Some surprises...
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/218834/california-chrome-arrogate-songbird-are-hoy-finalists
Thoughts?
The 2016 Eclipse Awards finalists (in alphabetical order) are:
Horse of the Year: Arrogate, California Chrome, Songbird
Two-Year-Old Male: Classic Empire, Not This Time , Practical Joke
Two-Year-Old Filly: Champagne Room, Lady Aurelia, New Money Honey
Three-Year-Old Male: Arrogate, Exaggerator , Nyquist
Three-Year-Old Filly: Cathryn Sophia, Queen's Trust, Songbird
Older Dirt Male: California Chrome, Frosted , Lord Nelson
Older Dirt Female: Beholder, Cavorting, Stellar Wind
Male Sprinter: A.P. Indian, Drefong, Lord Nelson
Female Sprinter: Finest City, Haveyougoneaway, Paulassilverlining
Male Turf Horse: Flintshire (GB), Highland Reel, Tourist
Female Turf Horse: Lady Eli, Miss Temple City, Tepin
Steeplechase Horse: Rawnaq (IRE), Scorpiancer (IRE), Top Striker
Owner: Juddmonte Farms, Ken and Sarah Ramsey, Spendthrift Farm
Breeder: Clearsky Farms, Darley, WinStar Farm
Trainer: Bob Baffert, Chad Brown, Mark Casse
Jockey: Javier Castellano, Jose Ortiz, Mike Smith
Apprentice Jockey: Kevin Gomez, Lane Luzzi, Luis Ocasio
Surprises?
I did not see any.
Very similar to the Academy Awards.....great memory for the winners.
Not so much for everybody else.
Quote from: stark on January 06, 2017, 09:42:37 AM
Very similar to the Academy Awards.....great memory for the winners.
Not so much for everybody else.
Exactly! I don't know about surprises, but there is definitely some sillyness. Lord Nelson for Older Dirt Male? Anybody other than Songbird for 3-yo Filly?
Quote from: Man o Taz on January 06, 2017, 06:58:06 AM
The 2016 Eclipse Awards finalists (in alphabetical order) are:
Horse of the Year: Arrogate, California Chrome, Songbird
Two-Year-Old Male: Classic Empire, Not This Time , Practical Joke
Two-Year-Old Filly: Champagne Room, Lady Aurelia, New Money Honey
Three-Year-Old Male: Arrogate, Exaggerator , Nyquist
Three-Year-Old Filly: Cathryn Sophia, Queen's Trust, Songbird
Older Dirt Male: California Chrome, Frosted , Lord Nelson
Older Dirt Female: Beholder, Cavorting, Stellar Wind
Male Sprinter: A.P. Indian, Drefong, Lord Nelson
Female Sprinter: Finest City, Haveyougoneaway, Paulassilverlining
Male Turf Horse: Flintshire (GB), Highland Reel, Tourist
Female Turf Horse: Lady Eli, Miss Temple City, Tepin
Steeplechase Horse: Rawnaq (IRE), Scorpiancer (IRE), Top Striker
Owner: Juddmonte Farms, Ken and Sarah Ramsey, Spendthrift Farm
Breeder: Clearsky Farms, Darley, WinStar Farm
Trainer: Bob Baffert, Chad Brown, Mark Casse
Jockey: Javier Castellano, Jose Ortiz, Mike Smith
Apprentice Jockey: Kevin Gomez, Lane Luzzi, Luis Ocasio
Surprises?
I did not see any.
REALLY??? Songbird for HOY>>>>???
Quote from: stark on January 06, 2017, 09:42:37 AM
Very similar to the Academy Awards.....great memory for the winners.
Not so much for everybody else.
Ditto for the Golden Globes except that everybody gets to enjoy the bubbly, congrats!
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRnlfqiw_t3y2xjH9xaRFo9Uz2ULcdrEaaDF_clm68k5jJN9oQ2Yw)
Quote from: Dusty on January 06, 2017, 11:04:05 PM
REALLY??? Songbird for HOY>>>>???
