You're right, I wish RA was owned by Jerry Moss. It would have been scintillating all summer to see her win the Acorn by 20, the Mother Goose by 20, the CCA Oaks by potentially 40 lengths and then the Alabama. Who needs a horse who takes on all different rivals, beats them at their game all the while showing unprecedented speed, courage, and tenacity?

I'd much prefer a horse who faces absolute nobodies all year in a virtually identical campaign to the one they had the prior year.

Fault Rachel Alexandra for having a trainer with a spotty record or an owner who didn't breed her (as if that's a problem) but IMO if you really believe what you posted above you are the type of person that makes this game still playable, provided you bet with the same horrendous opinions.

NT

:tro: :tro:

yeah, theres some real monsters out there. i'm sure lava man coming back is shaking in his shoes.

Not hardly... Zenyatta has beaten the best of the west. Then she went to Oaklawn and drilled the best of the east (defending champ Ginger Punch). Then she went in the championship race and beat the best the world had to throw against her.

RA barely held off Macho Again? LOL

C'mon Jess, maybe she is good enough to compete with the best in the world???? Give her a chance.

I think it's funny that it is near-unanimous that in a one-on-one match race, Zenyatta would have zero chance of beating RA, when it seems to me that the better horse would be able to get from Point A to Point B in faster time. Zenyatta's success is dependant on the pace of the rest of the field. RA dictates that pace and runs them off their feet. Someone has got to explain to me how a stretch runner who has run four times against nobodies has a chance to win HOY over a monster who has laid waste to the best thrown at her eight times.

all true, and all occurred last year, and has NO bearing on this year whatsoever. zenyatta was all out to win by a scant nose in her last vs the same lackluster competition she faced in her first couple races this year. could someone remind me of the top efforts from zenyatta's defeated foes in their other races this year? rachel had no breather from beginning to end, and accomplished a feat far superior to anything zenyatta has done all year, in winning her last vs open competition. if anyone could remind me when zenyatta has ever done the same, i would appreciate it. oh, wait...that's right-that would be never, since it's never even been tried.

match races don't necessarily tell you which horse is better, since match races are generally won by whomever breaks best. the one in front dictates the entire race. do you really believe seabiscuit was a superior horse to war admiral? assault vs armed...swaps and nashua? a closer is doomed, because the leader can dawdle, keeping plenty in reserve for the finish.

It would be kind of neat to see Zenyatta and Tiago in the same silks both flying down the stretch during the Classic.

It was open competition but remember what that competition was. This is from the DFR's comments before the race:

[i]Seriously, though, this should be the biggest test since the Preakness, not because these G1 'cappers are so great, but because several are decent,[/I]

i wonder how many gr 1 winners rachel and zenyatta have both beaten, or how many graded winners in total? and i seriously doubt that the competition zenyatta has faced this year comes anywhere close to what rachel has faced. you bring up rachels nose victory over macho again, but what about zenyattas nose vs the second place horse in her last-that placer was so notable, i can't even remember her name. but i doubt she's won anything resembling the stephen foster.
your attempt at trying to say that what zenyatta has done in '09 is anything close to what rachel has accomplished is quite laughable.

My God I wish this whole open competition thing would stop. Let's assume that Rachel and Zenyatta were both going to be in the Beldame. If you have Careless Jewel or Icon Project and you want to have the easiest chance to win, would you face them in the Beldame or go to the JCGC? The JCGC would be against open company but the Beldame would be the tougher race. The point is that open company doesn't automatically mean it's a tougher race. Polish Navy won the Woodward in 1987. Gulch won the Met Mile in 1987. Both of those were against older males. Neither of them were any match for the top 3yos that year (Java Gold, Alysheba, and Bet Twice) so in that case, did beating older mean more than beating your own division? No. Easy Goer could dominate the Whitney, the Woodward, and the JCGC against older but couldn't beat fellow 3yo Sunday Silence. Winning Colors could beat all of the best males in the Kentucky Derby but was beaten in the Las Virgenes by Goodbye Halo. Stop making so much of a big deal about the age and sex of the competition and look instead at the quality of the competition. If Rachel hadn't been in the Woodward, nobody at all would have been talking with reverence about the quality of that field. But since she beats them, it was an outstanding accomplishment? I don't think so.

i agree that open company, on its own, may not be that big of a deal. but i would like to know how a zenyatta cheerleader can say with a straight face that zenyatta has faced tougher comp this year than rachel has.

