Horse of the Year

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Because the rankings were done by people who don't make speed figures that incorporate ground loss?

Dunno. Why do YOU think?

I believe if you objectively look at both CC and Bayern's 2014 race performances, Bayern gave the better race performance when the two are compared on a race by race basis.

I fully realize that the Kentucky Derby is America's most popular race, but it is not always the best race in terms of performance and quality of entrants.

Therefore which horses who ran in the 2014 Derby have moved on to be successful in other major stakes?

If speed figures and ground loss are your measurables for quality, then I somewhat understand your argument.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I believe if you objectively look at both CC and Bayern's 2014 race performances, Bayern gave the better race performance when the two are compared on a race by race basis.

I fully realize that the Kentucky Derby is America's most popular race, but it is not always the best race in terms of performance and quality of entrants.

Therefore which horses who ran in the 2014 Derby have moved on to be successful in other major stakes?

If speed figures and ground loss are your measurables for quality, then I somewhat understand your argument.

To add to the last sentence, i also thought he was visually better, i dont know the figures because i don't make my own and i don't buy anyone elses, i'm just assuming that CC had the better figure b/c ground loss.

You're right, the Derby isn't necessarily a strong group, but i think is that at the TIME the Derby is run, its the strongest 3yo group we have...but what ends up happening is that many of those derby runners fizzle out due to being over raced chasing the TC and some of them just never were good anyway....and when new 3yo class shooters come along in Oct and Nov, they're late 3year olds and they're better and much more developed than what we saw in may and their performances make the Derby look like a "Weak" race comparatively, but at the time, it was the "best" 20 horses from that class.

Bayern fans best argument is the head to head matchups.....and i would say that the head to head matchups really only matter if one horse proved he was better.....one time CC beat bayern, B had a very rough trip and the one time B beat CC (before the Classic) CC had the "pinned in" trip...and the "rubber match" if you will was the classic......where Bayern drew a better post, saved more ground and was essentially "Equal" to CC on the wire.....in other words if you forget about ground loss and you forget about posts, the result was that they were fractions of a second apart at the wire....who hit the wire first was just a technicality and the wire is just for parimutuel purposes so they can pay off winners, its not something that we need to ever use in award distribution because we are allowed to watch the race and form an opinion off visuals.

If they ran the race in the cloak of darnkness and just published the results and we weren't allowed to see what really happened, we would probably just have to go on what the results said and who crossed the line ahead of who. But since we're allowed to actually view the race, why not make a determination based on what we saw with our own eyes?

If you make the case CC was just as good as Bayern in the Classic and you say the other 2 times they raced cancel each other out because the loser had a hard trip, than you have to look at the other stuff....and the other stuff for CC includes a turf win, a Derby win, a Preakness win and a great performance loss in the Belmont and a smashing win in the SA Derby.

Bayern's non BCC resume is not as good as CCs, so to me, Bayern needed to "stomp him out" to win the title.

This was a bit similar to the year Z beat Blame......if Blame had won the Classic by a larger margin and Z was nowhere, Blame might have been HOY, but you can't have a horse with a much better resume charging at you and holding that horse off a by a small margin and figure 6 inches is going to cancel out all the other stuff.

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Because the rankings were done by people who don't make speed figures that incorporate ground loss?

Dunno. Why do YOU think?

Apparently, not that nor any other incidences that can affect the outcome of a race...There seems to be a quite superficial basis for rankings:

BAYERN (USA) is now [125] on the strength of his thrilling all the way victory in the Breeders’ Cup Classic (G1). From the same race, TOAST OF NEW YORK (USA) [124], who was beaten only a short head entered the Rankings for the first time. The third placed finisher CALIFORNIA CHROME (USA) [124], only a neck further behind, replicated his performances in both the Kentucky Derby (presented by YUM! Brands) and in the Preakness Stakes.

http://www.ifhaonline.org/resources/...ase.asp?pid=50

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

This is a terrible decision.

If I had a vote, I would have voted for Bayern for HOTY and at least considered splitting it by giving CC 3yo of the year. I don't think this was a terrible decision though. It was an outstanding season for 3yos.

