Using the most basic statistics, completely explained, the author selects the sixteen most likely candidates for the title: "greatest horse of the twentieth century." Fifty colts and fillies, listed mainly in a 1999 publication by The Blood-Horse, Inc., were compared using a three-part process. This process narrowed the top contenders to sixteen. The past performance data for these Thoroughbreds were obtained from the Daily Racing Form's 2000 publication Champions. Using results identical to those explained in the book, the author calculates that the best likely average time for Big Brown to run the upcoming Belmont is 147.54 seconds, or 2:27.54. One hundred simulations at 12 furlongs, based on Big Brown's current 2008 performance data and the past 36 years of Belmont winning times, indicate he has a 72-percent chance of winning the triple crown. The identical formulas used in the book on the past performance data for Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed, came within fractional seconds of predicting their Belmont/Triple Crown wins. Of course, as most Wall Street pundits will warn, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance And now, in retrospect, Big Brown sadly did not win. Had he run as he was capable, the predicted time stated above would have beaten the winner, Da'Tara, by 2.09 seconds Charles Justice June 5 and 9, 2008

The juvenile, or two-year-old, racing careers of Colin, Man o' War, Ruffian and Landaluce provide the foundation and focus for discussing the question of thoroughbred greatness and its measure. These four thoroughbreds were arguably the best juvenile runners of the twentieth century. Close on their hooves, pun intended, however, were the colts Sysonby and Secretariat and the fillies First Flight, La Prevoyante and Personal Ensign. The latter five runners are honorably mentioned and also compared in the book. As in The Greatest Horse of All: A Controversy Examined, basic statistics are used informally to provide readers a basis for their own studies in thoroughbred data comparison and evaluation. The author realizes that many people avoid mathematical ideas like the plague. Therefore, he has minimized statistical usage to its most common elements, and he explains these thoroughly for the uninitiated as the book progresses. Only two of the ten chapters use statistics to any degree. The text also includes seven figures and two tables to aid in understanding the statistical concepts. If one feels remotely comfortable with eight-grade mathematics concepts, one will have no problem with this material. Relative to the statistical comparisons, two novel concepts are discussed. These pertain to addressing the so-called era effect. Many racing fans continue to argue that horses from different eras cannot justly be compared. A strong case against this argument is presented from at least two standpoints. First, a device is described and suggested to scientifically test and compare the true relative speeds of two racing surfaces. Second, an inverse use of the well-known 't test' for comparing the differences between two or more data sets is presented. The text demonstrates how using this inverse test can equitably adjust earlier era data so that it may be fairly compared with later era data.

The juvenile, or two-year-old, racing careers of Colin, Man o' War, Ruffian and Landaluce provide the foundation and focus for discussing the question of thoroughbred greatness and its measure. These four thoroughbreds were arguably the best juvenile runners of the twentieth century. Close on their hooves, pun intended, however, were the colts Sysonby and Secretariat and the fillies First Flight, La Prevoyante and Personal Ensign. The latter five runners are honorably mentioned and also compared in the book. As in The Greatest Horse of All: A Controversy Examined, basic statistics are used informally to provide readers a basis for their own studies in thoroughbred data comparison and evaluation. The author realizes that many people avoid mathematical ideas like the plague. Therefore, he has minimized statistical usage to its most common elements, and he explains these thoroughly for the uninitiated as the book progresses. Only two of the ten chapters use statistics to any degree. The text also includes seven figures and two tables to aid in understanding the statistical concepts. If one feels remotely comfortable with eight-grade mathematics concepts, one will have no problem with this material. Relative to the statistical comparisons, two novel concepts are discussed. These pertain to addressing the so-called era effect. Many racing fans continue to argue that horses from different eras cannot justly be compared. A strong case against this argument is presented from at least two standpoints. First, a device is described and suggested to scientifically test and compare the true relative speeds of two racing surfaces. Second, an inverse use of the well-known 't test' for comparing the differences between two or more data sets is presented. The text demonstrates how using this inverse test can equitably adjust earlier era data so that it may be fairly compared with later era data.

Using the most basic statistics, completely explained, the author selects the sixteen most likely candidates for the title: "greatest horse of the twentieth century." Fifty colts and fillies, listed mainly in a 1999 publication by The Blood-Horse, Inc., were compared using a three-part process. This process narrowed the top contenders to sixteen. The past performance data for these Thoroughbreds were obtained from the Daily Racing Form's 2000 publication Champions. Using results identical to those explained in the book, the author calculates that the best likely average time for Big Brown to run the upcoming Belmont is 147.54 seconds, or 2:27.54. One hundred simulations at 12 furlongs, based on Big Brown's current 2008 performance data and the past 36 years of Belmont winning times, indicate he has a 72-percent chance of winning the triple crown. The identical formulas used in the book on the past performance data for Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed, came within fractional seconds of predicting their Belmont/Triple Crown wins. Of course, as most Wall Street pundits will warn, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance And now, in retrospect, Big Brown sadly did not win. Had he run as he was capable, the predicted time stated above would have beaten the winner, Da'Tara, by 2.09 seconds Charles Justice June 5 and 9, 2008