A Weak Argument, Then and Now
There were a lot of strong arguments made in favor of Zenyatta for 2009 Horse of the Year. Unfortunately for noted handicapping author James Quinn, his was not one of them.
Quinn’s post-Eclipse Award ceremony rant in the January 24 edition of DRF Simulcast Weekly (“Distance is the difference: It’s the Grade 1, 10-furlong races that make champions”) had plenty of holes. Embarrassingly, he concluded the column by re-fighting the 1978 Horse of the Year battle by misstating who actually won the top honor that year. More on that later.
As he found it “important to admonish them publicly one and all” those who voted for Rachel Alexandra, so do I feel the need to admonish this revered member of the national handicapping clique for his oversights and sloppy journalism.
QUINN: Surely the standard to be raised on high for the Horse of the Year crown must be the ability to beat open and authentic Grade 1 handicap horses at the classic distance, which in North America means at 1 1/4 miles, and preferably more than once. However brilliant, performances at the middle distances do not apply.
Although she did so only once, Zenyatta did so convincingly, in the year’s definitive Grade 1 test, overtaking arguably the leading handicap horse in the land, and with a pulsating final quarter mile of 22 and change. Zenyatta was in this opinion 2009’s Horse of the Year.
Triple Crown winners possibly excepted, 3-year-old colts or fillies that wish to be so recognized do not qualify by beating either their own age in the Kentucky Derby or ranking handicap horses at distance shorter than the classic distance. Three-year-old fillies do not qualify either by beating their own sex at the 1 1/4 miles. They must beat leading handicap males at the classic distance – no exceptions.
It’s the distance, stupid!
What is an “authentic Grade 1 handicap horse”? I seem to recall Quinn writing in the past that he believes any horse who has won two races of that rank is worthy of such a label. Unfortunately, that definition doesn’t hold much water when you think about some of the many marginal talents who achieved that distinction yet were ultimately found not to be worthy of such a designation. Sir Bear is but one example of many one could find if they looked through the sport’s archives since 1973, when the grading of North American races began.
Self-servingly, Quinn refers to the Breeders’ Cup Classic as the “definitive” Grade 1 test of the year. That’s an overloaded adjective, one that does not apply to any one race every year. The Breeders’ Cup Classic can certainly be called the year’s “premier” Grade 1 test, but the history of the race shows that it doesn’t always produce the worthiest candidate for Horse of the Year. Of course, Quinn knows this.
Quinn spends the middle part of his column lamenting the reductions in distance of some of the sport’s most prestigious races. This was the one part of the column I agreed with wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, Quinn’s lament evolves into a rigidness of thought that refuses to recognize the reality of today’s game. He basically implies that non-older male candidates for Horse of the Year have only a select few opportunities to win over his mind and heart for such recognition by winning a 10-furlong Grade 1 race open to older horses. Currently, only five races qualify: the Santa Anita Handicap, Hollywood Gold Cup, Pacific Classic, Jockey Club Gold Cup and Breeders’ Cup Classic. That’s pretty slim pickings, and three-year-olds can only run in four of them as the conditions of the Santa Anita Handicap exclude classic hopefuls.
Applying this rigid criteria, Quinn could not have agreed with past Horse of the Year selections such as Twilight Tear (1944), Capot (1949), Bold Ruler (1957), Secretariat (1972), Conquistador Cielo (1982), Spend a Buck (1985), Lady’s Secret (1986), Holy Bull (1994), Favorite Trick (1997), Charismatic (1999), Point Given (2001), and Azeri (2002). While I personally have problems with several on this list, I’d be curious to know what logical alternatives to, say, Holy Bull, Quinn could have come up with. If these criteria can only be applied selectively for the sake of propping up a current argument and not on an annual or historic basis, then it just comes across as arbitrary and capricious rather than as a deeply-held conviction.