I don't believe they can. They can believe Zenyatta is better and I can't necessarily disagree with them. That debate is legit. But who's had the better year, who's beaten the better competition, that debate is way past over. It's Rachel in a landslide.

I guess you might call me a Zenyatta cheerleader, but the bald fact is that while you Rachel cheerleaders were marvelling at that " grueling " first quarter she ran in the Woodward, Zenyatta ran the last quarter in the Hirsch in the identical time and won off a slow pace ...

She has done this more than once--finished in 22 and change, and for the poster that said pace will beat her--she runs the same--fast pace or slow, and it may not be redundant to say that a closer getting up by a head after the speed crawls may excel a pace horse lasting by the same ..

As far as competition, no one can say with a straight face that the male division is any different except for their parts ...

And yes, with the exception of Summer Bird going shorter than his best--someone had to win those G1s ...

But indeed Rachel has added way more accomplishments to her resume, and obviously run a fuller campaign ..

actually, i'm a bit of a cheerleader of hers as well. but my issue is with any poster who acts as tho zenyatta is a great horse whilst rachel is a bum-or as someone wrote, the east coast version of pepper's pride. that i find ridiculous, whether pointed toward the filly or the mare.

as for the male division....some say that it's not as tough right now-so why is rachel the only one who can claim a win? if it's sooo easy, why isn't anyone proving that point? why isn't anyone else showing that it can be done?

That's because most people don't have the balls to try it, not because it's impossible to do. If Jackson hadn't purchased Rachel, we wouldn't have seen her do it but obviously, she's capable. Just in the last three years, we've seen Rags win the Belmont, Eight Belles run second in the Derby, and Rachel win the Preakness. Nobody doubts that Zenyatta is good enough to beat the boys and the reason we've been so upset with her connections is because they don't have the balls to try it. Icon Project would probably be favored in the JCGC. Goldikova will be favored to beat the boys again in the BC Mile. Ventura just beat the boys at Woodbine. I'm not saying that it's the easiest thing to do and that any female can do it. But the lack of opportunities shouldn't be confused with the lack of ability to do it if given the opportunity.

Please know that I do not bash one to raise up the other ..

I frankly think they are both terrific ...

I fail to see the Pepper's Pride analogy via Rachel---Rachel is not undefeated and has won at more than one locale--did you mean Zenyatta ???? I have seen that--GAG ...

To the question why isn't anyone else doing it ???

In the old days there were not so many lucrative spots for fillies and mares as there are today--so more were run against males ...

It is generally acknowledged that in SOME circumstances, males have the edge--so why risk the whole pot for a portion of the pot or less against the boys ...

Rachel was so spectacularly better than her own sex group, and the males in general so unspectacular, that Jackson saw a perfect opportunity to go for it---I would have myself ...

This was a less daring plan than running Cicada against Ridan, or Silver Spoon in the Derby, or Azeri in the BCC, Glorious Song against Spectacular Bid and more, and a better opportunity for success ..

It was gravy and it was golden --taking NOTHING away from Rachel ....

Pity the Mosses didn't do this with their mare ...

copying wrote she was the east coast version of pepper's pride. and i'm certainly not including every zenyatta fan in the group that tears down one in order to make the other look better. you were certainly not on my mind when i wrote the earlier post.

and yeah, i've said more than once as well that it's a shame the mosses won't try it. but she's theirs, they can do as they please.

I have a lot of admiration for Peppers Pride. A better analogy is: RA is this years' Sightseek but Jess won't make the same mistake and risk her against the best.

OMG. :rolleyes:

Special stuff

I just walked outside to see if the moon was full.

Although racing against open company doesn't necessarily mean the competition is better, it shows that one horse's camp isn't afraid of ducking anyone.

The Woodward was open to any horse. Zenyatta could have been entered.

For that, the connections get credit. The horse didn't chose the spot though.

If RA and Zenyatta were boxers or MMA fighters, the public and the press would DEMAND that they meet and the money would become so enticing they would. Nobody wants to see co-heavyweight champions of the world, and "what ifs" are overrated (see the college football pro-BCS argument, "it's got us talkin' about it" nonsense). Anyone and everyone with the slightest interest ought to be leaning on the owners to make this happen. This is another chance for the game to get more exposure at what could be a prime time to grow (they say alcohol and gambling are recession-proof industries), and ought to classify as one of those "for the good of the game" moments.