I was not surprised by that at all. In fact, I think that she has a stronger case than Arrogate for the award.
I have a fairly routine way of examining year end awards. The first test is a horse's own division. Songbird raced 8 times. She was undefeated in her division in stakes company every time.
She raced in 5 G1 races - 4 against the best of her division and one against the best filies and mares running. She did very well. There is no doubt that she deserves champion 3 year old.
Arrogate on the other hand lost a race. It was not a stakes race. It was not against the best horses in the division.
Arrogate did not face stakes company until late August.
He raced in two stakes races.
He was spectacular.
But there is a strong case that can be made that Exaggertaor with his campaign deserves champion 3 year old more than Arrogate does. Do I totally agree with it? No. It is flawed, but there is no doubt that Exaggerator had a much tougher campaign than Arrogate did.
The next criteria I look at is the length of the campaign. Was the horse campaigned in the best races for the division that they were in throughtout the year?
Songbird. Yes.
Arrogate. Clearly no. As noted, he entered his first stakes race in late August. And he was in two races. And his connections passed on running post-Breeders Cup.
The final criteria for me is how a horse does outside of his division. Here the edge clearly goes to Arrogate, over Songbird. And this is why most people have him as not only champion three year old, but likely ahead of Songbird in the HOTY tally.
For me, I would have placed Tepin and Songbird ahead of Arrogate for HOTY because I place a great deal of emphasis on a year long campaign and Arrogate did not campaign until late August for two months of the year....that is not a campaign unless there are not any other worthy horses out there and there are.
In fact, I would even go so far to say that Beholder with 2 G1 wins had a stronger HOTY campaign than Arrogate did. She stepped out of her divison and did not win, but she ran very well. She competed in a much stronger division than Arrogate did. She face stronger competition in multiple races when that compeition was at their best. Arrogate's best 3 year old competition in Travers was not at their best at all. They finished up the track.
I love Arrogate and believe he is a truly special race horse. But his connections went slow with him. They should be rewarded for that and the are with the horse's health and fitness and ability to compete at such a high level. But Arrogate did not have a HOTY campaign.
While there is no set criteria for HOTY, I have never seen it as horse of the best race or an award for the best horse. I have always seen it as the horse that delivered the best campaign on the track during the year in North America. This is why I never agreed with Goldikova being 3rd in the balloting for HOTY in 2010.
Quote from: Man o Taz on January 09, 2017, 08:25:23 AM
I was not surprised by that at all. In fact, I think that she has a stronger case than Arrogate for the award.
I have a fairly routine way of examining year end awards. The first test is a horse's own division. Songbird raced 8 times. She was undefeated in her division in stakes company every time.
She raced in 5 G1 races - 4 against the best of her division and one against the best filies and mares running. She did very well. There is no doubt that she deserves champion 3 year old.
Arrogate on the other hand lost a race. It was not a stakes race. It was not against the best horses in the division.
Arrogate did not face stakes company until late August.
He raced in two stakes races.
He was spectacular.
But there is a strong case that can be made that Exaggertaor with his campaign deserves champion 3 year old more than Arrogate does. Do I totally agree with it? No. It is flawed, but there is no doubt that Exaggerator had a much tougher campaign than Arrogate did.
The next criteria I look at is the length of the campaign. Was the horse campaigned in the best races for the division that they were in throughtout the year?
Songbird. Yes.
Arrogate. Clearly no. As noted, he entered his first stakes race in late August. And he was in two races. And his connections passed on running post-Breeders Cup.
The final criteria for me is how a horse does outside of his division. Here the edge clearly goes to Arrogate, over Songbird. And this is why most people have him as not only champion three year old, but likely ahead of Songbird in the HOTY tally.
For me, I would have placed Tepin and Songbird ahead of Arrogate for HOTY because I place a great deal of emphasis on a year long campaign and Arrogate did not campaign until late August for two months of the year....that is not a campaign unless there are not any other worthy horses out there and there are.
