Hollendorfer, Gomez among Hall of Fame nominees
 

The National Museum of Racing on Wednesday announced the slate of 2011 finalists for election to the Hall of Fame. Among the candidates are jockeys Calvin Borel, Garrett Gomez, and John Velazquez and trainer Jerry Hollendorfer, all first-time nominees.

Also on the ballot are trainers Gary Jones and Bob Wheeler, jockey Alex Solis, and the mares Open Mind, Safely Kept, and Sky Beauty, all of whom have previously been finalists.

http://www.drf.com/news/calvin-borel...-fame-nominees

Happy to see Hollendorfer on the list.

Agreed. He and Robert Wheeler would definitely get my votes if I had any.

Updated:
http://www.drf.com/news/calvin-borel...-fame-nominees

Borel on this list is laughable.

What's this rush to put active riders in the HOF? Gomez and JV are not even 40 and will still be riding for several years, it's stupid. Borel is a complete joke, he belongs in The Kentucky Derby Museum. I like Hollendorfer, he belongs in here.

I'm not a big fan of humans being put in a horse racing Hall of Fame. Jockeys espeically. And Larhage is right - what's the rush?

They should have to be retired first like other sports.

I thought it was funnier when he won the three Kentucky Derbies thanks to the same style move. That was hilarious. The fact that a three time Derby winning jockey who managed to win the Preakness on a different horse in one of those years is up for a Hall of Fame slot is completely logical. He doesn't have to go in right now though, is the thing.

Some of the people involved could really wait (not Jerry of course). Get Sky Beauty in there for crying out loud. She's the Rodney Dangerfield of Hall of Fame nominees. What's a girl gotta do?

One benefit of this method of voting instead of some of the other methods they've used, is that in a few years we don't have any major issue getting both Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra in at the same time. Procedures haven't always been consistent, and at one point they wouldn't have been able to induct 2 contemporary females in the same year.

Winning 3 Kentucky Derbies and 1 Preakness does not make one a Hall of Fame Candidate. Borel's overall resume does not warrant Hall of Fame inclusion. Buying your illogical argument, Jim Leyritz should get into the Hall of Fame because he had some big hits that helped the Yankees win a world series or Bobby Nystrom should get into the Hall of Fame because he scored the winning goal to start the Islanders dynasty. I agree that no one should be considered before they retire, but I stand behind what I said, considering his overall resume, Borel even being considered is laughable.

Go bet Borel in the Derby regardless of what horse he is on, cheer that he is best jockey ever, hope he has a ground saving trip and the seas part for him to make his rail run. GO BO-RAIL! :rolleyes:

Hey he did, after all, win the Meydan Masters this year did he not? :rolleyes:

You probably think Dane Cook is funny. :rolleyes:

By all means, question my logic. You can research his accomplishments on your own, you've got Google. Explaining them to you will have little effect I imagine. It goes beyond the Derby. You're not questioning whether he should be in the Hall, you're saying he shouldn't even be considered. What does he have to do? Increase his purse winnings? Be nearing 6,000 wins instead of 5,000? Win the Dubai World Cup, the entire Triple Crown? I'm going to need something concrete that he hasn't accomplished that you think he needs to.

I'll give you a chance to correct your football and hockey analogies to sports that don't involve teams with long term opportunities to develop plays and strategies depending on the skills of other players, with championships that take place over several playoff games with a few hours per game, opportunities to take a breather on the sideline for several minutes, have players working alongside teammates who, if they cost millions, probably are proven and worth every penny (or were at some point in their most recent contract), don't worry about how much they get paid for each individual game, who don't play for a top team in one game and one of the worst the next (like how jockeys can end up riding a G1 on a top horse and in a $5000 claiming race on a horse that's just waiting to breakdown), and don't have to hustle from game to game as a free agent. It's not even the same as Nascar which least has greater job security than a jockey and time trials in cars to qualify for races and earn positions, a sort of meritocracy where someone in a crappy car ends up in the back. A jockey with a terrible horse could get a great post position and jockey with the best horse a terrible one.

I tried to find things like Olympic sports to compare it to. You might be able to argue things like gymnastics, or figure skating but careers can't last nearly as long as a jockey's. Track and swimming generally don't involve risk of cracking a skull or breaking a neck for the entirety of the performance.

I do think it's reasonable to wait til a jockey retires. Trainers, less so. Some are active til a very old age. I've seen older jockeys, but not a Noble Threewitt type who retires at 96. I'm glad Bobby Frankel didn't have to wait until he retired. Plus it's a little easier for a trainer to retire, then unretire a la Larry Jones. A lot of jockeys will call it a day when they physically can't do it or risk it any more, but they push it up til then. Some fight to come back, but it's likely that they'll have decades to be a retired Hall of Famer. I say let trainers in while active, maybe say jockeys have to have ridden as such for a certain number of years or have to wait until retirement to be eligible, whichever comes first.