Thoughts on the Decline of the Modern Thoroughbred 

The demise of the Thoroughbred is just around the corner.  At least that's the claim of those who argue that owners, breeders and trainers are systematically destroying the very base upon which great racehorses are built.  According to the critics, today's Thoroughbred has been selected mainly for speed at the expense of conformation, resulting in a more fragile animal less capable of withstanding the rigors of training and racing while, at the same time, less effective at classic distances.  Presumably the owners, in the quest for quick returns on their investment, prefer speedy, precocious types likely to make an impact early and enhance their value in the shortest amount of time.  The breeders, responding to the demands of their customers, the owners, gravitate towards breeding stock most likely to achieve those goals.  The trainers, wishing to please their clients, push the horses beyond their physical limitations without establishing the proper foundation.  Many critics suggest that a combination of short-term commercial interests, a failure to uphold the traditions of classic racing and inferior training methods is responsible for the perceived decline.

On the other hand, there are those who refute the critics and claim that the Thoroughbred of today is as good or better than he ever was.  They remind us that every generation has used the same arguments when comparing the "good old days" of racing to the present.  To an extent they are correct.  Many references to excessive speed in the Thoroughbred are a century or more old.  Presumably, breakdowns have continually been a problem, and since the beginning of commerce, someone has always schemed to make a quick buck.

Both sides have their points, but since there is no objective measure available, an assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of contemporary Thoroughbreds is a subjective exercise.  Nevertheless, we can use the collective judgment of experts at least to appreciate how a few acknowledged authorities feel about the matter.  And we can do it without biasing the answer because we don't have to ask them the direct question: "Is the Thoroughbred of today as good as the Thoroughbred of the past?"  Rather, we do it by analyzing the results of a poll identifying the greatest racehorses of the 20^th century.

In late 1998, The Blood-Horse magazine asked seven well-known racing figures to judge the best Thoroughbreds of the 20^th century based on their performances in North America.  There were no nominees to choose from and no preconditions for selection.  One hundred and ninety two horses received at least one vote, from which were identified the top 100.

The seven experts included :

Howard Battle: Keeneland racing secretary
Lenny Hale: Vice president, Maryland Jockey Club
Jay Hovdey: Executive columnist with Daily Racing Form
Bill Nack: Senior writer, Sports Illustrated
Pete Pedersen: Senior steward in the state of California
Jennie Rees: Racing writer and columnist, the Louisville Courier-Journal
Tommy Trotter: Steward at Gulfstream Park (on leave)

The following table displays the results of the poll, listing the selected horses by rank, along with their year of birth, sex, sire, dam and owner.