If Zenyatta wins the Classic

[DaTruth]

If Sea the Stars is going to be the yardstick, does this mean that a mare who finishes ahead of him in the Classic (assuming he runs a decent race) should get the Eclipse for older filly or mare regardless of what zenyatta does in the Ladies Classic?

[CSC]

What effect if any will Rachel's early exit in mid-late summer have on the voting for HOY? I know many will say none, but we don't know that for sure...there are bound to be some terrific performances that will no doubt leave an ideliable mark on horseracing fans in the BC, BC preview/preps and beyond.

[TropicalStorm]

I think the real question voters would have to ask if she won the Classic and retired undefeated is this:

Has any horse ever won the Breeders Cup Classic and Breeders Cup Distaff and retired undefeated? Obviously not. That is why I think Zenyatta would be a lock for horse of the year if she found a way to win the Classic.

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by CrossfireHurricane

I think the real question voters would have to ask if she won the Classic and retired undefeated is this:

Has any horse ever won the Breeders Cup Classic and Breeders Cup Distaff and retired undefeated? Obviously not. That is why I think Zenyatta would be a lock for horse of the year if she found a way to win the Classic.

They may be occupied with other questions such as when was the last time a filly won the Preakness and the Woodward.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

They may be occupied with other questions such as when was the last time a filly won the Preakness and the Woodward.

or the last time a 3 yo filly won three gr 1's over males, including one over older males.
since the award is for top horse of the year, not of the day, and not of the bc, i would have to think that rachels accomplishments outshine anyone else in north america. she's run as many races vs males this year as zenyatta has run all year. top that off with a record-breaking performance at oaklawn, a double digit win in the oaks, and i believe it's seven tracks she's run over this year in her eight wins.

the whole point is probably moot, since i really don't see zenyatta attempting 10f vs males, since it would be her first time for both.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Danzig

or the last time a 3 yo filly won three gr 1's over males, including one over older males.
since the award is for top horse of the year, not of the day, and not of the bc, i would have to think that rachels accomplishments outshine anyone else in north america. she's run as many races vs males this year as zenyatta has run all year. top that off with a record-breaking performance at oaklawn, a double digit win in the oaks, and i believe it's seven tracks she's run over this year in her eight wins.

the whole point is probably moot, since i really don't see zenyatta attempting 10f vs males, since it would be her first time for both.

The part in bold is what makes this a debate that has no clear answer. If the award is truly for the most accomplished horse of that year, then Rachel is a clear winner. But the criteria is not clear enough, IMO. It says it's to be awarded to the best horse to race in North America and is open to all horses that have run at least one time in NA. You get a situation like last year. I thought that even with his running only once and her running only once, it was extremely clear that Raven's Pass and Goldikova were the best 3yo male and female to run in NA last year. Even with a win in the Classic, Zenyatta won't have accomplished as much as Rachel this year but by beating a better set of horses, even if it's only once, she can still make a very valid claim to being the best horse to run in this country this year. As I've said many times, if people want the award to be for the entire year, I'd have no problem with that but they need to change the criteria. To me, it's hypocrital to say that it's not about one day or one race after they've awarded many championships to horses simply because of one race.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

The part in bold is what makes this a debate that has no clear answer. If the award is truly for the most accomplished horse of that year, then Rachel is a clear winner. But the criteria is not clear enough, IMO. It says it's to be awarded to the best horse to race in North America and is open to all horses that have run at least one time in NA. You get a situation like last year. I thought that even with his running only once and her running only once, it was extremely clear that Raven's Pass and Goldikova were the best 3yo male and female to run in NA last year. Even with a win in the Classic, Zenyatta won't have accomplished as much as Rachel this year but by beating a better set of horses, even if it's only once, she can still make a very valid claim to being the best horse to run in this country this year. As I've said many times, if people want the award to be for the entire year, I'd have no problem with that but they need to change the criteria. To me, it's hypocrital to say that it's not about one day or one race after they've awarded many championships to horses simply because of one race.

It is based on a years worth of work. Sure we have a turf horse here and there that comes over for the BC and blows away the field, and they get Turf Champion. But longshot winners of the BC usually dont get voted champ. I dont think Volponi did, not sure about Cat Thief but I also dont think it happened there either. Usually the horse that wins the BC has also had a very good campaign all year (like Curlin in 2007, Invasor, etc, etc).. so it makes sense for them to be champ.

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

To me, it's hypocrital to say that it's not about one day or one race after they've awarded many championships to horses simply because of one race.

