I love how the current argument centers around whether or not Zenyatta is better on dirt than synthetics. The central piece of evidence in favor of dirt, and agreed upon by both arguing sides, is that the horses she was beating in CA were an utter joke.

And yet you throw this silly monkey wrench into the works? That ill-informed notion was beaten to death months ago (see the Zenyatta v. Goldikova thread if you need a refresher).

Did you even follow along before you posted, or did you simply want an excuse to inject your patented "Because you say so?" line in there?

Blame went the half in about :48 4/5 and Zenyatta was spotting him about 5 lengths at that point. If she can lay 5 lengths behind him in :48 4/5 and only lose by a head, I think she would be able to run down Life at Ten, even if Life at Ten slowed down the pace.

I love the language....she was " spotting " him five lengths....as though she gave him a head start.

Too funny.

So had she run in a dirt race similar to the JC Gold Cup what do you think her chances of running down Haynesfield that day were?

She did give him a huge head start. If they ran that race again, there is no way in hell that she would be 10 lengths behind him after 3 furlongs. He went :37. If you think that is her normal race to be 10 lengths behind a horse running 3 furlongs in :37 then I don't know what to say.

We'll never know for sure why she was so far back. It could have been the dirt in her face. Or as Cannon hypothesized, it could have been because Mike Smith did not warm her up in the post parade (in the 40 degree weather) and it took her the first 3 furlongs to get warmed up.

If they run that race again and everything went the same way in front of her, she's probably 3-5 lengths behind Blame after the 3 furlongs instead of 10 lengths behind him. That would have put her 13-15 lengths off the after 3 furlongs instead of 20 lengths off the lead.

I'm hardly the only one that thinks this. If you ask any trainer on the west coast, they will tell you the same thing. It doesn't mean for sure that we are right but it's the viewpoint of every person I know (not counting this board).

Or it could be just as DrugS predicted would happen, and why.

She's never been in a quick paced race before, and almost by default, she was going to be further back than ever before.

Either that, or God willed it. Too bad Pat Day wasn't on Z. I think God would have been on Team Zenyatta that day if he had.

I wonder if I'm the first person to ever use Zenyatta and god together in the same sentence.

I don't know. That's hard to say. He ran huge that day. He could have run faster too. He was geared down. I don't know if she could have caught him. I'd have to analyze that race in much more detail. I don't know if there was any type of speed bias that day at Belmont. I honestly don't have a clue if she could have beaten him that day.

I also like "that's hard to say". Which means yeah, she probably would have gotten beat.

She got beat fair and square Rupert...get over it already.

That is simply untrue. She's been in plenty of races over the course of her career where the paces were similar or even faster and she was nowhere near that far back. When she broke her maiden, they went the half in :44 4/5 and she was only 8 back. In her next race, they went :46 1/5 and she was only 4 back. Granted her style has changed in that she now comes from much further back but I highly doubt that she can't comfortably be closer than 20 lengths back when they run 3 furlongs in :35. There have been plenty of races over the last year when they went :47 and change and she wasn't anywhere near 20 lengths back after 3 furlongs in any of those races.

The only race that was anything close to this was last year's BC Classic. I can't figure out what was going on with her in the early going in that race. She wasn't herself at all. She wouldn't switch leads which is unusual for her. Mike Smith tried two or three times to get her to switch before she finally did it.

How about the 2008 Vanity?

Even if you don't buy any of my arguments, I still don't see how anyone could say that the slight check turning for home didn't cost her the race. She only lost by a head. I think that slight check cost her more than a head. Blame got an absloutley perfect trip. Zenyatta did not get a perfect. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I would expect Zenyatta to get a perfect trip. When you're a dead-last come-from-behinder in a 12 horse field, you're usually not going to get a perfect trip. But hypothetically if both horses got a perfect trip, I think Zenyatta would have won.

Are you really comparing her 10f dirt race to her debut race and her second start?

By the way Rupert, her debut and her second start were, at least to me, her two most impressive starts prior to the BCC this year.

Yes, you are right. They went the half in :46 1/5 in that race. After 3 furlongs in that race, she was about 12-13 lengths back, not 20 lengths back like in this year's BC Classic.

I thought her 2008 Apple Blossom was huge. Not only was it extremely impressive visually but as I said in another thread, I think she ran much faster that day than anyone gives her credit for. I think the official time of the other big race that day was wrong. Like racereplays.com, I had the Oaklawn Handicap in 1:50.34, not 1:48 3/5 (the official time they came up with 2 days later). Zenyatta ran 1 1/16 miles in 1:42 3/5 just 1 hour earlier.