In fact, I would even go so far to say that Beholder with 2 G1 wins had a stronger HOTY campaign than Arrogate did. She stepped out of her divison and did not win, but she ran very well. She competed in a much stronger division than Arrogate did. She face stronger competition in multiple races when that compeition was at their best. Arrogate's best 3 year old competition in Travers was not at their best at all. They finished up the track.
I love Arrogate and believe he is a truly special race horse. But his connections went slow with him. They should be rewarded for that and the are with the horse's health and fitness and ability to compete at such a high level. But Arrogate did not have a HOTY campaign.
While there is no set criteria for HOTY, I have never seen it as horse of the best race or an award for the best horse. I have always seen it as the horse that delivered the best campaign on the track during the year in North America. This is why I never agreed with Goldikova being 3rd in the balloting for HOTY in 2010.
Great explanation - and very good points - CHROME all THE WAY
Quote from: Man o Taz on January 09, 2017, 08:25:23 AM
I was not surprised by that at all. In fact, I think that she has a stronger case than Arrogate for the award.
I have a fairly routine way of examining year end awards. The first test is a horse's own division. Songbird raced 8 times. She was undefeated in her division in stakes company every time.
She raced in 5 G1 races - 4 against the best of her division and one against the best filies and mares running. She did very well. There is no doubt that she deserves champion 3 year old.
Arrogate on the other hand lost a race. It was not a stakes race. It was not against the best horses in the division.
Arrogate did not face stakes company until late August.
He raced in two stakes races.
He was spectacular.
But there is a strong case that can be made that Exaggertaor with his campaign deserves champion 3 year old more than Arrogate does. Do I totally agree with it? No. It is flawed, but there is no doubt that Exaggerator had a much tougher campaign than Arrogate did.
The next criteria I look at is the length of the campaign. Was the horse campaigned in the best races for the division that they were in throughtout the year?
Songbird. Yes.
Arrogate. Clearly no. As noted, he entered his first stakes race in late August. And he was in two races. And his connections passed on running post-Breeders Cup.
The final criteria for me is how a horse does outside of his division. Here the edge clearly goes to Arrogate, over Songbird. And this is why most people have him as not only champion three year old, but likely ahead of Songbird in the HOTY tally.
For me, I would have placed Tepin and Songbird ahead of Arrogate for HOTY because I place a great deal of emphasis on a year long campaign and Arrogate did not campaign until late August for two months of the year....that is not a campaign unless there are not any other worthy horses out there and there are.
In fact, I would even go so far to say that Beholder with 2 G1 wins had a stronger HOTY campaign than Arrogate did. She stepped out of her divison and did not win, but she ran very well. She competed in a much stronger division than Arrogate did. She face stronger competition in multiple races when that compeition was at their best. Arrogate's best 3 year old competition in Travers was not at their best at all. They finished up the track.
I love Arrogate and believe he is a truly special race horse. But his connections went slow with him. They should be rewarded for that and the are with the horse's health and fitness and ability to compete at such a high level. But Arrogate did not have a HOTY campaign.
While there is no set criteria for HOTY, I have never seen it as horse of the best race or an award for the best horse. I have always seen it as the horse that delivered the best campaign on the track during the year in North America. This is why I never agreed with Goldikova being 3rd in the balloting for HOTY in 2010.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh my so you just blew your own argument - no WAY is Arrogate HOY - not with his campaign which was ----WHAT???
Jockey: Javier Castellano, Jose Ortiz, Mike Smith
Is there a description somewhere of what the goal is for winning this trophy?
Most number of wins.
Graded stakes victories
Total money won.
Earnings per start
Good interviews.
Fan favorite horses
Jockey/Trainer combo
Disqualifications
Use of the whip
Making weight
Riding to the wire
Agent
Looks good on a horse
Public events, signings, charity
Personally I have trouble including money stats since the advent of slot infused racing at some tracks, so I have no idea what's the most important.
What say you?
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.
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?