I see no problem giving a divisional award to a horse that has run only once in NA....i.e. Arazi. The big prize, Horse of the Year, is a different tune though. It should be based on a body of work for the year, not one race

At this point, my ratings would be...

1....Rachel
2....Gio Ponti
3....Summer Bird

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by CSC

What effect if any will Rachel's early exit in mid-late summer have on the voting for HOY? I know many will say none, but we don't know that for sure...there are bound to be some terrific performances that will no doubt leave an ideliable mark on horseracing fans in the BC, BC preview/preps and beyond.

How many times has it happened where a clear a seemingly runaway leader has stopped racing before year's end and had another horse come in and take it away from them? Off the top of my head, I can only think of Smarty Jones in 2004 losing out to Ghostzapper and in that case, Smarty ended in June. Rachel raced into September. Other than that, I can think of a few horses that ended their season early and still won the title. I don't go back as far as others but I know that it didn't hurt:

Spend a Buck
Criminal Type
Holy Bull
Charismatic
Point Given

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

How many times has it happened where a clear a seemingly runaway leader has stopped racing before year's end and had another horse come in and take it away from them? Off the top of my head, I can only think of Smarty Jones in 2004 losing out to Ghostzapper and in that case, Smarty ended in June. Rachel raced into September. Other than that, I can think of a few horses that ended their season early and still won the title. I don't go back as far as others but I know that it didn't hurt:

Spend a Buck
Criminal Type
Holy Bull
Charismatic
Point Given

Isnt the voting supposed to be based on a whole year? Not just the fall campaign? Rachel's 8 wins in 8 races will be equal or more than the other HOY contenders by the end of the year. Shoot.. Z is running throughout the fall and still wont come close to 8 races and 8 wins. Rachel has put in a full years work by todays standards already, who cares if she needs a break now?

Also, as much as I love Smarty Jones, Rachel's resume has been more impressive IMO.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Isnt the voting supposed to be based on a whole year? Not just the fall campaign? Rachel's 8 wins in 8 races will be equal or more than the other HOY contenders by the end of the year. Shoot.. Z is running throughout the fall and still wont come close to 8 races and 8 wins. Rachel has put in a full years work by todays standards already, who cares if she needs a break now?

Also, as much as I love Smarty Jones, Rachel's resume has been more impressive IMO.

Again, I don't understand how people keep saying it's SUPPOSED TO BE BASED ON THE WHOLE YEAR when many champions have been named off of ONE RACE. Arazi was one of the three finalist for HOY in 1991 and only ran once here, in a 2yo restricted race for goodness sake. Singspiel won champion turf horse in 1996 and NEVER WON A RACE IN THE UNITED STATES. With that in mind, how can it be said that it's supposed to be based on the whole year? If it's based on the whole year, Arazi, Singspiel, Miesque, High Chaparral, Daylami.......the list goes on and on.......all shouldn't have won titles. They won titles because they proved on one day, in one race, that they were the best horse to race in their division in North America that year.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Again, I don't understand how people keep saying it's SUPPOSED TO BE BASED ON THE WHOLE YEAR when many champions have been named off of ONE RACE. Arazi was one of the three finalist for HOY in 1991 and only ran once here, in a 2yo restricted race for goodness sake. Singspiel won champion turf horse in 1996 and NEVER WON A RACE IN THE UNITED STATES. With that in mind, how can it be said that it's supposed to be based on the whole year? If it's based on the whole year, Arazi, Singspiel, Miesque, High Chaparral, Daylami.......the list goes on and on.......all shouldn't have won titles. They won titles because they proved on one day, in one race, that they were the best horse to race in their division in North America that year.

two year olds don't have much of a body of work, so it's no surprise to me that voting can fall in favor of the bcj winner. however, declan's moon having won proves that just being the winner of that race is NO guarantee. i thought with anticipation should have been named top turfer-but the one race rule means many look elsewhere in voting-again, that issue imo has more to do with voters having a lack of turf know-how. chappy won the turf, he had a name in europe, so he got the vote. i think a lot of the time, voters tilt toward the derby and bc winners, as that's all they follow or remember. it's not a good horses fault if he fails to fire on those days, if the voters are the one who choose not to educate themselves about who's on the ballots. i also think voting can skew towards a euro invader if there is no clear cut horse that had a good year-that's when you see a horse like azeri take home HOY, since there wasn't one dominant classic-distance horse that year, and volponi was such a surprise in the classic.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Danzig

