If Zenyatta wins the 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.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

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.

With all due respect, this doesn't make any sense. You say in one sentence that it's based on a year's worth of work but then in the next sentence that we get the occassional winner that wins it off of one race. Which is it? A season or a race? You are admitting that it's both. In this case, Zenyatta wouldn't be a longshot winner that had nothing else in her record. It wouldn't be a Volponi or Arcangues situation. It would be a legitimate horse making a legitimate case by beating the best field of the year.

[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

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Slewbopper

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

generally, it is based on the body of work. much as i don't like seeing a horse swoop in from europe, win one race, and walk away with an eclipse, the argument can be made that they had an outstanding year-high chapparal for instance. they just may not have had an outstanding year here. so, much as i thought with anticipation should have gotten the nod for top turfer, i can certainly understand why he did not. BUT, i think the vote for high chapparal proves the point that the bc has too much weight given to it by voters. hence my argument that a win in the bcc, over what is presumably the best field assembled in the year, isn't necessarily an indication of who the best horse is all year. case in point for that is volponi.

i don't think the award should be given for who someone feels is the best, but for the horse who has competed at the highest level all year, and with the most consistency. the horse who best showed ability, regardless of surface, track, competition, length of race, etc.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Slewbopper

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

You do know that the year Arazi won he divisional championship, he was also one of the three finalist for HOY too right? That means that he was considered over many horses that had a body of work for the year. You say the big prize IS a different tune but how can you logically say that when Arazi was a finalist off of one race? As I've said so many times, I'd have no problem with changing the qualifying criteria to saying that a horse has to be based in this country and run the majority of their races here or maybe a four race minimum here. But as long as it only says that a horse needs to have raced once, I don't see how everyone can say that it's based on the whole year when that's contrary to what it says. If an individual voter wants to only consider American based horses, that's fine. But the person that considers the best horse among all qualified horses is equally right.

I'm not old enough to know what happened in 1954.

[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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

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.

since i think the vote should be for the entire years body of work, one race doesn't make HOY in my opinion. perhaps they should rename the award.
regardless of who zenyatta would beat (and keep in mind i absolutely do not believe she'll be anywhere on the track on saturday, but will run on friday) in this imaginary classic, the fact that rachel isn't there would mean it wasn't necessarily the best field assembled.

besides, regarding the thread title....that's a huge, huge IF.

[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.