And let me just say that Zenyatta’s supporters lose me when they point to her having beaten Gio Ponti, the champion older male, who was at a decided disadvantage not being, in Quinn’s terms, an “authentic” Grade 1 horse on Pro-Ride. How many of them, including Quinn, would bet on Gio Ponti to defeat Rachel Alexandra at nine or 10 furlongs on dirt? Does Quinn think Gio Ponti would have beaten Rachel Alexandra in the Woodward? Given trainer Christophe Clement’s refusal to enter Gio Ponti in any dirt race over the past three seasons, I have my doubts.
I earlier alluded to Quinn’s revisionist history of the 1978 Horse of the Year race. This final portion of the column is so riddled with factual errors that both he and the publication’s editor need to be held to account.
In a nutshell, Quinn argues that Exceller was more deserving than Seattle Slew as that season’s champion older male and Horse of the Year. One problem is Seattle Slew was not named Horse of the Year, something Quinn stated as fact. The honor actually went to Triple Crown winner Affirmed who, ironically, did not beat authentic Grade 1 handicap horses at 1 1/4 miles or beyond. In fact, he never won a race open to older horses as a three-year-old.
Why did Exceller deserve older male honors over Seattle Slew, according to Quinn? Because of his six consecutive Grade 1 stakes wins on dirt and turf and his victory over Seattle Slew in the definitive (there’s that word again) 12-furlong Jockey Club Gold Cup.
First off, Exceller’s six Grade 1 wins were NOT consecutive. Quinn even writes about Exceller’s loss to Seattle Slew in the Woodward prior to the Jockey Club Gold Cup, yet he uses the term consecutive more than one time. The fact of the matter is that Exceller achieved the distinction over the span of eight races.
Quinn laughably downplays Exceller’s loss to Seattle Slew in the Woodward because, he claims, trainer Charlie Whittingham stated beforehand that the Jockey Club Gold Cup was the real goal for Exceller and that the Woodward was going to be used as a mere prep. I find that amusing for two reasons: 1) that’s a strange thing for a Hall of Fame conditioner to have said prior to a Grade 1 race when Exceller, in Quinn’s universe, is entering hot as lava off five consecutive Grade 1 wins. 2) Are Eclipse Award voters automatically supposed to disregard the results of races as traditionally important as the Woodward when the trainer of a certain horse has stated he doesn’t think his charge will be 100%? They obviously missed the memo on that one.
Besides the obvious West Coat bias in the Exceller/Seattle Slew debate, Quinn still seemingly clings to the notion that all Grade 1 races are created equal and the more of them that you win during the year the more worthy you are of a championship. That is why Exceller’s six “consecutive” Grade 1 wins trump Seattle Slew’s two, even though they split their two decisions and Seattle Slew’s performance in defeat in the Gold Cup is historically looked upon with more reverence than Exceller’s, which was aided by insane early fractions set by Slew. I’m surprised a self-avowed pace handicapping disciple like Quinn cannot recognize which was the superior effort.
Of Exceller’s six Grade 1 wins only two were on dirt, the same number won by Seattle Slew. Should the four on turf really have been considered for an award that at the time traditionally honored excellence on dirt? That’s a hard argument to make, except I guess for those who find Gio Ponti worthy of the same honor today.
Quinn also laments that Exceller, despite four Grade 1 wins on the surface, did not win the turf male championship either, which inexplicably went to the good but undeserving 3-year-old Mac Diarmida. Overlooked here is that Exceller lost two Grade 1 races on turf that year – the San Luis Rey Stakes and Century Handicap – while Mac Diarmida lost only one stakes all season – the Grade 1 Man o’ War – a loss he ultimately avenged by winning the Washington D.C. International over Tiller and future champion Waya. Did Charlie Whittingham, by chance, turn down an invitation for Exceller to participate in the race at Laurel so he could he run in the Oak Tree Invitational, a weaker Grade 1, the day following the International? Exceller lost by 16 1/2 lengths in the 1977 International. Ladies and gentlemen, you be the judge.
Exceller was a terrific racehorse who did not deserve the inhumane treatment that ultimately claimed his life. Perhaps he was indeed more worthy of one or both of those Eclipse Awards in 1978. However, the case was not definitively made by Quinn in this column, which was overloaded with dogma in the almost complete absence of historical fact and comparative analysis.
