The administration of year-end awards in horse racing is often compared to Division I-A college football.
Indeed, Thoroughbred racing relies on a triumvirate of voting panels (National Turf Writers Association, Daily Racing Form, and National Thoroughbred Racing Association) determining Eclipse Award winners with no guidelines other than a horse must have made one North American start during the year.
For the most part, I do think the voters get it right with only two very notable exceptions that come to my mind: Favorite Trick as Horse of the Year (over Skip Away) in 1997 and Xtra Heat as champion three-year-old filly (over Flute) in 2001. I'm sure there are other miscarriages of justice in other people's minds, but those are my big two.
One recent vote that was a carriage of justice is last year's Horse of the Year in which Curlin took the sport's top prize over Zenyatta and Big Brown. I've read some comments that have intimated that Zenyatta "got robbed" by the vote last year and that she deserved it. For sure, she had one of the most impressive older female campaigns in recent memory—one that rivals Azeri's 2002 Horse of the Year campaign—but her season did not compare to Curlin winning the Dubai World Cup, Stephen Foster Handicap, Woodward Stakes, and Jockey Club Gold Cup—all Grade or Group 1 races and each more prestigious than any race Zenyatta won with the exception of the Breeders' Cup Ladies' Classic (nee Distaff).
Unfortunately, this perceived slight to Zenyatta is making people think the Street Cry mare has 2009 credentials she hasn't come close to earning yet. If the vote for champion older female were this week, Seattle Smooth would be my choice even though I think Zenyatta is the better horse (I rank her second in the annual NTRA poll behind Rachel Alexandra).
Taking the awards hysteria a step farther, Zenyatta is certainly in the Horse of the Year picture based on potential, but she has to do a lot more than win the same races she won last year if she wants to top my ballot (barring a blow up of the three-year-old male and older male divisions a la 2002). And what about Gio Ponti? Why shouldn't the top Turf male be in the conversation if a three-year-old filly and five-year-old mare are?
I bring this up in part because I'm amazed at the notion that anyone would accuse Rachel Alexandra's connections of ducking competition when (assuming she starts in the Haskell) she has gone out of her division twice in the past three months while Zenyatta has yet to race outside her division even once in her career (while allowing that I'm impressed that she shipped to Oaklawn last year and beat the defending champion [Ginger Punch] on conventional dirt).
The other part of this treatise is that I do think the voters get it right a vast majority of the time, and that even though Zenyatta is definitely the darling right now, the voters will get it right in light of actual racetrack performance come December. So, sorry, Patrick, we don't need standings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
And how are those triumvirate of racing panels helping to publicize horse racing? No one has heard of Gio Ponti. If you asked casual sports fans who Zenyatta was they'd probably guess a Brazilian soccer player. I know you're a writer by profession, but have you considered reading? Standings would be beneficial to this sport because it would give context to every stakes race that the longer term fan already knows about. That is my main point. Read the full explanation here
ReplyDeleteThe secondary points are that it would help create competition - as a loss wouldn't be the end of a season so you'd see less horses ducking one another.
Shouldn't you link to Patrick's post so your readers have some context to your statement?
ReplyDeletePatrick (handride),
ReplyDeleteIt's not the Turf writer's or Daily Racing Form's responsibility to publicize horse racing.
The NTRA certainly has that mission (in part), but its Eclipse Award voting bloc is made up of racing secretaries, and it's not their job to publicize racing either, though they certainly can affect that part of the business based on the horses they attract to their track's races.
The reason I don't like standings is because they weigh the importance of a race BEFORE it's run versus AFTER by automatically making certain races worth a certain amount of points, and there are just too many stakes races for that to work. Tracks should be able to market their own races without having to worry about not being able to attract certain horses because they're not part of some preordained points scheme.
All horses who run in stakes races would be included. It would help local racetracks market their races. And if trainers/owners knew about what it would take to win a year end award it would vastly affect how standings work. The TBA's standings work w/o anyone knowning, w/o grading the grades. The selling point is that it would change nothing but perception, and perception is everything.
ReplyDeleteI believe the use of standings has more strengths than weaknesses compared to the current system, and you agree, you say the Eclipse doesn't help sell racing. Then it's just more of the same, self-important people fellating themselves.
If all graded stakes offer points then
ReplyDeleteA) how does that solve the problem of horses "ducking" competition? What is the incentive for Rachel Alexandra to run in the Travers versus the Alabama?
B) It will be harder for tracks to create stakes races to lure the best talent. This doesn't happen very often, but it's in play.
As for the Eclipse Awards' role in the industry, I have no problem with its congratulatory nature. The owners pay most of the freight (along with the bettors) so giving them the spotlight when their investments do well makes sense to me. It's boring to watch and terrible TV, but that's fine. The racetrack will always be where the action is.
a) The travers would be worth more because it would be under less restrictions, and because it would probably rate higher in public opinion.
ReplyDeleteB) What? Stakes races will be created the same way they've always been created. In fact every stakes race already does have a "score" given to it by the AGSC, it's just then dumbed down to Gr I II or III.
C) The owners would probably like their horses being more famous, it would be an easier sell in the shed if Gio Ponti was a house hold name.
Being a household name has nothing to do with a horse's success in the shed.
ReplyDeleteAnd I mean ZILCH.
Yeah I don't understand why breeding farms put ads in papers either. It's all about exposure from any where. And I think standings would help breeders the most, you could say you had the #12 3yo Turf horse, with wins over XYZ horses, rather than the BS many of these ads say.
ReplyDeleteA name helps in the shed; it's easier attracting mares when a horse is "more famous," or as handride said, it's "...an easier sell in the shed."
ReplyDeleteYou brought up a different point altogether with "success in the shed"; "success" comes on the track.