[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by miraja2

This post forced me to look at your "signature" list again.
Ghostzapper shouldn't have been HOY in '04....but he should have won in '05?

That strikes me as completely ludicrous....as do some of your other selections.

It's simple really. At the end of each year, I try to decide two things. First, who was the best horse to run in North America at least one time (since that is the only criteria for winning an award). After that I ask myself who was the most accomplished horse. When the answer to both questions is the same horse, my selection is simple. When it's not, I then ask myself which holds the bigger advantage. For example, 2004 & 2005. I thought that Smart Jones was the more talented, let's say by a 10-9 advantage. I thought GZ was the more accomplishes, let's say by a 10-9.5 advantage. That landed me on Smarty as the winner. In 2005, Saint Liam was the most accomplished by a huge margin but I thought GZs talent margin was even bigger than SLs resume advantage. I also don't think that horses should qualify for awards off of one race but until the rules are changed, I would continue to vote for a qualified horse. As long as Goldikova and Miesque and others can win championships off of one race, why can't an American horse? Who says that one race has to be in the BC? GZs Met was the best race be any horse in NA that year.....by far. As long as Singspiel can be voted as a champion while never even winning a race in this country, as long as High Chaparral can win off a dead-heat, I have no problem voting for GZ.