Absolutely. It's amazing.

;)

You must be kidding.:eek: Where were you in 1973? I won't even bring up the additional obvious examples over the past 40 years because 1973 alone slams your statement into Zen-la-la-land.

Yes, Zenyatta brought a lot of attention to racing this year. That's great. She brought attention to a sport, our sport, that is not as popular as it was in years past. Remember, it used to be called the sport of kings.:rolleyes: I for one, and I'm sure many others do too, appreciate ANY horse that brings positive attention to horse racing.

Thank you Zen.:{>: I've enjoyed watching you run. You're beautiful, a good dancer, you seem to have your taste for alcohol under control, and I wish I were tall and had long, lanky legs like you.

Horse of the year? Not so sure. I will say this. I for one will be very happy when Zen goes off to her first romantic encounter. Hopefully the number of Zen threads will decrease. I wish her a long, happy, and healthy horse life. But, enough already.:wf

Ahh, what I'm I thinking. Everyone will be arguing over who she should have been bred to.

"Thank you, sir - I'll have another"

Stephanie Diaz of The Pilot out of Southern Pines, NC

http://www.thepilot.com/news/2010/no...be-horse-year/

The Moss's are very kind of OLD FRIENDS (and they are, I don't deny them that), but is that a good enough reason?

That woman is a hack who had an Eclipse Award taken from her for plagiarism.

But true. It's amazing what one can learn by being a member DT .:)

http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/stephanie-diaz

;)

and the TV ratings?

I need an honest answer here. If another horse is given the same kind of media push that Zenyatta got this year, do you think the ratings will be similar if not the same?

What other horses deserves the push? She earned it, BRO.

That wasn't the question.

who knows? i can't see the future, can you? besides, didn't zenyatta run in the classic last year? what happened with the ratings?

So, in other words, you feel that Zenyatta was bad for the sport.

you got one out of five correct.

20%

F

If another horse does enough to generate them, yes. It would need to be a triple crown winner, but yea it could happen.

I just am dumbfounded by the discussion that she did not transcend the normal viewer ship of the sport, that somehow she has done little to advance the sport. I can find countless posts from around the net that would make it sound like there are just as many crazy people on both sides of the fence.

One could argue Goldikova has certainly done enough to generate the kind of buzz Zenyatta got this year. If she makes it back next year for the Mile I would hope she gets the kind of media attention she deserves.

You'll get no arguement from me that viewership was up this year because people were drawn in by Zenyatta. What I am saying is, if you give another horse the same kind of push, you will see similar results. Obviously it would have to be a special horse and there aren't many. But horse racing has dropped the ball a lot in terms of marketing.

Isn't it a bit premature to talk about how much she has advanced the sport? Advanced in what way? Because viewership was up for one race? How many of those people are going to watch again? Were any of those people educated about the sport? Were they taught about betting? That is what is going to advance the sport IMO. Not puff pieces full of hyperbole.

A European horse who competes once a year here, at a specialized distance no less. Thats never going to draw viewers, even if it was like her 6th in a row.

I guess it could be premature, but the fact is that usually the only press racing gets is because of doping, cheating, breakdowns, etc. From that standpoint alone she has helped racings image.

Viewership was not only up for one race, it was the only race she was in this year that could be monitored because most were not on TV with ratings. I would say the races she was in outside the Cup were more heavily attended, not this year but last as well, compared to previous years. Getting people out to the track is a positive.

I dont know how many are going to watch again, surely some of them, thats a good thing right?

Hopefully they were not educated, this means you are drawing in new fans, I see this as a good thing. Maybe they were just at the starting stages and now understand more than they did, again this is a good thing.

Hopefully on the betting they were wagering on the days they went to the racing, hopefully this part of the sport drew there interest into the sport, the teaching part to me is a self indulging aspect of the game, you learn through experience.

There seems to be this advancement of an idea that star race horses cannot draw in new people to bet, I just disagree. I have explained to you that I was drawn in by Arazi, because of a Nightline puff piece as you say, and I have wagered at least a few hundred grand in my lifetime.

Now if you want to say the mechanics of the game won't keep these people, you know full and well I won't argue, its kinda turned me off to the game.

We'll agree to disagree about how much viewership Goldikova will garner if she is marketed in the same manner as Zenyatta was. People like to think they are seeing something special. That is why 60 Minutes went with the "greatest horse ever" nonsense. That is why the interviewer asked Mike Smith if Zenyatta is better than Secretariat. That's why the talking heads on ESPN's PTI were calling her the best ever before the Classic because she had never lost. Market Goldikova as the best miler ever and throw in the story about her trainer being a former jock, maybe something about what she drinks....ratings gold.

Again, the races she entered were more heavily attended because people wanted to be a part of the experience. How many of those people came again? Considering the state of California racing, I'm not really sure her impact has been anything other than inflated attendance 5 times a year.

