Correct. Do not know how I messed up Spend A Buck.

Quote from: CA_Chrome on January 20, 2017, 02:07:36 PM
No, you misunderstood my post. I was referring to the 132 pounds he carried, not the field. He carried the weight and won with it. We don't see top horses carrying much more than 126 anymore.

It seemed your post was referring to not just weight, but competition. My mistake.

Quote from: CA_Chrome on January 21, 2017, 05:18:09 AM
Racingwithbruno ‏@Racingwithbruno 27m27 minutes ago

Chrome 58.4 with a final 1:4 in 23.3 out in 1:12 flat to quote @amy_christinek "effortless, floating  ears cocked" could have gone faster

To the best of my knowledge, that's Chrome's fastest work ever. They are taking off the restraints on him, finally.

58 4/5s... 58.80. Nice work 1:12.41 official time.

Arrogate's too. :24.82, :48.87, and 1:01.02 to finish with 1:12.13 slightly faster than last weeks 1:12.20 for the same distance, and 8 furlongs in 1:38.36...

Quote from: CA_Chrome on January 20, 2017, 11:18:02 AM
I love Ack Ack. He's one of my all-time favorites. I remember Cougar also and was at the rail when he finished third to Secretariat and Riva Ridge in the first Marlboro Cup (won by Red in world record time).

You ask if Chrome could do something similar to what Ack Ack did when he beat Cougar while carrying 130 lbs. Thing is, Chrome did do something similar when he won that DWC prep handicap in Dubai carrying 132 lbs. last year. Granted there were no Cougars and Ack Acks in that field, but he did win while carrying weight that U.S. horses are seldom asked to carry anymore. So all I hope for is that people give Chrome his due even if they are not fans or they prefer to see a different horse as HOTY.

Chrome faced competition like Cougar II? I know he carried 132 pounds, but the field was probably the weakest he faced all year. That is why he carried 15 pounds more than the field. 

Curits - I could read your posts all day long with the amount of history and passion that are shared.

I'll make certain to get you some pics of next week's race if any come out.

Quote from: curtis on January 19, 2017, 02:34:46 PM
Also understand, I don't see every year the same way.  In 1978, for example, I think Exceller absolutely should have won Champion Turf Horse, very well should have been named Champion Handicap Male and a definite case could have been made for Horse of the Year, although he was up against a TC winner which never have failed to win the latter award during the Eclipse era.  Exceller got nothing, nada, zilch.  In 1997, I would have voted for Gentlemen to win both Champion Older Male and Horse of the Year and again he was blanked.  What both Exceller and Gentlemen shared were outstanding campaigns while horses that were picked over them, especially in the latter's case, had resumes that either were dependent upon a strong performance or two or a dominant year and the promise of what might be coming up.

Again I think that Arrogate is incredibly special, too special for me to ignore and if I had a vote, the only way for me to acknowledge that fully, is to name him Horse of the Year.  Chrome is a wonderful example of what a dual Classic winner can be if you just let them grow up.  The only horses, that come to mind, I can even think of to compare to him to are Silver Charm and Funny Cide.  He compares favorably with them, for sure and had an incredible year and while excellent at his peak, he doesn't get up into that rarefied air category for me, and he doesn't need to to be Horse of the Year, but when there is a, almost otherworldly talent out there....  I can find comparables for Tepin and even Songbird, through the years and while the context of every year is different, I can't really come up with much to compare with what I've seen with Arrogate.

Well, I think there are other horses that compare well to Chrome.

I think Funny Cide and Silver Charm were quality horses, but Chrome has proven himself to be better than both I believe.

I think he compares favorably with Alydar, Discovery. Better than Ack, Ack, Majestic Prince, etc.

Silver Charm is 63 in the top 100. With all the horses since the publication he is probably now around 75 or so...

I would place California Chrome in the top 50, maybe a bit higher.

Right now, I would not have Arrogate anywhere on the list. Maybe 110. He is a very special horse. But he has yet to achieve much.

I do not think that curtis ever said that Chrome's year was not HOTY worthy, but only that based on his criteria for HOTY, he would choose Arrogate.

I was merely trying to understand his criteria better. I understand some folks think the winner of the BC Classic no matter what they have done for the year deserve HOTY. I understand others that feel that those that beat another horse head to head, all things being equal the head to head match-up should be the deciding factor. Those are not my feelings, but they certainly are shared by a number of people.

Understood.

Just trying to undertsand the rationale of other posters.

