New Hall of Fame
 

Ok, by now u all know me and know that I like to come up with crazy ideas. Here is the latest. What I'd like to do is see if we can come up with a new horse racing hall of fame. What I'd like to do is have the members of the forum weigh in with their opinions on what should be required to gain entry. As it is now, it's totally subjective. I have no problem with it being subjective but it leads to so many arguments. How can we say GZ or Smarty shouldn't be in there because they raced so sparingly when Ruffian, Majestic Prince, and AP Indy are in there? So I'd like for all of the forum members to list what would be their requirements for making the hall of fame and then we'll try to come up with a consensus opinion on the matter.

I looked all over and the best I could find was a list of champions going back to 1940. I'm sure some of u have better lists than the one I found. So what I would like to do is include only horses that raced from 1940 till the present. We'll figure out another way to deal with horses prior to that.

What this thread is NOT for is listing horses that u think should be there. All we are doing here is coming up with a consensus on what should be the requirements. Then what we can do later is go through the members that are in there and see who meets the requirements and who doesn't.

I'll start it off. My requirements to enter the hall of fame would be:

-a horse has to have been named a divisional champion in more than one season or HOY at least once.

-has to have won outside of restricted company. For fillies, they don't have to beat the boys but they do have to have won outside of the just 2yo or 3yo restricted races.

-if 10 or less career races, has to have won 70% and been ITM 90%

-if 11-20 career races, has to have won 65% and been ITM 80%.

-if 21-30 career races, has to have won 60% and been ITM 75%.

-if 30+ career races, has to have won 55% and been ITM 70%.

I've always been a big fan of Bill Simmons' idea for a pyramid style HOF and I think it would work perfectly now for racing. You could have four tiers to the pyramid. The top pier is the all time elite. The second pier is the all time greats that just don't quite have the credentials to make the top tier. The third is the horses that currently belong on the HOF but wouldn't be classified as all time greats. Then the fourth is open to the horses who might not have classic HOF credentials but either had incredible periods of brilliance or remarkable accomplishments. You wind up with more in the HOF altogether but there is a clear distinction between what level of HOFer they are. It would make for a great HOF setup too where you start on the first floor looking at the tier 4 HOFers and eventually work your way up to the top where the all time elites are.

The problem that I have with that is that there is still no criteria involved. It's still subjective as to who gets in and even more subjective as to which level they would be at. I want some minimum standards that have to be reached first then if you want to break them down further after they are in, feel free.

I'm not a fan of set standards. Eras change and it makes it so tough to have a set of standards that are going to work through all times.

Can we put Tom Durkin into this Hall of Fame??

Are we including international runners here (and no I don't mean HK in particular but i want to know if horses like Pride and Ouija Board count).....

North American only. For a foreign horse to count, they would have to meet all of the criteria. There aren't that many foreign horses that have won championships here in more than one year. Off the top, I can think of Miesque, Ouija Board, and High Chaparral. Even if I were doing an international one, Hong Kong horses wouldn't be considered yet. It's still not yet completely major league.

You are kidding right?

I am not. Maybe I'm really lost here but can you tell me some Hong Kong based horses that have made marks on the international level. I don't mean winning big races in Hong Kong but in other parts of the world.

Off the top of my head Vengeance of Rain in Dubai, Bullish Luck won the G1 Yasuda Kinen in Japan, Cape of Good Hope won the G1 Australia Stakes and the G1 Golden Jubilee at Royal Ascot, and Silent Witness won the G1 Sprinters Stakes in Japan.

That said, I honestly didn't mean to get into the HK thing with you (again). :p

Was really just wondering if they counted in general.

(Support Hong Kong racing). :D

There are very few bad horses in Hong Kong as they have standards that a horse must meet before they are allowed to be imported there. Since every horse is imported they clearly have the best overall horse population. Horses at the top of HK racing have won all kinds of International races as pointed out by MMSC. They dont compete in the BC because they have there own version which is much more important to them. They also dont have any breeding business so they have little incentive to leave since the run for huge purses.