Quote from: Dusty on January 14, 2017, 09:39:04 PM
Oh my so you just blew your own argument - no WAY is Arrogate HOY - not with his campaign which was ----WHAT???
I said Chrome would win the award. Arrogate was campaigned the way he needed to be. I'm not going to penalize for horsemanship.
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?😄
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 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: Man o Taz on January 16, 2017, 05:17:41 PM
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?😄 Arrogate's best 3 year old competition in Travers was not at their best at all. They finished up the track.
You can have any opinion you choose, but to imply that Arrogate may have won the Travers or that his win may have looked better than it was because his best competition was not at their best is flawed thinking. Horses very often react to their competition. It was like a very good mid-major college football team going against Alabama, Clemson or USC.
When you want to compare all divisions, e.g. turf milers--which isn't really a division, but I digress--, sprinters, three-year-old fillies, etc., you're saying that the competition isn't as important as how dominate a horse is within that division or category. To me, where does that end? Is it that hard to extrapolate that a 12 for 12 claimer get consideration?
Some years there really isn't a Horse of the Year but 2016 isn't one of those years. There are too many variables to assign concrete guidelines, for me. Arrogate was campaigned the way he was because he wasn't physically able to go earlier. Even when Baffert wanted to go the San Diego, Pacific Classic route, there was a minor setback that eventually sent him to the Travers. When I think about a year, I think about the most memorable performances in the best races out there and if the same horse owns more than one of those, that horse is Horse of the Year. I've used this example before, it's like Potter Stewart's definition of pornography. Because Arrogate had that and those performances would have stood up in many other years, he's my choice. I won't lose sleep when Chrome wins but when I think of 2016, I'll think of Arrogate.
Quote from: Man o Taz on January 16, 2017, 05:24:01 PM
But I never said niche. You did. I said division. Gender, age, surface.
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.
Quote from: Man o Taz on January 16, 2017, 05:21:39 PM
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.
Spend A Buck infamously never competed in the Preakness. His non-entry caused the TC races to band together and seek sponsorship for a bonus which equated to 5m to a TC winner or 1m to the horse who competed in all three races and accumulated the most points in the series. No horse ever earned the 5m. Spend A Buck actually was chasing a bonus of his own which pretty much precluded his entrance in the Preakness and Belmont.
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: Man o Taz on January 18, 2017, 07:57:29 AM
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.
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.
Arrogate didn't do enough with his two wins to be considered HOTY. It's got to be either Chrome or Songbird.
Quote from: afleetphil on January 18, 2017, 02:29:48 PM
Arrogate didn't do enough with his two wins to be considered HOTY. It's got to be either Chrome or Songbird.
Define enough, the goal is to win and perform multiple times at the highest level, isn't it? The journey, to me, isn't as important as the destination. It takes a very special horse to go from a NW2 to win two Gr1's the second of which is the biggest race run in North America. The sport is based on disagreements. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. Chrome, to me, is an overwhelming favorite and I would be more than genuinely surprised if he doesn't win. I don't quite understand why Songbird would even be considered, but again in a sport based on disagreements.....
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.
Taz I could not agree with you more. HOTY to me is about the campaign, not a couple of races and that's it. Arrogate is one hell of a horse, but he only answered the bell twice throughout the entire year. As far as Songbird, he put a bunch of wins together in a row and only lost the Distaff by a head.
:racing:
Quote from: Man o Taz on January 19, 2017, 06:42:35 AM
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.
I'd say this is going nowhere fast but, we're way beyond that. For the record, I advocated for Tiznow in 2001, to the best of my knowledge, Santa Anita is a track and the BCC looked pretty decisive to me.
Understood.
Just trying to undertsand the rationale of other posters.
Quote from: Man o Taz on January 19, 2017, 01:06:26 PM
Understood.
Just trying to undertsand the rationale of other posters.
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.
Quote from: curtis on January 19, 2017, 02:34:46 PM
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.