I'd also say I think the probability that Bayern develops further this year than CC is higher. I guess by that I mean to say I don't think 2015 is going to tell us much about who was better in 2014 in neutral circumstances.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by camourous

I would have put California Chrome 3rd behind Main Sequence and Bayern and he would have been a distant 3rd. Main Sequence had a better resume than Wise Dan when he won his HOY as he beat better horses, but the voters obviously don't vote based on what happens on the track, it has become a popularity contest

I agree.

The fact that a decent argument can be made for Bayern, while never even bringing up the fact that Main Sequence deserved it more than both CC and Bayern, demonstrates how terrible a decision this was in my opinion.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I agree.

The fact that a decent argument can be made for Bayern, while never even bringing up the fact that Main Sequence deserved it more than both CC and Bayern, demonstrates how terrible a decision this was in my opinion.

I don't know if I can agree on Main Sequence.

The "tradition" in the US has been to give the title to a deserving dirt horse over a deserving turf horse because the US is more into dirt racing, we breed for speed and dirt, and our turf racing is considered weaker. Giving it to the turf horse has generally be reserved for years where there's been a truly outstanding turf horse and no deserving dirt horse.

Main Sequence probably wasn't even regarded as the best US turf horse until he won the BC. That sealed it for him as a much improved turfer because he beat a solid international field. But with only a limited resume, I don't think he trumped deserving horses like CC and Bayern given the tradition. He was terrific though!

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I don't know if I can agree on Main Sequence.

The "tradition" in the US has been to give the title to a deserving dirt horse over a deserving turf horse because the US is more into dirt racing, we breed for speed and dirt, and our turf racing is considered weaker. Giving it to the turf horse has generally be reserved for years where there's been a truly outstanding turf horse and no deserving dirt horse.

Main Sequence probably wasn't even regarded as the best US turf horse until he won the BC. That sealed it for him as a much improved turfer because he beat a solid international field. But with only a limited resume, I don't think he trumped deserving horses like CC and Bayern given the tradition. He was terrific though!

If the BC sealed it for Main Sequence, why didn't it seal for Bayern who won the most prestigious BC race in winning the BC Classic; that is the contradiction in your argument.

[The WindfallAngler]

Originally Posted by Cratos

If the BC sealed it for Main Sequence, why didn't it seal for Bayern who won the most prestigious BC race in winning the BC Classic; that is the contradiction in your argument.

Nahh, the BC Turf aside, those voices we hear attempting to diminish the importance of triple crown races, and of runners who race well in them, cannot succeed. In these events we see young horses absorbing a succession of shocks, followed by a calendar of only limited rest: a temporal compression which makes progressive demands, not just on physical preparedness but on recuperative reserves, we just don't see anywhere else.

Outside all of this, MAIN SEQUENCE earned four Grade One stakes wins in convincing fashion over a span of 88 days.

But, to be the equal of CALIFORNIA CHROME, Main Sequence's connections would need to have mapped out for him some other mix of four Grade Ones, with race dates more sudden and demanding than we see, among his rest intervals spaced 5 to 5-&-1/2 weeks apart.

Four other Grade Ones, yes--he would need to have won--always FEWER than 30 days apart. Including at east one break of only 14 days.

This is because California Chrome was busy recording, over an 86 day span, a streak containing one Grade Two win + three Grade One wins (among them, Dual Cla$$ics) + another Grade One race, in which CC finished a close (and arguably excusable) 4th--namely, his Belmont Stakes, wherein CC bled from the gate.

It just meant more. Elcipse voters could see it. And it is this 5-race nucleus, at the core of CC's unsuccessful bid to be 2014 triple crown champion, that puts Chrome over the top. Bayern's eye catching late season, notwithstanding.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Cratos

If the BC sealed it for Main Sequence, why didn't it seal for Bayern who won the most prestigious BC race in winning the BC Classic; that is the contradiction in your argument.

What argument?

I said I would have voted for Bayern.

I laid out my reasons for why I think CC actually won the award earlier. To that list I would add that CC also had a bigger impact on the sport because he came darn close to winning a Triple Crown. "Impact on sport" seems to carry some weight in the voting for better or worse.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

What argument?

I said I would have voted for Bayern.

