If Zenyatta wins the Classic

[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.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

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.

Only in Turf Championship and occasionally Juvi championship is it determined off of one race... which kinda makes more sense because Euro turf horses are vastly superior to US turf horses.

Also, a Plastic Classic may not mean as much to voter as in years past where it was an actual dirt race. It obviously didnt mean much to voters last year.

[King Glorious]

I don't think the issue we are talking about is who's horses are superior but whether or not championships can be won off of one race. If you are saying that you don't think the SHOULD be, I can respect that opinion. I just think it's wrong to say that the awards ARE based on the whole year when there is plenty of history that say that isn't always the case. I will say that in a situation where I think it's close between two horses as far as who's best, I'll look at the whole year as a sort of tiebreaker. But when one has a clear advantage to me, that horse wins out whether it's one race or 100.

[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.