Although I recognize and respect the fact that horse racing is all about opinions, if the following is not a Horse of the Year resume, then the award has no more meaning for me:
Jan. 6, 2016 won G2 San Pasqual
Was shipped from California to Dubai
Feb, 25, won a DWC prep handicap carrying 132 pounds
Mar. 26, won the G1 Dubai World Cup with his saddle slipped into bucking strap territory over a truly world class field
Returned to U.S. where he spent about a month at Taylor Made before going back into training
July 23, won the G2 San Diego Hcp
Aug. 20, won the G1 Pacific Classic
Oct. 1, won the G1 Awesome Again
Nov. 5, 2nd in G1 BCC by half length
Dec. 17, won the Winter Classic
2016: 8 races in 12 months with 7 wins and 1 second, winning $8,180,000 while never ducking any competition, carrying weight, winning in fast times, beating many of the best horses in the world
Seriously...what more does a horse have to do to be named Horse of the Year?
You say Arrogate is "incredibly special, too special for you to ignore." What does that make Chrome? Chopped liver? How special is it that a Kentucky Derby winner is still racing and winning at the top level of this sport at the age of 5? Whatever happens in the Pegasus and whatever the future holds for his stud career, California Chrome is a great horse who deserves more respect than for someone to brush off his remarkable year with "he doesn't need to be Horse of the Year." What does that even mean?
Quote from: CA_Chrome on January 19, 2017, 06:07:53 PM
Although I recognize and respect the fact that horse racing is all about opinions, if the following is not a Horse of the Year resume, then the award has no more meaning for me:
Jan. 6, 2016 won G2 San Pasqual
Was shipped from California to Dubai
Feb, 25, won a DWC prep handicap carrying 132 pounds
Mar. 26, won the G1 Dubai World Cup with his saddle slipped into bucking strap territory over a truly world class field
Returned to U.S. where he spent about a month at Taylor Made before going back into training
July 23, won the G2 San Diego Hcp
Aug. 20, won the G1 Pacific Classic
Oct. 1, won the G1 Awesome Again
Nov. 5, 2nd in G1 BCC by half length
Dec. 17, won the Winter Classic
2016: 8 races in 12 months with 7 wins and 1 second, winning $8,180,000 while never ducking any competition, carrying weight, winning in fast times, beating many of the best horses in the world
Seriously...what more does a horse have to do to be named Horse of the Year?
You say Arrogate is "incredibly special, too special for you to ignore." What does that make Chrome? Chopped liver? How special is it that a Kentucky Derby winner is still racing and winning at the top level of this sport at the age of 5? Whatever happens in the Pegasus and whatever the future holds for his stud career, California Chrome is a great horse who deserves more respect than for someone to brush off his remarkable year with "he doesn't need to be Horse of the Year." What does that even mean?
RIGHT ON!!!
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: CA_Chrome on January 19, 2017, 06:07:53 PM
Although I recognize and respect the fact that horse racing is all about opinions, if the following is not a Horse of the Year resume, then the award has no more meaning for me:
Jan. 6, 2016 won G2 San Pasqual
Was shipped from California to Dubai
Feb, 25, won a DWC prep handicap carrying 132 pounds
Mar. 26, won the G1 Dubai World Cup with his saddle slipped into bucking strap territory over a truly world class field
Returned to U.S. where he spent about a month at Taylor Made before going back into training
July 23, won the G2 San Diego Hcp
Aug. 20, won the G1 Pacific Classic
Oct. 1, won the G1 Awesome Again
Nov. 5, 2nd in G1 BCC by half length
Dec. 17, won the Winter Classic
2016: 8 races in 12 months with 7 wins and 1 second, winning $8,180,000 while never ducking any competition, carrying weight, winning in fast times, beating many of the best horses in the world
Seriously...what more does a horse have to do to be named Horse of the Year?
You say Arrogate is "incredibly special, too special for you to ignore." What does that make Chrome? Chopped liver? How special is it that a Kentucky Derby winner is still racing and winning at the top level of this sport at the age of 5? Whatever happens in the Pegasus and whatever the future holds for his stud career, California Chrome is a great horse who deserves more respect than for someone to brush off his remarkable year with "he doesn't need to be Horse of the Year." What does that even mean?
