Hi all,

I agree that the tag "champion" is bestowed to readily these days.

The debate can sometimes be a very emotional one because we all have our personal views and bias.

My own definition of a champion is
"A horse who has been able to "consistently" defeat the best horses the sport has to offer against them over an extended period of time".

Part of being a champion is staying at the top for a period of time so in my mind it's key that a horse must prove their consistent winning ability over the best around for more than one year.

There are not many horses that have been able to do this....and that's why there aren't many champions.

Defeats or periods of poor form in my view do not preclude a horse from being a champion (especially if that horse is past their peak). Sure they might change the degree in our mind, but doesn't mean that horse is not a champion.

History is littered with true champions of all sports who have performed for periods of time at much lower levels than what we expect of them. That doesn't mean they are not champions.

Anyway, back to horses. There are not many who have been able to consistently defeat the best that can be put against them over a number of seasons.

Going by my personal definition Sunline is a champion...for a number of seasons she defeated the best the sport had to offer at the time. Of course you can analyse the credentials of the horses she beat and argue about that, but you can do that in any era. Many of Kingston Towns wins were in very small fields....other horses dodged him because they knew they could'nt win.

Northerly is a champion, he has consistently defeated the best we have around over two racing seasons so far including another champion in Sunline.

To the person that wished to detract from his credentials because of his handicap record...you're kidding aren't you? What about the Caulfield Cup, one of the best and toughest staying handicap races anywhere. Modern day weight carrying record etc. etc.


Lonhro is not a champion (yet). I believe he has been exceptionally well placed by J R Hawkes. He hasn't consistently defeated the best horses we have in Australia. Defier has beaten him 3 times.

As much as I loved Octagonal, he probably doesn't meet my definition. He really only ever consistently beat the best that was on offer in one season 95/96.

Might and Power dominated for 12 months Oct 97 to Nov 98 and if it weren't for injury there is no doubt he would have been one of the best champions of all time. There has not been a horse dominate our best races like him for a long time.

Great debate. Interested in what others think particularly about my personal definition. Are there any other definitions out there? and how does that apply to those handful of horses who hover around champion status.