two year olds don't have much of a body of work, so it's no surprise to me that voting can fall in favor of the bcj winner. however, declan's moon having won proves that just being the winner of that race is NO guarantee. i thought with anticipation should have been named top turfer-but the one race rule means many look elsewhere in voting-again, that issue imo has more to do with voters having a lack of turf know-how. chappy won the turf, he had a name in europe, so he got the vote. i think a lot of the time, voters tilt toward the derby and bc winners, as that's all they follow or remember. it's not a good horses fault if he fails to fire on those days, if the voters are the one who choose not to educate themselves about who's on the ballots. i also think voting can skew towards a euro invader if there is no clear cut horse that had a good year-that's when you see a horse like azeri take home HOY, since there wasn't one dominant classic-distance horse that year, and volponi was such a surprise in the classic.

I've never said the one race should have to be at the BC. Remember, I said I would have voted for GZ in 2005 and his one race was the Met Mile. The only point I was trying to make is that with no clear criteria, there's no way to know how a vote should go. The person that votes for a horse with one race in this country is no more right or wrong than the person that will only vote for the horse that competed in this country throughout the year. I remember when High Chaparral won for the second time, he did so with a dead-heat win in the Turf so it doesn't even take outright victories in NA to secure a title. Let me ask a question. There's no question that Rachel has had the most outstanding year of any horse in the country. But if Zenyatta were to be a field that included Summer Bird, Mine that Bird, Macho Again, Rail Trip, Einstein, Gio Ponti, Sea the Stars, Mastercraftsmen, and Rip Van Winkle (I know it's very unlikely all of them would be there but just humor me), wouldn't she prove that she's right there with Rachel if not better? So is the vote for best horse or best year? The debate for best year is over. The debate for best horse is still wide open.

[Linny]

The original post posed a question based on a premise. "If Zenyatta win the Classic..." While I don't think the premise is valid (I don't think she'll run there and if she does I don't think she'll win) if I choose to play in this thread I have to accept the premise. If Z beats Summer Bird, Mine That Bird, Sea The Stars, Macho Again, Rail Trip, Einstein anyother Euro challenger and the rest of the Poly specialists out there, she deserves HOY.

[Buckpasser]

What horse in 2009 has attracted the imagination and admiration of the racing public as well as the general public at large?...RA, 'nuff said. She is definitely HOY no matter what happens between now and BC.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

How many times has it happened where a clear a seemingly runaway leader has stopped racing before year's end and had another horse come in and take it away from them? Off the top of my head, I can only think of Smarty Jones in 2004 losing out to Ghostzapper and in that case, Smarty ended in June. Rachel raced into September. Other than that, I can think of a few horses that ended their season early and still won the title. I don't go back as far as others but I know that it didn't hurt:

Spend a Buck
Criminal Type
Holy Bull
Charismatic
Point Given

Point Given and Minshaft are the 2 that bother me. I guess what I was saying in my inarticulate way is " who remembers the movies in March when Oscar voting arrives ".?

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by CSC

Point Given and Minshaft are the 2 that bother me. I guess what I was saying in my inarticulate way is " who remembers the movies in March when Oscar voting arrives ".?

I think it depends on the individual voter and what they are looking for. If I had a vote, I would have voted for Ghostzapper as the 2005 HOY even though he only ran in the Met Mile in May. I try to look for a horse that qualifies under the stated criteria and as long as that horse is a qualified contender, I don't care if they've run once or 100 times here. I try to vote on the horse that I thought was the best one, not necessarily the most accomplished one. The two are not always synonomous. For me, if that overwhelming performance comes in May, it's no less significant than if it comes in October or November. I do get your point though but I think that the significance of Rachel doing her thing during the TC, the most publicized time of the year for this sport, will make her accomplishments unforgettable. An older horse that dominated the first part of the year and won the Donn, SA Hcp, Oaklawn Hcp, and Pimlico Special could be forgotten by years end if he retired in May. But not Rachel. And she ran into September which is very different than stopping in May or June.

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I think it depends on the individual voter and what they are looking for. If I had a vote, I would have voted for Ghostzapper as the 2005 HOY even though he only ran in the Met Mile in May. I try to look for a horse that qualifies under the stated criteria and as long as that horse is a qualified contender, I don't care if they've run once or 100 times here. I try to vote on the horse that I thought was the best one, not necessarily the most accomplished one.

So I guess you would agree with Native Dancer being HOY in '54 with his only graded stakes win of the year being the Met Mile.