Horses can't just stay in their area and compete and then be put on a world level. It's almost the same thing here in the U.S. Horses that compete in California only aren't given the same respect as horses that travel and compete against the best in the nation. The purses are great here in Cal, the jockey colony is nice, the races are big races. But to a lot of the rest of the country, the horses are still seen as "nice horse in California but what will happen when they cross the Mississippi?" Same thing with the Hong Kong horses. I'm not saying at all that they are bad horses or that the racing is bad. But until they start proving on a consistent basis that they can leave their friendly confines and beat the best in a the world on a regular basis, I still think of them as provincial champions. The very best ones, I know that they can compete on a world level. But there just aren't that many of them yet. It also seems to me that when they have their few races that attract the best international horses, the international horses come in and win more than the local ones. Sort of like how the Europeans come here and consistently kick our butts in the BC grass races. Sure, we sprinkle in some wins here and there but I don't think anyone would argue that when it comes to grass racing, we lag behind them. Same concept with regards to HK horses on the world stage.

What would be your criteria then? That's the point here.

Do you understand that there are less horses in HK than in Pletcher and Assmussens barns? Why would they leave? So that King Glorious can say they are legit? It is like saying that the Spurs are not legit because they only won the NBA title and didnt have to face the Euro league teams because the US isnt tops in basketball anymore since we regularly lose international tourneys. They have been very sucessful when they do venture elsewhere and regualrly win the majority of the International races in December. Your argument is basically just "I dont never see them run so they must not be any good". Many of the Euros that come here and kick our butt on the turf go there and get their butt kicked. Doesnt that count? Or should American horses not get credit for winning BC races because they are held here?

If the question is what would make them legit to me, then yes, I want to see more on the international stage and not only on races in Hong Kong against horses that come to face them. You say they have been "very successful" when they do venture out and I just don't see that as the case. I see only a handful of wins and the majority of those came in Japan. I don't think it's true that they win the majority of the international races in December either. Give me facts and not opinions.

when you started this thread, you asked for opinions.

you brought up cali horses above, what about native diver?

I asked for people to give them opinions on what their criteria would be to make the hall of fame.

What about Native Diver? I don't understand the question. If you are asking me was he a good horse, of course. If you are asking me would he make my hall of fame, I'd have to look and see if he meets my criteria.

It seems as though you are the one that is basing everything on opinion. You only see a handful of wins because they only make a handful of starts. A big part of having an owners license in HK is that you are part of an exclusive club that supports HK racing, not international racing. You need to get permission from the HKJC just to leave the country to race abroad. You may not like the exclusitivity but that doesn't make the top horses there any less talented. The few times that they have ventured, they have been very sucessful. They have defeated runners from supposedly superior counties in their own races. Believing that the racing there is not on par with other top class racing throughout the world is either arrogance or foolishness.

i was under the impression that you felt a cali horse should get no consideration if he raced only on the west coast. it's my belief that the legendary native diver would be out of the hall, based on your qualifications.

i think it would be nearly impossible to make a hard and fast set of rules of what the requirements for inclusion should be. maybe a good horse is like porn, you'll know it when you see it...

I've clearly said that I know that their top horses can compete with the best in the world. In 2006, the best horse from Uraguay was the best horse in the world. Does that mean that Uraguayan racing is on par with the best in the world? Of course not. I saw Deep Impact go over and run a strong race in the Arc. Heart's Cry ran a big one in the King George. Does that mean that Japanese racing as a whole is on par with European? IMO, no. English Channel destroyed the Turf this year. Would I expect that Americans now should raid the Arc because we are as good as they are? No. It takes more than a handful of horses over a period of years to be on par with countries that produce handfuls year after year. The racing PROGRAM there is top class. The talent levels of their horses, top to bottom, is not there yet with the best in the world, IMO. I don't think that's arrogance because I'm not European. Maybe it is foolishness though.

A horse that races only in Cali will get less consideration than one that travels and proves himself out of his home area. I'm a Cali guy and I used to think that the racing here on a day in, day out basis was the best in the nation. But it's hard to get a good gauge on a horse that just beats up on the same horses over and over. As good as Lava Man was, he left a lot on the table as far as proving himself, IMO.

The requirements that I have would leave a lot of good horses out. Just look at my own list of the best I've seen. The only one of those horses that would make it is Go for Wand. That's the point. To stop letting just any horse that was good in. It's to distinguish the absolute best from the really good.

Since you hav to have an int'l (timeform/beyer) rating of 95 to even be considered to race there I would say that they are clearly superior top to bottom. You know since they dont have any maiden claimers or statebreds. If the top horses there can compete with the best in the world and their bottom horses on par with allowance horses (at least) why would you consider the racing there inferior? It just doesnt make sense.

She is the only one who should make it into any Hall of Fame from your list. Well maybe Smarty Jones can get in the Philly Park HoF.

Is that on Street Road, right off 95 ?

Because this is a RACING hall of fame, not a breeding one. Raise a Native showed a lot of promise at 2, but so did Favorite Trick, and Devil's Bag, and, well, you choose a top 2yo who didn't train on - Arazi? All nice horses but not Hall of Fame material. Only if they race at the same level at 3, at least, should horses be under consideration to be classed among the greats.

You have to ask yourself why would Kong Kong based horses travel to the U.S when racing over there is lucrutive and logistically it would be a nightmare. To prove a point? They did ship to Dubai last year as I already noted, and did very well.

we rarely ship horses from this country, other than dubai. can't understand why some think that other countries should ship to prove something, when we hardly do it. we don't have a need to, but hong kong does?! i doubt it.

i also think that anyone who says a west coaster needs to come east to prove anything is flat wrong. but then, those who push that agenda usually consider kentucky as being part of the east coast, and it's not....md/ny/fl/pa breds are better than cal breds???
but add ky breds into the equation......

Nowhere have I said that they have to prove anything. Nowhere have I said that they should ship to other places. I'm only saying that in order for ME personally to consider them truly at the elite level of the world scene, that's what I'd need to see. Take a horse like Makybe Diva. She's done great racing down in Australia. Maybe one of that country's greatest ever. But I don't put her on the same level as a horse like Ouija Board, who traveled the world and took on the best and held her own. Or a horse like Pride who did the same thing. Just because I saw Invasor come here and be HOY, I'm not going to put Uraguayan racing on the top world level. Just because I saw Candy Ride, Paseana, and Bayakoa come over here and dominate doesn't mean that Argentinian racing is on par with the best racing in the world. Mister Frisky was one of Puerto Rico's greatest horses and came over here and was a grade one winner. Does anyone put PR racing on par with ours? A few isolated occurances by a few top horses over a period of years doesn't do it for me.

Let's vote Dave Kingman into the baseball hall of fame because he hit over 400 homers