Why do you care so much about awards?

Originally Posted by philcski

Hahaha, I call BS, I don't think you really exist!

I have a bet with Veruca Salt that says I don't.

[GPK]

http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds/...le=givafck.wav

[dean smith]

I think a big part of the reason people care about end of the year awards is that they want to see history written the way they saw it happen. Twenty years from now they want to be able to say, "I saw Rachel Alexandra, the greatest filly of all-time! In '09 she won the Preakness, the Haskell, the Woodward, and f'in' everything!" and not have some snot-nosed punk pull out the racing almanac and say, "Yeah, but Zenyatta was HOY..."

[dean smith]

And vice versa for Zenyatta fans.

I'm not taking sides on this one, but I think when the dust clears and the excitement over The Classic wanes, objective people will say Rachel Alexandra's campaign was more impressive, more stylish, and more attention-getting than Zenyatta's.

Some great players never got a ring because they happened to play in the time of the Jordan-era Bulls. Tough break.

[Danzig]

not winning hoy certainly didn't hurt personal ensign historically. everyone knows what they saw when she ran.

[johnny pinwheel]

i don't care

[dean smith]

Originally Posted by Danzig

not winning hoy certainly didn't hurt personal ensign historically. everyone knows what they saw when she ran.

I suppose you can come up with these types of examples all day. I guess what I'm trying to say, in a nutshell, is that people want to see their opinions validated -- and awards recognizing a horse as "the best" provide this. The Personal Ensign camp was probably a bit miffed when she didn't bring home the hardware.