|
This debate has been going on for a long time. If the Horse of the Year is supposed to be the fastest horse (at a classic distance), the champion older male would win most of the time. Now, it does seem like the older male is typically under consideration or arguably its for him to lose, but voters have been fairly open to the idea that it's more subjective than that.
A prime example is Zenyatta in 2010. Blame was the fastest on the track, but no one expected 60 Minutes to do a segment on Blame and voters (partially as payback for 2009) saw Zenyatta as the horse who defined that year. Some have suggested that it's who is most memorable, and that may not be such a bad definition.
Fager Fan, I'm very sympathetic to your stance on certain trainers. However, would you vote for anyone other than Justify as the champion three-year-old male? I'm suspecting not. For Horse of the Year, I think you too see it being more subjective, and whether it's his fragility, his trainer, or whatever, he doesn't deserve the title. It's a gut feeling and you're entitled to it. On the flip side, hopefully you can see the argument that the Triple Crown is of such importance, the fact he was undefeated, and that he was able to overcome Mike Smith, that some people would feel that makes Justify horse of the year over a horse who had a middle to above average older male campaign.
I would probably vote for Justify and suspect he will win, but it's interesting to see how many people are opposed to him. My feeling is that the biggest reason for it is that people want to punish early retirement, and I understand that too. It's been pointed out that Seattle Slew and Affirmed didn't do much the remainder of the year after their Belmont wins and still were voted Horse of the Year, and worse yet, Slew beat Affirmed twice and still didn't get the honors because of the value placed on the Triple Crown win.
|