Quinn’s post-Eclipse Award ceremony rant in the January 24 edition of DRF Simulcast Weekly (“Distance is the difference: It’s the Grade 1, 10-furlong races that make champions”) had plenty of holes. Embarrassingly, he concluded the column by re-fighting the 1978 Horse of the Year battle by misstating who actually won the top honor that year. More on that later.
As he found it “important to admonish them publicly one and all” those who voted for Rachel Alexandra, so do I feel the need to admonish this revered member of the national handicapping clique for his oversights and sloppy journalism.
QUINN: Surely the standard to be raised on high for the Horse of the Year crown must be the ability to beat open and authentic Grade 1 handicap horses at the classic distance, which in North America means at 1 1/4 miles, and preferably more than once. However brilliant, performances at the middle distances do not apply.
Although she did so only once, Zenyatta did so convincingly, in the year’s definitive Grade 1 test, overtaking arguably the leading handicap horse in the land, and with a pulsating final quarter mile of 22 and change. Zenyatta was in this opinion 2009’s Horse of the Year.
Triple Crown winners possibly excepted, 3-year-old colts or fillies that wish to be so recognized do not qualify by beating either their own age in the Kentucky Derby or ranking handicap horses at distance shorter than the classic distance. Three-year-old fillies do not qualify either by beating their own sex at the 1 1/4 miles. They must beat leading handicap males at the classic distance – no exceptions.
It’s the distance, stupid!
What is an “authentic Grade 1 handicap horse”? I seem to recall Quinn writing in the past that he believes any horse who has won two races of that rank is worthy of such a label. Unfortunately, that definition doesn’t hold much water when you think about some of the many marginal talents who achieved that distinction yet were ultimately found not to be worthy of such a designation. Sir Bear is but one example of many one could find if they looked through the sport’s archives since 1973, when the grading of North American races began.
Self-servingly, Quinn refers to the Breeders’ Cup Classic as the “definitive” Grade 1 test of the year. That’s an overloaded adjective, one that does not apply to any one race every year. The Breeders’ Cup Classic can certainly be called the year’s “premier” Grade 1 test, but the history of the race shows that it doesn’t always produce the worthiest candidate for Horse of the Year. Of course, Quinn knows this.
Quinn spends the middle part of his column lamenting the reductions in distance of some of the sport’s most prestigious races. This was the one part of the column I agreed with wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, Quinn’s lament evolves into a rigidness of thought that refuses to recognize the reality of today’s game. He basically implies that non-older male candidates for Horse of the Year have only a select few opportunities to win over his mind and heart for such recognition by winning a 10-furlong Grade 1 race open to older horses. Currently, only five races qualify: the Santa Anita Handicap, Hollywood Gold Cup, Pacific Classic, Jockey Club Gold Cup and Breeders’ Cup Classic. That’s pretty slim pickings, and three-year-olds can only run in four of them as the conditions of the Santa Anita Handicap exclude classic hopefuls.
Applying this rigid criteria, Quinn could not have agreed with past Horse of the Year selections such as Twilight Tear (1944), Capot (1949), Bold Ruler (1957), Secretariat (1972), Conquistador Cielo (1982), Spend a Buck (1985), Lady’s Secret (1986), Holy Bull (1994), Favorite Trick (1997), Charismatic (1999), Point Given (2001), and Azeri (2002). While I personally have problems with several on this list, I’d be curious to know what logical alternatives to, say, Holy Bull, Quinn could have come up with. If these criteria can only be applied selectively for the sake of propping up a current argument and not on an annual or historic basis, then it just comes across as arbitrary and capricious rather than as a deeply-held conviction.
And let me just say that Zenyatta’s supporters lose me when they point to her having beaten Gio Ponti, the champion older male, who was at a decided disadvantage not being, in Quinn’s terms, an “authentic” Grade 1 horse on Pro-Ride. How many of them, including Quinn, would bet on Gio Ponti to defeat Rachel Alexandra at nine or 10 furlongs on dirt? Does Quinn think Gio Ponti would have beaten Rachel Alexandra in the Woodward? Given trainer Christophe Clement’s refusal to enter Gio Ponti in any dirt race over the past three seasons, I have my doubts.