I love the sport, but I'm a newcomer (just a few years really INTO it), so perhaps my viewpoint is different than a lot of you who have been around. It just seems to me that racing misses out on a lot of opportunities. I'm all for appreciating two stars for what they are, but this matchup would be an historic one.

put down the pipe.

Bayakoa (5), Paseana (5), Ginger Punch...Why bother being in the game if you are going to run a superior female nine times, get an Eclipse, and then retire? It is not like she would have been servicing 60 mares this year. .

I see no problem giving a divisional award to a horse that has run only once in NA....i.e. Arazi. The big prize, Horse of the Year, is a different tune though. It should be based on a body of work for the year, not one race

At this point, my ratings would be...

1....Rachel
2....Gio Ponti
3....Summer Bird

So I guess you would agree with Native Dancer being HOY in '54 with his only graded stakes win of the year being the Met Mile.

generally, it is based on the body of work. much as i don't like seeing a horse swoop in from europe, win one race, and walk away with an eclipse, the argument can be made that they had an outstanding year-high chapparal for instance. they just may not have had an outstanding year here. so, much as i thought with anticipation should have gotten the nod for top turfer, i can certainly understand why he did not. BUT, i think the vote for high chapparal proves the point that the bc has too much weight given to it by voters. hence my argument that a win in the bcc, over what is presumably the best field assembled in the year, isn't necessarily an indication of who the best horse is all year. case in point for that is volponi.

i don't think the award should be given for who someone feels is the best, but for the horse who has competed at the highest level all year, and with the most consistency. the horse who best showed ability, regardless of surface, track, competition, length of race, etc.

you leave out the part where she won the haskell and the preakness while zenyatta was beating the usual suspects. zenyatta beat ginger punch when she was a step or two slower. this year shes beat practically no one. RA has also won in evey part of the country except the west coast. i f you ask me zenyatta is more of a peppers pride. she has not been in a race shes supposed to lose! she would of had a great shot in the woodward. the pace was perfect for her. if the connections wanted to nail HOY, they would of showed up. just sitting there racing scrubs saying you are the best because you win, doesn't cut it. i doubt she even runs in the classic because she would probably get trounced. RA is real good and as far as i can see the best horse at 9 furlongs in the country. you are arguing with some people that think shes better than ruffian, thats when i start to laugh.

You do know that the year Arazi won he divisional championship, he was also one of the three finalist for HOY too right? That means that he was considered over many horses that had a body of work for the year. You say the big prize IS a different tune but how can you logically say that when Arazi was a finalist off of one race? As I've said so many times, I'd have no problem with changing the qualifying criteria to saying that a horse has to be based in this country and run the majority of their races here or maybe a four race minimum here. But as long as it only says that a horse needs to have raced once, I don't see how everyone can say that it's based on the whole year when that's contrary to what it says. If an individual voter wants to only consider American based horses, that's fine. But the person that considers the best horse among all qualified horses is equally right.

I'm not old enough to know what happened in 1954.

Z is on a course prepping to be on the track on Championship day as their plans were long ago announced. You think the Woodward was that day?
RA's nose win over the DRF's described field of "several decent runners" was HOY material? How laughable...

I've never claimed Z to be superhorse, I'm just saying RA hasn't done anything to stake that claim.

Speaking of laughable....

Who is then? Pioneerof Denial? (Yes, I know, I await the tomatoes. It was a play on words with the poster and--nevermind) All I know is I'll be willing and able to tell fans in the future that I remember Rachel Alexandra and boy was she something special. She's got "it" whatever that is, and I figure when faced with that, we need to recognize its presence. You don't have to beat Secretariat to be a superhorse. If you did, well, all hail Onion... In the Woodward, she didn't just do something incredible for the year, she did something that'd be incredible in any year. So maybe it's not the official championship, but it represents something that deserves a lot of respect.

Why should the BC be "championship" day??? Championships are won throughout the whole year. That's why they call it "Horse of the Year" and not Horse of the Breeder's Cup 2009

it's not championship day. the bc calls it that, but that doesn't make it so.

Well said Merlinsky :tro:

It shouldn't be -- but that's what it's become -- like it or not.

I guess that nose victory over a field of "several decent runners" is incredible to you.