Quote from: curtis on January 18, 2017, 01:21:36 PM
Turf is a division but Turf Mile isn't.

Arrogate ran more than two races. There is a subjective element to all of this that you aren't grasping or don't want to grasp. For me his overall campaign doesn't need to be better because, in my opinion, he is a better horse. Not considering a horse because he bucked shins and got off to a slower start is fundementally flawed. You seem to want to make this an objective exercise and thus are valuing quantity over quality. You are also wanting to compare horses that are not comparable and, if I understand what you are saying, value all division winners the same or that they could be considered the same. This, to me, is certainly flawed. It's not just you, again the idea that Lord Nelson is considered a finalist for Older Dirt Male because after all he is an older male and did race on dirt is patently ridiculous.

True. Turf is the division. So turf milers should be excluded from it? Should Frosted and Palace Malice's performances in the Metroplotian Handicap excluded them from consideration as champion older male?

I think there are subjective elements on both sides that are not being grasped. I do not consider horses that perform particularly well in AOCs as necessarily bolstering their HOTY credentials despite the fact that they may have stepped up in class in several of those races. After all, when To Honor and Serve won an AOC on the way to winning the PA Derby and the Cigar Mile, I did not consider the AOC had any impact upon his campaign for champion 3 year old male, but you obviously seem to. We place different emphasis on races.

You also seem to believe that HOTY should go to the better horse, despite a campaign being less than the campaign of another horse. However, this ignores the fact that the award is for Horse of the Year and not The Best Horse To Race At All During The Year or the Horse of the Race. I believe that the award demands something more. It demands excellence in not just one race, but in several races (more than 2), unless there is not another candidate more worthy. I do not believe that excellence needs to be shown in just G1 races. I think it can be shown in other stakes races which feature talented horses. And I also believe competitive is important, as well.

When I look as determining who should be horse of the year, I look at what happned on the track, not off of it. If a horse could not get to the track and could not perform in major races because of durability issues, that is no matter, if he or she has demonstrated a stronger year long campaign than the other candidates. Arguably, Arrogate's campaign is not even as strong as Exaggerator's. Exaggerator took on the best 3 year olds when they were at their best. Arrogate took them on when they were at their worst.

I do not know how you can suggest that I am valuing quantity over quality when I have suggested that Arrogate has had two of the best performances of the year. He likely has had the best performance of the year. But HOTY does not traiditonally go to the horse with the best performance. Tiaznow had the best performance of the year by far I thought in 2001 when he defeated a star studded field in the BC Classic. But the award went to another horse. Why? Because the other horse, Point Given, had a stronger campaign. I feel for Arrogate not being able to race in top races sooner, but the fact of the matter is that it is the campaign that makes the HOTY, not the results of a single, or a couple of races. And Arrogate did not have much of a campaign.

It also seems that you give extra credit to your candidate for HOTY because you have weighted him or her during a particular year as "the best horse".

I believe that HOTY needs to be earned on the race track, as I noted, first in one's division and second by stepping up in class, if it happens.

As I noted, Chrome, Arrogate, Tepin, and Songbird obliterated their divisions. Unfortunately, Arrogate did it in but a single race when his competition were not at their best, as noted. But Chrome did it when his competition did appear to be at or near their best. And so did Tepin and Songbird. To me that matters. To you, it seems that you value the overall peformance more than these other factos. 

If a filly or mare steps up in class and performs well, this deserves note. Beholder stepped up in the Pacific Classic.

Quote from: curtis on January 17, 2017, 03:44:50 PM
I never said you did say niche.  Again there is no criteria for this but I don't consider something to be a division unless an award is attached to it.  Despite what people want to believe, there is no Turf Mile division because there is no turf mile award, it's a niche within the turf division.  When people were up in arms over Obviously and Om getting into the BC Turf Sprint over others that raced in the division throughout the year, I couldn't understand the argument.  It was the perfect spot for both horses and since there is no turf sprint award, it's a niche not a division.  The horses didn't race in turf sprints throughout the year because they were competitive enough in Turf Miles and there was more money to be had there.  When the competition stiffened in the BC, they opted for the easier spot.  Horsepersons don't breed a horse and say, "Gee I hope it turns out to be a turf miler or a turf sprinter."  Those are Plans B and C.  That is why I call each a niche.  When Wise Dan was at his zenith 2012-2014, he was, for the most part, hiding out in turf miles against horses that couldn't hang in the older horse division.  When Lure was in training he was at least as good as Wise Dan and there was little to no case to be made that he be considered Horse of the Year.  Maybe this is progress but to me it is moving the finish line and if so, the award needs a new name.