I laid out my reasons for why I think CC actually won the award earlier. To that list I would add that CC also had a bigger impact on the sport because he came darn close to winning a Triple Crown. "Impact on sport" seems to carry some weight in the voting for better or worse.

I understand that you stated that you would have voted for Bayern , but your statement that the BC was a plus for Main Sequence and you didn't say that the BC was plus for Bayern becomes argumentative in the sense that both horses did essentially the same thing and according to you one got more credit than the other.

If it is the "impact" of the TC that apparently swayed the voters toward CC the BC races are further behind in gaining acceptance as "championship" races than I thought.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by The WindfallAngler

Nahh, the BC Turf aside, those voices we hear attempting to diminish the importance of triple crown races, and of runners who race well in them, cannot succeed. In these events we see young horses absorbing a succession of shocks, followed by a calendar of only limited rest: a temporal compression which makes progressive demands, not just on physical preparedness but on recuperative reserves, we just don't see anywhere else.

Outside all of this, MAIN SEQUENCE earned four Grade One stakes wins in convincing fashion over a span of 88 days.

But, to be the equal of CALIFORNIA CHROME, Main Sequence's connections would need to have mapped out for him some other mix of four Grade Ones, with race dates more sudden and demanding than we see, among his rest intervals spaced 5 to 5-&-1/2 weeks apart.

Four other Grade Ones, yes--he would need to have won--always FEWER than 30 days apart. Including at east one break of only 14 days.

This is because California Chrome was busy recording, over an 86 day span, a streak containing one Grade Two win + three Grade One wins (among them, Dual Cla$$ics) + another Grade One race, in which CC finished a close (and arguably excusable) 4th--namely, his Belmont Stakes, wherein CC bled from the gate.

It just meant more. Elcipse voters could see it. And it is this 5-race nucleus, at the core of CC's unsuccessful bid to be 2014 triple crown champion, that puts Chrome over the top. Bayern's eye catching late season, notwithstanding.

Very few people, if any, have given CC "credit" for a demanding Triple Crown chase and used his "tiredness" as a factor when trying to prop up Bayern beating him by a small margin in a race that took place in November. Somehow the Bayern supporters forgot about that and i'll bet that even some of them are the ones who are calling for the Triple Crown to be altered so horses don't have 3 grueling races in 5 weeks.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I understand that you stated that you would have voted for Bayern , but your statement that the BC was a plus for Main Sequence and you didn't say that the BC was plus for Bayern becomes argumentative in the sense that both horses did essentially the same thing and according to you one got more credit than the other.

If it is the "impact" of the TC that apparently swayed the voters toward CC the BC races are further behind in gaining acceptance as "championship" races than I thought.

I think they both got credit for their wins in Breeder's Cup races, but Main Sequence's was more probably perceived as more definitive for him because of the controversial start in the Classic that allowed Bayern to get loose on the lead. Some people apparently held that against him.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I think they both got credit for their wins in Breeder's Cup races, but Main Sequence's was more probably perceived as more definitive for him because of the controversial start in the Classic that allowed Bayern to get loose on the lead. Some people apparently held that against him.

Or, maybe they determined that his 6 inches ahead of CC in the Classic wasnt enough to cancel out the large edge in accomplishments that CC had going into the race.

[pandy]

Let's face it, if Bayern didn't cause that interference at the start, and still won the classic, which would have meant that he shook off both Moreno and Shared Belief, the voters would have made him Horse of the Year. The fact that he impeded those two rivals made a big difference in the voting, and in the race.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by pandy

Let's face it, if Bayern didn't cause that interference at the start, and still won the classic, which would have meant that he shook off both Moreno and Shared Belief, the voters would have made him Horse of the Year. The fact that he impeded those two rivals made a big difference in the voting, and in the race.

I dont think it factored in the voting only because CC ran just as well as Bayern in the Classic (or better depending how important you think ground loss is) so if you say the Classic was a wash (equal horses) and the other two races they ran against each other cancel each other out, what do you have left? You have CC winning 2./3 of the TC and racing great in leg 3 and you have Bayern losing the Travers by 20 lengths. Not much debate who was mythically "ahead" in the voters minds before the Classic.