Ah the internet, where the world is seen seemingly only in extremes. Yes, you're right everything is either incredibly special or chopped liver. Finally someone who gets me.
Quote from: curtis on January 19, 2017, 07:05:36 PM
Ah the internet, where the world is seen seemingly only in extremes. Yes, you're right everything is either incredibly special or chopped liver. Finally someone who gets me.
No Curtis, just no. My chopped liver remark is a metaphorical way of asking where Chrome's remarkable year fits if it isn't HOTY worthy. I'm not dismissing your point of view, but am trying to understand it.
We fans claim to want top horses to stay around longer instead of being rushed off to the shed. Here we have a Kentucky Derby and Preakness winner who had a remarkable year as a 5-YEAR-OLD, and we're willing to brush him off in favor of the latest lightly raced wunderkind?
We fans claim to want horses to race more often. Here we have a horse who runs almost once a month and wins all but one of them, but we're willing to brush that off in favor of the kind of horse we complain about -- one that didn't race at two and seems to need months between races. But we're willing to brush off the one who danced every dance?
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.
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.
Quote from: Man o Taz on January 20, 2017, 06:34:18 AM
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.
I accept and respect those points of view, but don't understand the need to devalue the accomplishments of one horse in order to build up those of another. I say this because, as a young and foolish person I so loved Secretariat that I could not appreciate Seattle Slew. I resented Slew back then. In 1977 I was at Hollywood Park to see Slew race in the Swaps Stakes and was happy he lost to J. O. Tobin. The maturity that comes with decades lived has shown me how stupid my attitude was back then.
Quote from: CA_Chrome on January 20, 2017, 06:57:43 AM
I accept and respect those points of view, but don't understand the need to devalue the accomplishments of one horse in order to build up those of another. I say this because, as a young and foolish person I so loved Secretariat that I could not appreciate Seattle Slew. I resented Slew back then. In 1977 I was at Hollywood Park to see Slew race in the Swaps Stakes and was happy he lost to J. O. Tobin. The maturity that comes with decades lived has shown me how stupid my attitude was back then.
And I thought Bud Delp was the devil for saying that Spectacular Bid was the greatest horse to ever look through a bridle, both because he was, seemingly, dismissing Secretariat and I was a huge fan of Flying Paster. I was in high school then though and as you say we grow up.
I used Silver Charm--who I'll always have a soft spot for, I'm still miffed at Old Friends over the handling of Bluesthestandard but if I get to KY in the near future I'd love to go see Silver Charm--and Funny Cide simply because they are Derby/Preakness winners that ran at five. The Blood Horse list was comprised to get people talking on the internet, which it has, however I've always found it hard to take seriously. How do you really compare Alsab with Affirmed or Sysonby with Seabiscuit? I was also told on a thread long ago to take Secretariat with a grain of salt because he only beat second rate horses because Sham wasn't on the list. And truly, if it's going to be based on accomplishments, everybody is chasing Kelso.
I'll end with this. Man O' Taz somewhere Supra, compared Chrome with Ack Ack. I was a kid then, but I vividly remember Ack Ack and won't ever forget him. He won the 7f San Carlos, the 8.5f SanPasqual, the 9f San Antonio and the 10f Big 'Cap at Santa Anita. After a short break, he won and set long standing records in both the 5.5f Hollywood Express and the 9f (turf) American Handicap before wiring the field in the Hollywood Gold Cup under 134 lbs. I know from at least the Big 'Cap, in which he defeated fellow HOF member Cougar II, he carried 130 lbs. each time. Now could Chrome do this? I don't know, maybe, but because of races being rescheduled, horses running on laisex, etc. we don't ask them to do it anymore. There are a few horses, Chrome, Dortmund and Frosted come to mind, that had they been trained up for speed would have made short work of the BC Sprint but now that horses specialize, we don't ask it of them. I once said we need to redefine greatness in a horse or we'll never see it again. I was on a thread once with Barry Irwin who flat out said he didn't consider Ack Ack a great horse and he covered him writing for the Thoroughbred of California. I think by today's standards, Chrome is a great horse. I have the utmost respect for Curlin and I think they compare favorably as in a little more than twenty-four hours, they'll both be 2x HOTY's. Before I get into Tolstoy territory, this must end. I will mention though, that besides my two knuckleheads, Anniversary Year and Border Run, my favorite TB ever is Quack who won the 1972 Hollywood Gold Cup in the fastest 10f ever recorded by a 3 yo. Quack wasn't near sound--especially in the ankles--and I could go on and on with stories about what Whittingham had to do to run him even if he couldn't train him. Suffice it to say I loved that horse and whenever I see a Kafwain or a Misremembered a couple dollars go their way as Quack is the broodmare sire for both. So I suppose that may make me the one and only Quacker. 😉 Chromies, I get it, I really do.
