Worth a Thought?

[philcski]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I'm going to make an argument here that I don't know if I even whole heartedly believe in myself but I feel it's worth at least a passing thought. In 2003, I supported a horse named Candy Ride for HOY. As anyone that has read anything I post on here knows, I don't think a horse has to run any certain number of races or win any specific ones in order to be considered for an Eclipse Award. The only listed criteria for consideration for the awards is that a horse start at least once in NA. It was under this same line of thinking that I supported Ghostzapper as a repeat HOY in 2005. If one performance can win an award in the other divisions, as it often does in the sprint, grass, and 2yo divisions, why not for older male or HOY? And who says that one outstanding performance has to be in the Breeders' Cup? Can anyone disagree that Ghostzapper's 2005 Met Mile was the single best performance of the year by any horse? Getting back to Candy Ride, I didn't think he had done enough on the dirt to deserve the award over Pleasantly Perfect, Medaglia d' Oro, and maybe even Mineshaft. I also didn't think he had done enough on the grass to deserve it over Johar, Sulamani, or Storming Home. But I thought his COMBINED efforts on both surfaces, where he beat top class horses on each while running some very fast races, were enough to stamp him out as the overall best horse of 2003. This was an argument that many didn't agree with then and I'm sure still wouldn't agree with now. Which brings me to 2008.

Should Einstein be in the conversation for best horse of 2008? He wasn't the top dirt horse of the year by any stretch. He is in the conversation for top grass horse though. When combining his grass and dirt races together, he had arguably the best year of any horse in this country when considering all factors. Not just the names of the races won but the consistency in performance and the actual competition faced. Curlin won bigger races than he did but didn't come close to beating horses as accomplished as what Einstein beat during the year. Not close. Consider who Einstein beat:

-in the Gulfstream Turf Hcp. (Dancing Forever, who went on to win the gr1 Manhattan and the gr2 Elkhorn in addition to finishing third in the BC Turf).

-in the Woodford Reserve (Out of Control, a dual gr2 winner last year and 2nd in three gr1 races this year, a nose from winning two of them and Artiste Royal, himself a gr1 winner this year).

-in the Clark. None other than Commentator, who was considered one of the three best dirt males in the country.

-in the Maker's Mark. Although Einstein finished second here, beaten a length by champion Kip Deville, he did beat out subsequent gr1 winner Thorn Song.

If you look at the list of horses that Curlin beat this year, it's not even close to comparable. The best horse he beat this year was Einstein and that wasn't on Einstein's preferred surface. Was there any horse that better combined versatility (winning on both surfaces and at distances from 8-11f) and consistency (three firsts, three seconds in gr1/2 competition) while racing at the top levels of the sport from the beginning of year to the end? My answer is no. Although Einstein won't win a single award this year, I thought it was worth pointing out how good his year really was. If there was an award for most underrated, he'd be a shoe-in.

Agree with this part. Had he beaten Curlin in the Stephen Foster, then your argument might have some more weight. He's a versatile and admirable animal.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by philcski

Agree with this part. Had he beaten Curlin in the Stephen Foster, then your argument might have some more weight. He's a versatile and admirable animal.

Had he beaten Curlin there, in addition to having just beaten Commentator, he might actually be HOY. My argument isn't that he should be though. I'd personally vote for Raven's Pass followed by Curlin then Zenyatta. But I just thought it was interesting that Einstein wouldn't even get a mention. Maybe he shouldn't but I think he should.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

But I just thought it was interesting that Einstein wouldn't even get a mention. Maybe he shouldn't but I think he should.

Is it possible you over think things?

[cakes44]

Maybe if he ran one step in the Arlington Million. However, he did not.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by cakes44

Maybe if he ran one step in the Arlington Million. However, he did not.

But Big Brown can be considered even though he ran worse in the Belmont? Interesting.

[Indian Charlie]

Uh, yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

BB and Einstein had remarkably similar years!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

But Big Brown can be considered even though he ran worse in the Belmont? Interesting.

I think that it was more like that was the type of race that he needed to win in order for this conversation to be even slightly legitimate.

Beating some turfers (and "look, he beat Thorn Song" probably isn't the best place to start when trying to make a case for HOY) and Commentator while failing to win even a single big name race all year doesn't hold a candle to a horse who wins the Derby and Preakness the way Big Brown did -- or the accomplishment of winning the Dubai World Cup and Jockey Club Gold Cup while running second to a BC Turf champion in his first start on the green stuff in the Man O War and then beating home more than a couple Grade I winners in the BC Classic on a surface which was a question mark for him, but the surface over which some of those Grade I winners were already proven commodities.

Yes, he's underappreciated, but this is apples to oranges.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I think that it was more like that was the type of race that he needed to win in order for this conversation to be even slightly legitimate.

Beating some turfers (and "look, he beat Thorn Song" probably isn't the best place to start when trying to make a case for HOY) and Commentator while failing to win even a single big name race all year doesn't hold a candle to a horse who wins the Derby and Preakness the way Big Brown did -- or the accomplishment of winning the Dubai World Cup and Jockey Club Gold Cup while running second to a BC Turf champion in his first start on the green stuff in the Man O War and then beating home more than a couple Grade I winners in the BC Classic on a surface which was a question mark for him, but the surface over which some of those Grade I winners were already proven commodities.

Yes, he's underappreciated, but this is apples to oranges.

So beating grade one horses in grade one races means nothing because the names of the races weren't the Derby, Preakness, Dubai World Cup, and JCGC? First, I thought more people mastered reading comprehension than this. Obviously, I was wrong. I am NOT trying to make the case the Einstein should be HOY. I wouldn't even vote for him myself. Second, let's not be silly here. The names on the races don't mean squat. It's the quality of the competition. Curlin beating up on Asiatic Boy, Past the Point, Wanderin Boy, Well Armed, and Merchant Marine was not more impressive than the horses that Einstein beat. Big Brown beating on Macho Again, Ichabad Crane, Eight Belles, and Denis of Cork was not more impressive than the horses the Einstein beat. Let's be real. Sure, we all can bemoan the state of racing these days and know that a grade one in 2008 is not the same as a grade one used to be in 1988. But that still doesn't change the fact that in any given year, some horses will rise above other horses. Those horses will be the grade one horses. The horses Einstein beat were grade one horses. The horses those others beat barely qualify as more than allowance horses. Who cares about the name of the races?

[cakes44]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

But Big Brown can be considered even though he ran worse in the Belmont? Interesting.

I don't think Big Brown ran 6th in this year's awful rendition of the Donn either.