - 10th place votes; 2 - 15th place; 1 - 16th place. Secretariat received 1 - 10th place vote; 1 - 12th place; 1 - 16th place; 1 - 19th place. [User: Go For Wand Fan] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Go For Wand Fan ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm curious to know how Sports Illustrated's William Nack speaking to the New York Daily News (7th-highest circulation in the U.S.) fails Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy. 108.27.220.251 ( talk) 16:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting Wikipedia guidelines here, as there are numerous counterexamples on many Wikipages. Nonetheless, I have complied with your stated wishes, per the Associated Press and the managing editor of Blood-Horse magazine. 108.27.220.251 ( talk) 04:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The link to the text of the book makes it clear that the title of the book did not include the words U.S. It was "The Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century."
The fact that non U.S. horses were almost completely ignored is therefore more of a credibility problem than the current page title would suggest. Tigerboy1966 ( talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand this article is promoting a particular magazine and book published by the magazine, but some people may get the mistaken impression this listing is agreed on by horse-racing historians. The article includes some balance by including the quote by Nack and that's good. The wikipedia article on Secretariat includes this statement: "ESPN listed him 35th of the 100 greatest athletes of the 20th century, the highest of three non-humans on the list (the other two were also racehorses: Man o' War at 84th and Citation at 97th )." Most readers will readily see that ESPN regards Secretariat as the best horse of the 20th century, by a large margin. What do you think? RonCram ( talk) 15:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The list was titled "Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century", without the "US" qualification. Of course the real title makes the list look ridiculous and parochial (Davona Dale was a better horse than Brigadier Gerard, apparently), but I don't think we should be protecting the reputation of a magazine. Tigerboy1966 20:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I hated doing this, as its so obviously the core of the article, but we cannot have the complete list as compiled by a subjective set of criteria, as that list is itself protected by copyright. we can mention the #1 horse, and of course mention this rating in the articles on the horses, but cannot reproduce the whole list. i learned this the hard way from an article i wrote of a "100 best" which had to hve the list removed. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 18:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
To editors looking at the edit history of this article please note that due to copyright violations you will not be able to access most of that history. If there is something specific that you need to know you can request admin assistance. Sphilbrick has offered to help but other admins may be available as well. MarnetteD| Talk 20:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Although a great race horse, Phar Lap NEVER raced in the US!!!! He was scheduled to race but died in Mexico after winning a race there, before being shipped to the US! . Thus he was never even eligible for this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1300:427F:7876:BE93:3DD0:747F ( talk) 15:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Blood-Horse magazine Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century. Consensus on the alternative proposed title. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky ( talk) 03:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century → Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century – or Blood-Horse Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century or The Blood-Horse Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century or Thoroughbred Champions: Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century. Per prior comments on the article Talk page in 2011 and 2019, the name of this "Top 100" doesn't include "U.S." We should also remove any other words that aren't really part of the name of the list. The list was first published in the magazine (see here: "The Top 100 list first appeared as a special issue of The Blood-Horse magazine, in February of 1999" and this article that says the poll result was published as a list and even republished by others – and that even included Wikipedia for a while) but I have not found a clear name for the list itself. An expanded publication was published as a book named Thoroughbred Champions: Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century (e.g. ISBN 9781581500240 or ISBN 1-58150-024-6). The full name of the magazine appears to be The Blood-Horse (or to have been that historically, per the quote just above, although it is published by Blood-Horse LLC, without "The", and recent cover art seems to omit "The" and the hyphen as shown here, although those are still included in some text mentions such as at that link where it says "to renew your subscription to The Blood-Horse, without interruption, ...", although on the same page it says "ONE YEAR SUBSCRIPTION // TO BLOODHORSE MAGAZINE // TABLET AND ONLINE EDITION", without "The", without hyphen). — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 ( talk) 17:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Kiwiz1338 ( talk) 04:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
On 21 November 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century. The result of the discussion was Moved to Blood-Horse magazine Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century. |
The article exists "as is" regardless if you disagree! The "100" rankings reflects what was determined by the sportswriters and historians at the time. As a published resource there is no room for debate under this specific topic (Blood-Horse Magazine's List) to adjust a name or position here and there. Can you disagree? Sure, but keep it to yourself as this isn't a pub to voice opinion.
