I guess it's a "sports" thing, but I personally feel that when you start comparing horses of different eras you sort of take out the enjoyment of what is in front of you....

The fact is that RA accomplishment is rare not because it's "hard to do" but because in the modern era, no one ever tries.

If 3yo fillies were taking on older boys and losing on a regular basis in G1 races, then RA's Woodward stands out. As it stands, there is no way to know how tough it is, there is no standard.

The only viable comparison is to either go back in history or overseas. Yes, I understand that grass racing is very different but high class horses generally prove themselves very consistently. It goes without saying, especially in France that 3yo fillies and and do compete against older males, beginning in August at Deauville. The good ones win. I daresay that the colts that fillies like Zarkava, Darjina and Six Perfections and Miesque faced were superior to Macho Again, Bullsbay and Cool Coal Man.

For another comparison, 3yo fillies take on older males at times in Japan as well. Though it is on grass, their races tend to run more in the "American" style than the Euro.

Rags won the Belmont before Eight Belles ran 2nd in the Derby.

Some of you have commented that the males beaten by RA have basically been a bunch of chumps. But what about Ruffian's competition? Looking at the top two behind her in her races, I see a Kentucky Oaks winner, a Monmouth Oaks winner, and some horses with 2yo accomplishments. Certainly, some of the fillies who finished behind Ruffian had to have gone on to win most of the remaining major 3yo filly stakes in 1975 as well as some Grade 1 stakes in later years.

I respect your opinion, but doesn't comparing players/horses from different eras add to the enjoyment of being a sports/racing fan? How is debating whether Tyson could've beaten Ali or whether Maris could've hit 61 dingers in this era of two-week, cross-country road trips and ceaseless media attention taking away anyone's enjoyment of sport?

I have a belief that for sports fans, the world of sports acts like a timeline for your life. And there is a time in everyone's life (usually when they are growing up and sports are the most important thing in the world) that they consider "their" era. The teams and stars of your era were there when it mattered to you, and you identify with them the most. No matter what, you are going to go to bat for your era in these types of debates. My era is the mid-80s to the early-90s when I was about 10 until about 21. For me, the '84 Tigers will always be the greatest team, Jordan and Gretzky will always be the all-time kings of their sports ("Their will NEVER be another Jordan!"), and Joe Montana is without a doubt the best QB ever.

(Admittedly a bit stoned. Hope I didn't go off into some kind of space man, Alice in Wonderland-type philosophy rant)

Just posted #300. If we were at a bowling alley you'd all be congratulating me and offering to buy my beers.

Louisiana Downs here I am!

Gibby likes it.

there were some who questioned cigars competition....matter of fact, way back when, slew was accused of beating up on lesser competition. his derby race was called slow...

at any rate, moreso than many horses who have run recently (such as the great curlin!! insert eye roll here) rachel does seem to deserve to be compared to past greats, since none of our present 'greats' stand up very well next to her.

as for comparing rachel to euros, good luck with that. if we can't really come to agreement on where rachel fits vs dirt runners, or a certain other distaffer, how can you possibly compare her to turf runners from overseas?

at any rate, an interesting discussion for the most part. suffice it to say she's better than much of what we've seen lately. and hopefully she'll only continue to add to her place in history next year.

years from now, if people compare horses to rachel, then you'll really know where she fits. it's way too soon right now to say.

some good points. when jordan was playing, everyone said no one would compare....but he's retired-and of course other good ones come along. as for gretzky, even he is wowed by ovechkin.


it's funny...once upon a time a horse was compared to a former great, and many were scandalized. that would be man o'war i'm talking about. of course now it doesn't seem so odd to compare horses to man o'war. the horse he was compared to? anyone? lol i'd have to look it up myself-it's in a book here somewhere.

The reply that horse X beat the winners of... is pointless. Everyone likes to say, Big Brown beat the winners of the Travers and more etc. Well yeah, someone has to win in the absence of the "big horse." Someone had to win the big races after Ruffian was gone. Who knows or cares who won the Alabama run 66 weeks after Ruffian's death?

I see the same re: RA. The horses she beat by 20-40 lengths have gone on to win graded races, when no one anywhere as good as Rachel were not there. The only 3yo filly I'd like t see RA face is Careless Jewel.
I think RA is a very nice filly, in fact I think she's better than Ruffian, in part because she's had the chance to prove herself in ways Ruffian never did. (Ruffian broke down in her only try against a colt, never faced elders etc.) That said, I think that beating a weak group of older males doesn't really mean much. The RA that won the Haskell or Mother Goose would have won by more. (Though I tip my cap to her inane fractions. They probably sent to avoid being ganged up on.) The Woodward was (IMO) the equal of Curlin's JCGC last year. He won, but it was a tough effort and showed he was over the top. They both won on class.

But it isn't pointless if the horses who finished behind Ruffian didn't go on to win the big races in the absence of Ruffian.