But isn't turf a division?

Goldikova won the female turf eclipse when she won the BC Turf.

Wise Dan won the Turf Division too.

So why should it be such a surprise that Tepin, with her strong 2016 campaign, should win the female turf division? Was it a niche win? No. Of all the campaigns that were out there on the turf, she delivered the most impressive performance. Heck, Frankel was a miler for what all but two of his stakes races? Was he only a HOF horse because he stretched out?

So that explains the niche issue.

But what about the rationale regarding my "flawed" reasoning on Arrogate's performances? :-)

And how you think that his 2 race campaign is somehow superior to California Chrome's, Exaggertaor's, Tepin's, Beholder's and Songbird's.

He raced twice. To me that is a campaign only if there are no other credible candidates out there. But this year, there were 4 other horses who campaigned longer, arguably faced better competition in and out of their division, and in much bigger races over a longer period of time.

Quote from: curtis on January 15, 2017, 12:28:19 PM
Until a few years ago I couldn't think of a niche type like Wise Dan winning, obviously things evolve.

If a claimer started out running for 2k they may not necessarily make it into a stake race and even if they did winning an overnight or listed stake shouldn't net them said award but when you start considering horses just based on their campaign within the narrow confines of their niche, why not?

But I never said niche. You did. I said division. Gender, age, surface.

Quote from: CA_Chrome on January 14, 2017, 02:36:05 PM
I can't think of a single example of a Horse of the Year only winning one or two stakes races in the year they received that award.

Also, if a horse is able to win 12 races in a row, it might start out in the claiming ranks, but would definitely be moved up its conditions into stakes. The closest real example I can think of to your scenario is Horse of the Year Charismatic, who didn't start winning stakes until he was shipped to Keeneland where he won the Lexington Stakes. He then won the Derby and Preakness before being injured in that memorable Belmont and was retired. That year, 1999, the Breeders Cup Classic was won by Cat Thief, who also won the Swaps Stakes. So 2 Gr1 wins, one of which was the BCC, were not enough to earn Cat Thief honors as champion 3-yr-old colt or HOTY. Those honors went to Charismatic.

I can. In 1954 Native Dancer won the award off of a single stakes win. But that year he was not up against Chrome, Beholder, Songbird and Tepin.

In 2011, Animal Kingdom won champion 3 year old with a single G1 win. And two stakes wins. But no HOTY.

In 1985, Spend A Buck won champion 3 year old and HOTY with a Derby Preakness double and two additional minor stakes races.

Quote from: curtis on January 14, 2017, 12:25:35 PM
So then you're fine with a claimer going 12 for 12 and being named Horse of the Year?  It would be hard to argue against that campaign, wouldn't it? 

Horse of the Year has changed throughout the BC era.  Pre BC era, it was usually the best horse and that was the mentality that voters used when voting.  As we have moved further and further into the BC era, horses have become specialists.  Starting with 2010, it can be argued, that the award is no longer about the best horse, and unapologetically so.  We compare apples to oranges, kiwi to cumquats, all the while thinking that all the fruit tastes the same.  I really think the name of the award should be changed so as time goes on, we don't confuse Wise Dan with John Henry or Forego or any other multiple Horse of the Year winner who didn't just stay in very narrow types of races, especially one that does not attract the top horses in North America.

I think your assessment of Arrogate's campaign and accomplishments are fundamentally flawed.  California Chrome will win the award, I have no doubt, and I believe a great case can be made that he deserves it.  He ran in the best races, save for that public workout just before Christmas, against top competition throughout the year and all but once was the best horse.  I think Arrogate, the horse that beat him on the square, is one of the more special horses I've seen in quite a while.  I don't have a vote but if I did, I couldn't let that go, Arrogate is my Horse of the Year.

Is that what I said?

Come on. Does a claimer compete in the top races against top company throughout the year? Of course not. And you know that which is why I am very surprised at your statement here.

Take apart my post and criteria. Show where my reasoning is flawed. It is one thing to say it and quite another to actually demonstrate it. I gave you my criteria. What are yours?😄

Wow, I had him on my list early on, but when I dud not see any works post-Fayette I thought. His entry unlikely.

So realistically it looks like 9 possibles still:
Arrogate
Breaking Lucky
California Chrome
Eragon
Gun Runner
Keen Ice
Midnight Storm
Neolithic
Semper Fortis
Shaman Ghost
Stanford
War Story