Eclipse Awards 2017

[Man o Taz]

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.

[Man o Taz]

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.

[curtis]

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. 

[curtis]

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.

[curtis]

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.

[Man o Taz]

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.

[curtis]

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. 

[afleetphil]

Arrogate didn't do enough with his two wins to be considered HOTY. It's got to be either Chrome or Songbird.

[curtis]

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.....

[Man o Taz]

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.

[afleetphil]

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.

[curtis]

 

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.

[Man o Taz]

Understood.

Just trying to undertsand the rationale of other posters.

[curtis]

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.

[CA_Chrome]

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?