Winning Colors is rightfully appreciated for her win in the Derby. But who she beat in her other races, as well as the battles she gave to Personal Ensign in their two meetings, only enhance her reputation.

I just want to add that I'm not saying that Rachel isn't possibly the best one of them all. I personally don't rank her higher than fifth but wouldn't argue with anyone that wanted to rank her higher. She's in the convo at least. My main issue is with how the group of horses she's been facing have been called a group of goats and rats over and over but then all of a sudden, when she beats them, it's some great accomplishment. And after watching years and years of European racing and racing in every other part of the world where fillies beating males is not seen as a huge deal, I don't get excited about seeing it happen. I'm not a believer like some people are that older means better than younger or male means better than female. I've watched a 2yo win a grade one sprint in Europe against older horses. A fast horse is a fast horse is a fast horse, no matter the age or sex. I have mentioned Winning Colors and Personal Ensign a few times. People downgrade Winning Colors because she didn't win another race that year after the Derby. All wins, just like all losses, aren't equal. Her nose loss to Personal Ensign was at least the equal of Rachel's head win over Macho Again.

Off the top of my head, probably Sysonby. Not 100% but that's who came to mind first. Certainly was one of those mentioned in Walter Farley's fictionalized account, and people were all 'hey whoa wait a minute, let's not get carried away.' For those who haven't read it, it's really good and it's not a fictionalized account of the horses' accomplishments, just a fake person named Danny to serve as the eyes of the reader in MOW's story.

While we're talking MOW, the Steves Byk and Haskin were talking about the Hopeful the other day and 'our' Steve said MOW lost it, but actually he won the Hopeful and lost the Sanford. I felt a tad silly calling in just to correct that, but having read Man O' War numerous times as a child and Dorothy Ours' book when it came out, I couldn't help but have a bell go off in my head.

Steve's really pissed about that one. I can't blame him. It took some balls for you to call into him and try to embarrass him like that.

And then for you to find a way to work it into the conversation about Rachel and Ruffian and "just happen to mention it" on an Internet message board... It's like you want the whole world to know that you're wearing a Steve Byk pelt around your waist. The great hunter has stalked and killed his prey.

:rolleyes: Right whatever. Haskin didn't correct him and as 'oops' go, it's hardly an earth shattering one. Do most people even know it off the top of their head? Obviously it was a race MOW ran in at Saratoga and we all know he lost there. I'm sure it'd be a popular guess that it was the Hopeful. I just know I always cringed when I got to that part of Farley's book, knowing what was about to happen.

Okay now you're just being obnoxious. Way to reply to your own message by the way. 'Just thought I'd mention it'. How about you let Steve defend himself if he feels the need? I do believe he's a grown up. Good grief you got yourself wound up over nothing. Frankly rather than play gotcha with Steve, I imagine he could easily take me down when it comes to knowledge about this sport and he's always someone I look forward to hearing from. If he needs a public bowing down to, he can get one from me any time he wants.

Someone asked a question about MOW, being the insanely dorky kid I was, I read way way too much as a child (most especially about horse racing) and I got attached to Big Red. Steve just happened to mention him during the Hopeful and it occurred to me just now so I said something. I don't believe I trumpeted anything and probably would've just forgotten all about it were it not for the MOW question in this thread. It was a simple remark and you didn't say I slammed Haskin in any way, yet he didn't bring it up either. Love how it's a selective 'defend the honor' slam on your part.

C'mon, man. You can't possibly think I was being serious...

Tight-wound bunch at Derby Trail. Very touchy.

Sensitive thugs, I think you all need hugs!

I personally think the way she won the Woodward proved how very great she is. People will say "oh she only beat Macho Again by a head, or, another couple yards she would have been beat, blah blah blah"... same stuff people said about the Preakness.

Her Woodward and Preakness were two of the best races you will ever see from a race horse.

MOW presumably was compared to Colin, Sysonby or even Hindoo. In fact do recall reading quotes in history books about a given horse being the "second coming of Hindoo..."

:{>: I'm feeling the love. No worries. ;)

Gotta love how internet transfers tone, but I was really hoping you were kidding the first time and then the second post threw me. Given the level of hyperbole I thought 'my God, a DTer I thought was sane goes off the deep end.' I was having a bad day and then it was just the last straw. I thought I'd missed something where, unbeknownst to me, there'd been some other sort of discussion about it and you thought I was rubbing it in to be a jerk.

Good ones, you're right I've heard those too. Colin and Fair Play. What I wouldn't give to have seen that rivalry.

A point I think is great to bring up is where Steve mentions Gallorette. I just don't know that she's getting brought up enough in the Rachel discussion. People are focused on Ruffian, but when I first saw what Gallorette accomplished I was just in awe of her. I didn't realize Barclay Tagg said it's perfectly fair to talk about RA and Ruffian, but I appreciated hearing that yesterday when I think Jon White brought it up. Even if you can't compare fillies of different eras exactly, it's fun to discuss them all and really it just elevates everybody in my eyes as I realize how blessed we've been.