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 20, 2017, 09:17:10 AM
I was a kid then, but I vividly remember Ack Ack and won't ever forget him. He won the 7f San Carlos, the 8.5f SanPasqual, the 9f San Antonio and the 10f Big 'Cap at Santa Anita. After a short break, he won and set long standing records in both the 5.5f Hollywood Express and the 9f (turf) American Handicap before wiring the field in the Hollywood Gold Cup under 134 lbs. I know from at least the Big 'Cap, in which he defeated fellow HOF member Cougar II, he carried 130 lbs. each time. Now could Chrome do this?
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.
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.
Quote from: Man o Taz on January 20, 2017, 01:49:14 PM
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.
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.
Speaking of Cougar, he was one quirky sonofagun. If you went to his stall and sang to him in Spanish--he was Chilean--he'd fall right to sleep. If you didn't he'd likely take a bite out of you. I've got a great photo of Bill Shoemaker at Cougar's stall with The Big Cat's ears pinned and teeth bared and Shoe with a big grin. He was a sweetheart to handle but you couldn't pony him to the gate because he'd bite the pony. Cougar was at least as popular as John Henry, Zenyatta or Chrome. He would always stop during the post parade and gawk at the tote board as if he wanted to make sure he was favored. He wouldn't budge until he did that, then he'd look at the crowd and then allow himself to be warmed up. During his races, he dropped back to last early and if you tried to send him before he was ready, he'd sulk and drop back even more. Once he was ready, Cougar would take hold of the bit and show off one of the most devastating turn of foots I've ever seen. He climbed like crazy and had this long flowing black tail. Cougar also loved to run on the rail, which is never optimal for a closer. Shoe would try to slingshot passed the field on the outside and get clear by the 1/8th pole because he knew once clear, Cougar would make a beeline for the rail come hell or high water. Cougar also had a big splotch of white on his side as if someone threw bleach at him. He was named after Red Pollard, of Seabiscuit fame, whose nickname as a boxer was The Cougar. His original owner was race caller, Joe Hernandez who was a good friend of Pollard. Hernandez imported the equine Cougar from Chile and eventually sold him to Mary Bradley and Charlie Whittingham.
Cougar II, The Big Cat:
(http://www.horseracingdvd.com/photos/listings_big/1165-1348022896.jpg)
Ack Ack
(http://www.spiletta.com/UTHOF/ackack.jpg)
Quote from: CA_Chrome on January 20, 2017, 04:53:03 PM
Cougar II, The Big Cat:
(http://www.horseracingdvd.com/photos/listings_big/1165-1348022896.jpg)
Ack Ack
(http://www.spiletta.com/UTHOF/ackack.jpg)
That must have been when Harry Guggenheim owned Ack Ack before the sale to Buddy Fogelson.
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.
fun 3 minutes for a sunday morning....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4aJq-CWHUc
Chrome accepts his Horse of the Year trophy this morning. (Courtesy NTRA and Sherman Racing Stables)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2xu34LVEAALGV2.jpg)
Correct. Do not know how I messed up Spend A Buck.