It gets silly for all the Secretariat fans to waltz in and think it is of any value (or even humor) to slip in a change from 2nd to 1st. At the end of the day any changes made is considered vandalism and you may be subject to censure or banned from wikipedia. -- Kellsboro Jack ( talk) 13:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I have submitted to have the page protected to try and disuade the anonymous IP user to return to the discussion page. The user from the ISP Verizon Internet Services has consistently put Secretariat at the top of the list without explanation six times in the last four days. Unfortunately the request has been declined for now. imars ( talk) 19:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to leave the list as is as long as the quote stays up as is. I have worked in horse racing for over forty years. No sane human being could rank Secretariat 14th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.5.196 ( talk) 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I am returning content possibly posted by the IP user who is editing the list with the hopes of starting a discussion. imars ( talk) 19:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The ONLY reason Man O'War finished ahead of Secretariat is because one of the seven "experts" didn't even rank him in the top ten.
This is what panelist Bill Nack had to say about the ranking:
--There is some new information from author Bill Nack regarding the outcome of why Man'OWar was selected #1 in the The Blood-Horse poll. Mr. Nack was asked recently why Man'OWar was voted ahead of Secretariat for Horse of the Century, and Mr. Nack replied "I spent two days on the project. The final results were skewered when, I am told, one of the judges put Secretariat fourteenth on his top-100 list. I don't know who this particular voter was---individual voting has remained a secret on that panel---but it was an idiotic judgment that should have been dismissed out of hand. Had I known any voter would do such a thing, I'd have put Man o' War in fourteenth place just to counterbalance the loony. That would have leveled the playing field. Here was a horse who had broken three track records in all three Triple Crown races, including the controversial Preakness clocking, two of which records (Derby and Belmont) still stand today; whose 31-length Belmont Stakes victory, in which he earned a Beyer of 137, is by consensus regarded as the greatest performance by a racehorse in history; and yet here was a voter who concocted a list suggesting that Secretariat would have finished last, behind 13 horses, in a field made up of that voter's first 14 horses on the list. It warped the voting and thereby tainted the list."--
No informed racing fan takes this list seriously when somebody does something that dumb. You are NOT an "expert" if you discount Secretariat's rather overwhelming achievements.--Susan Nunes
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blood-Horse_magazine_List_of_the_Top_100_U.S._Racehorses_of_the_20th_Century"
The Bloodhorse panel member who placed Secretariat at No.14 holds no devilish responsibility for Secretariat not being placed at No 1 in the poll. He voted Citation No.1 and Man O' War (MOW) as No. 2. Had he awarded Secretariat the No. 3 position (instead of No. 14) MOW would still have accumulated a greater number of weighted winning votes and remained in the No. 1 position.
As for comments alleged to Mr. Nack, it is submitted that ethics should have persuaded that he recuse himself from the panel. The pecuniary royalties he has received from his acclaimed book about Secretariat creates a prima facie suspicion of impaired objectivity. The alleged statement that had he known of a panel member's vote which placed Secretariat at No. 14, he would have put MOW in 14th place, fosters a clear suspicion of his being in a seriously conflicted role as a self-anointed guardian. If such indeed be his view, why not simply have demanded the majority composition of panel members to be comprised of self-proclaimed Secretariat banner-carriers and be done with it.