I earlier alluded to Quinn’s revisionist history of the 1978 Horse of the Year race. This final portion of the column is so riddled with factual errors that both he and the publication’s editor need to be held to account.
In a nutshell, Quinn argues that Exceller was more deserving than Seattle Slew as that season’s champion older male and Horse of the Year. One problem is Seattle Slew was not named Horse of the Year, something Quinn stated as fact. The honor actually went to Triple Crown winner Affirmed who, ironically, did not beat authentic Grade 1 handicap horses at 1 1/4 miles or beyond. In fact, he never won a race open to older horses as a three-year-old.
Why did Exceller deserve older male honors over Seattle Slew, according to Quinn? Because of his six consecutive Grade 1 stakes wins on dirt and turf and his victory over Seattle Slew in the definitive (there’s that word again) 12-furlong Jockey Club Gold Cup.
First off, Exceller’s six Grade 1 wins were NOT consecutive. Quinn even writes about Exceller’s loss to Seattle Slew in the Woodward prior to the Jockey Club Gold Cup, yet he uses the term consecutive more than one time. The fact of the matter is that Exceller achieved the distinction over the span of eight races.
Quinn laughably downplays Exceller’s loss to Seattle Slew in the Woodward because, he claims, trainer Charlie Whittingham stated beforehand that the Jockey Club Gold Cup was the real goal for Exceller and that the Woodward was going to be used as a mere prep. I find that amusing for two reasons: 1) that’s a strange thing for a Hall of Fame conditioner to have said prior to a Grade 1 race when Exceller, in Quinn’s universe, is entering hot as lava off five consecutive Grade 1 wins. 2) Are Eclipse Award voters automatically supposed to disregard the results of races as traditionally important as the Woodward when the trainer of a certain horse has stated he doesn’t think his charge will be 100%? They obviously missed the memo on that one.
Besides the obvious West Coat bias in the Exceller/Seattle Slew debate, Quinn still seemingly clings to the notion that all Grade 1 races are created equal and the more of them that you win during the year the more worthy you are of a championship. That is why Exceller’s six “consecutive” Grade 1 wins trump Seattle Slew’s two, even though they split their two decisions and Seattle Slew’s performance in defeat in the Gold Cup is historically looked upon with more reverence than Exceller’s, which was aided by insane early fractions set by Slew. I’m surprised a self-avowed pace handicapping disciple like Quinn cannot recognize which was the superior effort.
Of Exceller’s six Grade 1 wins only two were on dirt, the same number won by Seattle Slew. Should the four on turf really have been considered for an award that at the time traditionally honored excellence on dirt? That’s a hard argument to make, except I guess for those who find Gio Ponti worthy of the same honor today.
Quinn also laments that Exceller, despite four Grade 1 wins on the surface, did not win the turf male championship either, which inexplicably went to the good but undeserving 3-year-old Mac Diarmida. Overlooked here is that Exceller lost two Grade 1 races on turf that year – the San Luis Rey Stakes and Century Handicap – while Mac Diarmida lost only one stakes all season – the Grade 1 Man o’ War – a loss he ultimately avenged by winning the Washington D.C. International over Tiller and future champion Waya. Did Charlie Whittingham, by chance, turn down an invitation for Exceller to participate in the race at Laurel so he could he run in the Oak Tree Invitational, a weaker Grade 1, the day following the International? Exceller lost by 16 1/2 lengths in the 1977 International. Ladies and gentlemen, you be the judge.
Exceller was a terrific racehorse who did not deserve the inhumane treatment that ultimately claimed his life. Perhaps he was indeed more worthy of one or both of those Eclipse Awards in 1978. However, the case was not definitively made by Quinn in this column, which was overloaded with dogma in the almost complete absence of historical fact and comparative analysis.
posted by Aidan Roark at 10:13 PM
1 Comments:
This blog has certainly returned in style, even though the author seems to be a different one.
Anyway, a great post.
Post a Comment
<< Home