I don't know how true this statement is. Looking at her list:

Vengeance of Rain won the Dubai Sheema.
Bullish Luck won the Yasuda Kinen in Japan.
Cape of Good Hope won the Golden Jubilee in England and a race in Australia.
Silent Witness won the Sprinters Stakes in Japan.

I'd even add Fairy King Prawn who won the Yasuda Kinen also. That's five horses who have won six internationl grade one races and of the six, three were in Japan, one in Australia, and one in Dubai. To most of the world, the traditional top racing is held in the United States, England, Ireland and France. The Hong Kong horses have only won a single grade one race in those countries that I have been able to find so far.

I'm not trying to knock Hong Kong racing at all. Just as I don't knock Japanese racing. But it's a process that takes a while to truly get to the top level of international racing and they just aren't there yet. That's not to say they can't get there, as Japan is definitely showing. But they aren't there yet.

To be fair, that list was only off the top of my head and one was at Royal Ascot.

I understand your point though.....

Maybe after they come for the BC Mile and Sprint you'll begin to think a little differently (?).

Yes, Cape of Good Hope won at Royal Ascot. The racing in the United States wasn't up to the level of the racing in Europe when we first started. It's a process. It takes time.

Your interpretation of top class racing may need to change a bit. When is the last time a horse from the US won a race in Europe or Australia or HK or even Japan? Does that mean our races are no good too? When was the last really good horse from France came and win anything in the US? Considering the fact that they have won that many international races when the pool of horses in HK is around 500 i would say they are pretty good. When you add in the HK International race results, the numbers are even better.

HK owners have no reason to leave other then maybe ego or pride, otherwise, they are racing for the top squilla

We specialize in dirt racing here which they don't run in the rest of the world, save for Dubai, where we have a pretty dominant record in the Dubai World Cup and do pretty well in the sprint race too. As far as grass racing, no, our horses for the most part don't compare with the best in the world. Just like HK, we get a good one here and there that is on par with the best but for the most part, we lag behind the top class international horses.

In regards to the question about a really good horse coming from France to win here, I don't break the European horses down by country. That would be like breaking down the American horses by state. The proximity of those countries to one another makes them completely interchangeable.

I believe that Hong Kong has some good horses. They have a top class racing structure and they are truly headed in the right direction towards becoming a world racing power. I don't think it's too inconcievable to see the day when Japan and Hong Kong are considered the top racing centers in the world. But as yet, they have very few horses that have left the country and made an international impact. It's only been a handful of horses in a handful of races and most of those were in places similar to HK in Japan and Australia.

These criteria might keep out many of the great weight-carrying champions of the past, who lost races because they were conceding 20 or more lbs to the lightweights. Stymie, for instance, had a career record of 131/35-33-28.

Triple Crown winner Assault wouldn't make it, either, despite stellar years at 3 and 4 (42/18-6-7 lifetime). He was retired to stud at 5, proved sterile, and was not the same horse when he raced at 6, although he did win the Brooklyn (was a real G1 type race in those days).

Exterminator, from even farther in the past, won only 50 of 100 because as a gelding he was kept running long after his prime. (No Bute to deal with his arthritic joints in those days.)

I couldn't disagree more with this statement, Hong Kong horses wouldn't be considered yet. It's still not yet completely major league
Your determining factor or precursor for this statement is too narrow(black or white), they may simply be unineterested in shipping to Europe or NA as logistically it wouldn't make sense as purses over there are large. Look they have big name jockies, high quality racing, great facilities, overflowing crowds, it is big league. The few times they did ship Vengence of Rain did win the Sheema Classic in 07. I think Bullish Luck a turf horse finished a respectable 3rd in the Dubai World Cup.

Japan didn't start shipping horses until recently, but I would venture to guess that your opinion of them would have been simular until they showed up in America, the fact is races in Australia, Japan, and Hong Kong are of the highest level. Just because they haven't proven it here year in year out does not mean their racing is any less quality.

I'm surprised influential sires aren't included. Raise A Native is not inducted.I would think someone would nominate a champion 2 year old whose blood runs through half of american racehorses.

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