Parenthetically: 100 (not just 7) journalists and others from within the American racing community participated in the Thoroughbred & Harness Racing Action 1988 "100 Greatest" poll, with MOW, Secretariat, Citation and Kelso finishing 1,2,3,4. In the tally, MOW finished comfortably ahead of Secretariat. However, among the vote results, MOW received 2 - 10th place votes; 2 - 15th place; 1 - 16th place. Secretariat received 1 - 10th place vote; 1 - 12th place; 1 - 16th place; 1 - 19th place. [User: Go For Wand Fan] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Go For Wand Fan ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm curious to know how Sports Illustrated's William Nack speaking to the New York Daily News (7th-highest circulation in the U.S.) fails Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy. 108.27.220.251 ( talk) 16:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting Wikipedia guidelines here, as there are numerous counterexamples on many Wikipages. Nonetheless, I have complied with your stated wishes, per the Associated Press and the managing editor of Blood-Horse magazine. 108.27.220.251 ( talk) 04:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The link to the text of the book makes it clear that the title of the book did not include the words U.S. It was "The Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century."
The fact that non U.S. horses were almost completely ignored is therefore more of a credibility problem than the current page title would suggest. Tigerboy1966 ( talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand this article is promoting a particular magazine and book published by the magazine, but some people may get the mistaken impression this listing is agreed on by horse-racing historians. The article includes some balance by including the quote by Nack and that's good. The wikipedia article on Secretariat includes this statement: "ESPN listed him 35th of the 100 greatest athletes of the 20th century, the highest of three non-humans on the list (the other two were also racehorses: Man o' War at 84th and Citation at 97th )." Most readers will readily see that ESPN regards Secretariat as the best horse of the 20th century, by a large margin. What do you think? RonCram ( talk) 15:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The list was titled "Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century", without the "US" qualification. Of course the real title makes the list look ridiculous and parochial (Davona Dale was a better horse than Brigadier Gerard, apparently), but I don't think we should be protecting the reputation of a magazine. Tigerboy1966 20:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I hated doing this, as its so obviously the core of the article, but we cannot have the complete list as compiled by a subjective set of criteria, as that list is itself protected by copyright. we can mention the #1 horse, and of course mention this rating in the articles on the horses, but cannot reproduce the whole list. i learned this the hard way from an article i wrote of a "100 best" which had to hve the list removed. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 18:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
To editors looking at the edit history of this article please note that due to copyright violations you will not be able to access most of that history. If there is something specific that you need to know you can request admin assistance. Sphilbrick has offered to help but other admins may be available as well. MarnetteD| Talk 20:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Although a great race horse, Phar Lap NEVER raced in the US!!!! He was scheduled to race but died in Mexico after winning a race there, before being shipped to the US! . Thus he was never even eligible for this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1300:427F:7876:BE93:3DD0:747F ( talk) 15:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Blood-Horse magazine Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century. Consensus on the alternative proposed title. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky ( talk) 03:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century → Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century – or Blood-Horse Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century or The Blood-Horse Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century or Thoroughbred Champions: Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century. Per prior comments on the article Talk page in 2011 and 2019, the name of this "Top 100" doesn't include "U.S." We should also remove any other words that aren't really part of the name of the list. The list was first published in the magazine (see here: "The Top 100 list first appeared as a special issue of The Blood-Horse magazine, in February of 1999" and this article that says the poll result was published as a list and even republished by others – and that even included Wikipedia for a while) but I have not found a clear name for the list itself. An expanded publication was published as a book named Thoroughbred Champions: Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century (e.g. ISBN 9781581500240 or ISBN 1-58150-024-6). The full name of the magazine appears to be The Blood-Horse (or to have been that historically, per the quote just above, although it is published by Blood-Horse LLC, without "The", and recent cover art seems to omit "The" and the hyphen as shown here, although those are still included in some text mentions such as at that link where it says "to renew your subscription to The Blood-Horse, without interruption, ...", although on the same page it says "ONE YEAR SUBSCRIPTION // TO BLOODHORSE MAGAZINE // TABLET AND ONLINE EDITION", without "The", without hyphen). — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 ( talk) 17:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Kiwiz1338 ( talk) 04:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)