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.