My definition of "Champion"

Overcome adversity and bad luck and still be able to WIN.
Beat the very best horses racing in the very best races.
Smash track records and run fast sectionals.
When "out of form" or "unfit" still be able to run a gallant race finishing close to the winner.
When asked to rise in class responds.
Able to win over a wide variety of distances.

Now horses such as Lonhro are very handy, but he is yet to win in the very best races against the very best opposition, each time he has been asked to rise to that level has failed for one reason or another.
There's no doubting he is brilliant without earning the "Champion" tag.

Northerly has fulfilled many of the above criteria, yet has a poor record in Handicaps and recent Sydney form has to cast a shadow.

Again he is brilliant, but not yet a "Champion".

There's no point labelling a horse a Champion of the era - what does that mean?
He is the best racing at the moment because we have nothing better?
Could be, but then does he deserve to be up alongside Phar Lap in history?

Don't think I'm trashing the good horses racing today, and both horses are ************ fantastic, but the debate is over Champions, and we have yet to see anything measure up to the true meaning of the word.