Page 45 of 45
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:49 pm
I dunno, the more I think about it the more I think it makes sense to rank individual performances. Ranking horses against each other gets nebulous fast- how do you measure an Australian turf sprinter vs. an American dirt router?- but rating performances on their own merits takes away a lot of the variability. Arrogate's place among the greats will be debated forever, but three of his performances including the DWC could fit pretty comfortably among the top 10-20 dirt performances all-time, so the award makes perfect sense to me.
Actually, I wonder if a "best performances" thread would be fun to start on here once things pick up in the spring. Would it be less contentious than a "best horses" thread?
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:20 pm
On a related note, one writers vote for the NTRA moment of the year.
He lost me when he misspelled wreaked
) as reeked
(to smell bad
If you're going to write professionally, get a dictionary and don't be afraid to use it.
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:02 am
BaroqueAgain1 wrote:Why 'awkward?' It's different, sure, but it may be simpler.
Basing the award on a horse's single most outstanding performance through the year escapes the problem of weighing resumes that may seem similar. One doesn't have to decide whether a 2 G1, 1 G3 record is better than a 1 G1, 2 G2, 1 G3 record. Or whether a G1 at Ascot outweighs a G1 at Meydan or Longchamp or Santa Anita.
Arrogate's victory in the World Cup was pretty amazing, and we should feel flattered that the mainly (I think) European panel picked it over Cracksman's Champion Stakes, Enable's Arc or Winx's Cox Plate.
like, best horse being based on one performance just feels weird? not sure how to elaborate/explain. like, maybe it just feels misnamed? sorry, making words go is hard =\
also, major lol at that word mixup. GJ.
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:04 am
A stopped watch is right twice a day.
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:37 am
You're right...for racing fans who are used to looking a year's worth of performances to rate a horse's excellence, it will be weird.
I may have said that the Longine style was simpler, but that doesn't mean it's better.
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:33 am
It basically gives an overview of what a horse is capable of doing on it's best day. Overall they usually get it somewhat right (same with timeform ratings) and give a rough good comparison. It's not at all accomplishment based. I think it's a somewhat fair way to compare apples and oranges (turf and dirt).