I'm not going to assume these new "fans" were educated. I'm not sure why you would. Was there any education in the 60 Minutes piece? How about the ESPN coverage? I didn't see any. I would say your experience with Arazi is more the exception than the rule. Especially when you consider who the focus of the marketing blitz around Zenyatta was targeting.

IMO horse racing needs to try and draw in gamblers and people that follow other sports like football, basketball etc. Football fans pay big money to attend games, buy tons of merchandise and many of them gamble on games. Sports betting is a billion dollar industry by many accounts. I'm glad there was a lot of exposure for the sport, but I just don't know how effective it will be.

200 or so make the HOY vote?
 

Who are theses people? I know one (Nick Kling) who Sunday on his weekly show clearly is voting for Zenyatta. Took call after call challenging him on why her and not Blame and he sat there with litle to no response. Really makes one wonder why these selected few have the power to cast a vote and determine the fate of a champion. Turn it over to the true horse person...The Bettor..now that would be something huh...

Scat

I think it's great to assume that Zenyatta's brought people to the sport and all, but really, did she attract any more attention than, say, Big Brown did in 2008? I'd suggest not.

Big Brown? You got to be kidding

I would agree and can think of others such as Funny Cide and Smarty Jones recently. I look at it this way and of course it's not the most scientific method. I know a certain horse has hit mainstream when my non racing fan friends ask me about the horse.

They wanted to know about Funny Cide before the Belmont. Same thing for Smarty Jones and were adament about going to the Belmont to see him run. Same thing for Big Brown before the Belmont. Last year they wanted to know about Rachel Alexandra. This year before the Classic I got a handful of texts wanting to know about Zenyatta and why they should know about her.

Why? Surely BB was exposed to a much wider audience than Zenyatta. I would think all of Big Browns 3 year old races were nationally televised and winning the Derby and going for a TC creates far more exposure than a single BC race even with the 60 minutes/Oprah lead in.

Zenyatta's popularity most directly correlates to Smarty Jones I would think. Of course, the mitigating factors are that Zenyatta seems to have an entire state that is absolutely enthralled by her and the fact that she's a mare factors into the equation.

Smarty was wildly popular because of the Triple Crown of course. Something ridiculous like 9k people showed up to watch a workout of his before the Belmont. That's more than Philly was getting on a day to day basis for live racing save Pa Derby day. The attendance at Belmont shows how popular he was.

I guarantee you Big Brown's Belmont loss got significantly more national coverage than Zenyatta's BCC second, and Big Brown was probably the least noticed of the Derby-Preakness doubles of the last decade.

Also, maybe I'm biased because I'm on the East Coast, but Smarty Jones and Funny Cide seemed infinitely more popular locally than did Zenyatta. As far as average joes that I know, I'd say Zenyatta ranked with Afleet Alex in terms of popularity.

That's a very good comparison

Zenyatta was so popular with the general public that the clamor to see her resulted in how many of her races being picked up nationally?

Hell even Curlin got ESPN news break-in's when he ran as a 4 yo.

The problem is that the newer generation has so little exposure to truly great horses or even solid campaigns by very good horses. The ESPN philosophy of acting as though every event is historic or something that you've never seen before or an all-time great seems to have taken ahold in racing as well as other sports.

That will happen when a huge favorite gets pulled up and eased when going for a Triple Crown.

Fixed that for you.

The lead up to the race maybe...but his loss got significantly more coverage because of the circumstances surrounding it.

Despite my lack of respect for Kling's opinion, he is probably more qualified than a lot of other voters. Hard to believe that in a day and age when racing gets so little coverage there are 200+ writers with the credentials or knowledge to accurately vote on the eclipse awards.

I'm not sure what your point is other than Zenyatta is probably less known to the average, casual fan of horse racing than Big Brown.

Zenyatta is the west coasts Smarty Jones... the hype was unreal on the East when Smarty was going through the triple crown. Zenyatta never matched that on the east coast, though I'm sure she did in California.

Did 120k people show up to watch Zenyatta lose her last race? Because that's how Smarty rolled.

if my foggy memory is correct, Smarty's Belmont day was an absolute gorgeous day and you could still BYOB... They would have got 75k with no triple crown bid that day.

Zenyatta brought out a good # of people on the West Coast also.

The use of steroids in racehorses was also exposed to a much wider audience. Big Brown brought out alot of negative attention to the sport between his connections, drug suspensions, steroids etc. Do you think things like equipoise or winstrol should still be allowed universally in racing?

Your memory serves you incorrectly. It was a high of about 65 and semi-drizzly/misty for the day of the 2004 Belmont. One could transport one's own beer onto the Belmont grounds in those days though, that is true.