When does a horse have "nothing more to prove"?

[Insane Crazy]

We see this bandied around a lot, sometimes by owners who retire stud prospects early, and sometimes by snarky posters who see something else behind another reason for retirement. But I have always wondered...is there a point where saying a horse has nothing more to prove is relatively correct?

Of course, there is always "something" - they could try four furlongs, or two miles, or hurdles! - but I guess being reasonable about what a top-class performer would have to do to truly earn that title within their range.

I'd say a horse like Cigar earned that title. Traveled and won and never really turned down a challenge.

Without sparking a fight, Big Z did go to the biggest dance two years in a row, and her showings in the Classics earned her a huge amount of respect.

Goldikova is another. In her element, her connections have always gone up to fight.

Or are those not enough? Would you want to see a horse try and succeed on all surfaces before getting close enough?

[GinTalking]

I don't think it's necessary for a horse to succeed on all surfaces and actually, I don't think it's all that necessary to only "succeed" either. Losses don't bother me as long as the horse has been challenged more than a time or two.

I respect a lot of horses who lost races. I'd rather see a Safely Kept and Xtra Heat in the B.C. Sprint than having the option to run in a F&M Sprint, but I wouldn't be interested in seeing either one in the Classic or Turf.

[jenn52318]

I think when they have nothing left to prove means that they have raced over a few seasons and have done well, maybe some not so great races, but if you are going to race 8+ races a year I would expect a few here and there to not be up to par or they just run into a horse that runs a monster race. If you take 2 horses that are running in G1 races and one has a record of 5-5-0-0 and another 20-11-5-2 (or something like that) I would say the one with 20 races has less to prove than the the one that has raced 5 times, even if those 5 races were all blow outs.

[The Tin Man]

Running into at least being a horse or a mare, as opposed to a colt or a filly, would be a nice starting point on deciding whether a horse has anything more to prove for me.

If a horse retires really young, how the heck am I to know what they may have accomplished had they continued running. To me, unless a horse has a full career(And especially if they retire at their peak), they still have something to prove to me.

Give me a complete career that I can judge as a full body of work.

There are a lot of horses who peak at 3 and then go swiftly downhill. Prove to me that you can maintain excellence over a long period of time and then you'll have nothing more to prove.

[Horse's Rear]

I think when you set aside the always-enjoyable game of sounding jaded and cynical, it comes down to whether or not the animal has had the opportunity to exhibit his best performance and confirm, to the degree that he can, his full potential.

If you have reason to believe that a horse has ability that he has not yet been able to realize, for whatever reason, then it makes sense to continue on and give him an opportunity to demonstrate that potential. When he has already done that and/or is unlikely in the future to do that, then he has "nothing more to prove."

The racetrack is a place to prove potential; it makes no sense to continue on with a horse trying to get him to do something he never showed potential to do.

[RSA]

They have nothing prove from the moment they are born.

[Miss Woodford]

A horse ALWAYS has more to prove. When someone says that regarding an animal they're retiring to stud, the saying means something different -- it simply means they've proved to have value as a breeding animal. Honestly, I don't think that doesn't usually mean as much as those saying it thinks it does.

There are interesting occasions, though, where a horse is at the height of its value as a breeding animal, and nothing more can be added to its race record to make it any more valuable. Blind Luck is such an animal, and she's been at the height of her value for quite awhile -- since mid-year last year. She'd proven her quality as a racehorse at that point, and that combined with her pedigree and conformation would make her worth a certain sum as a broodmare prospect that really isn't going to change. They've been running for all that purse income as she'll bring her broodmare price whether she retired last year or this year or next.

I think it's easier to achieve ultimate breeding value as a broodmare prospect than a stallion prospect. With the numbers that a stallion can breed, a $10,000 or $20,000 bump in stud fee can make a significant difference in the animal's value.

I say all this in the context of the animal being valuable enough for someone to make the "nothing more to prove" statement. No one says that about a horse whose breeding value is and never will be much.

I've heard "nothing left to prove" applied to Kauto Star.

[bare it all]

I don't think at any point a horse doesn't have anything left to prove unless they've won off by open lengths on all surfaces, turf, dirt, poly, wet, mud, firm, soft etc. There's always something else more incredible they could do. The only horse that sort of left me with an ok feeling of "nothing left to prove" was Curlin. He did it all. He didn't win them all, but his retirement never felt premature.

[Horse's Rear]

The only horse that sort of left me with an ok feeling of "nothing left to prove" was Curlin. He did it all. He didn't win them all, but his retirement never felt premature.

I could see "nothing left to prove on dirt." He was winless on grass and synthetic. On dirt, however, he won on dry and off surfaces, against older horses, and conceding weight. I don't think he was going to improve, and I don't think anyone was looking forward to more racing from him.

[Heavenly Sunshine]

to me after Goldikova won that third breeders cup she became the definition of "nothing left to prove" and what do her owners do... decide to bring her back for number 4. We need more connections like that.

[Miss Woodford]

Round Table, Dr. Fager, Kelso, John Henry, Exceller, Cougar II, Ack Ack, and Parole.

[Slewbopper]

I would always want to see a horse continue racing until it is past its prime. Cigar, Curlie, and Rachel come to mind. And in the end they were retired at the right time. They lost their last race, but that is okay.

[sweet_tea]

I thought Rachel had nothing left to prove after her 3 year old year. Sure, she didn't run in the BC or World Cup and many other things. But IMO, she did enough and had nothing left to prove.

Then they brought her back as a 4 year old and she didn't do nearly as well as far as winning. If she retired after her 3 year old year, she would retired at the very top of her game.

[Insane Crazy]

I would always want to see a horse continue racing until it is past its prime. Cigar, Curlie, and Rachel come to mind. And in the end they were retired at the right time. They lost their last race, but that is okay.

And Cigar's last loss was a stellar one. Would've loved to see him pull the first Classic double, but like in Big Z's narrow loss to Blame, the stretch run made it a spectacular race and he tried his heart out.

[Cigar]

By today's wussy standard, they have nothing left to prove if they win a G1 once in their career.

[Somnambulist]

For me, when there aren't any questions left to answer or the horse is obviously racing past it's peak.

Currently I'd say Gio Ponti doesn't really have anything left to prove, nor does BL. I felt satisfied at the end of Azeri's career. It just felt like a fun ride that you didn't to end, but knew it was time.

[Insane Crazy]

For me, when there aren't any questions left to answer or the horse is obviously racing past it's peak.

Currently I'd say Gio Ponti doesn't really have anything left to prove, nor does BL. I felt satisfied at the end of Azeri's career. It just felt like a fun ride that you didn't to end, but knew it was time.

Blind Luck has the boys. I think except in a very few cases, I like to see top fillies/mares face boys before feeling totally satisfied with the closing of their career. Usually when a filly is shining among her own, there is another class up she can try in the males, and it's always something I like to see. Especially with Rags, Rachel, Big Z...not to mention Goldikova, Igugu, I'd even round up Makybe Diva, setting a precedent for it in the last handful of years.

[sweettalk]

a] travel and win in high end races
b] more than one surface
c] beat older horses (if 3)
d] beat males (if female, unless the females are tougher than males, which has been the case lately)

all preferabbly in g1 or at least g2 races, with most starts resulting in 1st or 2nd place finishes.

[Peppermint Lady]

They have nothing prove from the moment they are born.

GREAT!!! AGREE

[BARNFOUR]

When it wins a Triple Crown.....

or retires undefeated.......

or when I've made a wager where the horse was involved and I cashed for more than $500......

******Any of the above and said horse has nothing more to prove******