Like I said, she lost....get over it already.

She got a nearly perfect trip and plenty of pace to run into. She ran well and just missed. Her performance doesn't need all of these reaches, what if's and excuses. Again, she ran well. She was beat by a better horse. Not much better, but he was better that day.

If you are going to play the what if games, might as well do it for her wins also. What if Switch doesn't switch to the wrong lead late in the Lady's Secret? See how silly this could get? Stuff happens in races.

This seems like as good a place as any to post this piece written by Vic Zast. The comments are pretty good as well.

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/Zast...talk/#comments

It was huge, but why continue to argue it? Come over to the top 6 for 2011 thread.

Yeah, maybe. I've seen bad times before. Really, I don't think it's really defined if she's a better horse on dirt or synthetic, nor do I really care. I just think it's logical she was so far back early in the BCC because it was a race with an unusually fast pace, for her.

If that hadn't happened with Switch, Zenyatta retires with 18 wins and 1 second in 19 starts.

I'm really doubtful Z wins that race.

Obviously.

And Rupert is going through her past races and picking out fractions - without taking into consideration the speed of the racing surface.

Go to Zenyatta's race two starts back at Del Mar. She was 7.5 lengths behind a 50.61 half mile going 8.5fs.

One race earlier - you had an opt claiming race for fillies at a mile on the same surface go 45.59 for a half mile. The winner of that race was a filly in for a 40K claiming tag.

So, Zenyatta's race went 5.02 full seconds - or about 30 lengths - slower to the half mile than some ordinary N1X opt claiming route for females.

Here are the charts of these two races run over the same surface 30 minutes apart:

http://www1.drf.com/drfNCWeeklyHorse...00807&raceNo=8

http://www1.drf.com/drfNCWeeklyHorse...00807&raceNo=9


I don't know why it is - but A LOT of people are just hopelessly lost by stuff like this. If you're going to compare fractions with fractions at different tracks - you better be able to adjust for speed of surface.

I've seen hopeless $5,000 claimers cut fractions of 21 and change 44 flat and run 1:09 at Turf Paradise. There are days at Calder where the track is so slow that Grade 1 sprinters would be lucky to beat 23 flat and run 6fs in 1:12 and change. Obviously - Turf Paradise to Calder is an extreme example - but her So. Cal pace fractions that keep getting quoted are run on faster racing surfaces than ones at most Eastern dirt tracks.

Lookin At Lucky romped in the Haskell getting 9fs in 1:49 4/5. Blame won a Grade 1 at Churchill in the Stephen Foster in 1:49 1/5.

The day Zenyatta won the Santa Margarita earlier this year - Dance To My Tune and Floating Heart finished a nose apart and both completed 9fs in 1:48 2/5.

To use the pace fractions Zenyatta ran in the Santa Margarita and compare them with other horses in the BC Classic .. is every bit as stupid as saying Dance to My Tune and Floating Heart would have won the Haskell by 8.5 lengths because their final time was 8.5 lengths faster. Just ignore the speed of the racing surface.

If Steve Haskin trained Blame - Zenyatta would be 20 for 20 right now. I actually heard him suggest on Byk's show before the Classic that he thought the best way to beat Zenyatta would be to get behind her early - and because he says "she hangs a bit when she gets to the lead" he thought a horse like Blame might be able to catch her hanging late.

Just imagine Garret Gomez going into that race and trying to wrestle Blame back behind Zenyatta early on. Blame is consistantly about 12 to 15 lengths faster than Zenyatta on pace figures this year. He couldn't get behind her early on if he was strangled back.

It's another example of not taking speed of surface into consideration. It's like they had no idea how slow paced Zenyatta's races truly were because they took her fractions at face value without using a variant to adjust for speed of surface.

But the dapples...

As Costanza says "Remember, its not a lie if you believe it."

I actually tip my cap to Zenyatta for her BC Classic race - even though the speed figure was horrible and the pace collapse benefited closers and all that - knowing Smith wouldn't let her lose contact with the field, I doubted she could sustain her run for as long as she did. I even really thought she might stop.

I'd love to see how she runs next time after a race like that. I'm not a big bounce guy - but those are the type of tough races that can lead to form declines in the near term. She looked like an extremely tired horse after the race. After those California wins - she'd come back looking not tired in the least.

For a horse who was getting used to loafing early and sprinting late in all of her races - having to run very hard for the final 8 furlongs while getting that dirt in her eyes and nose couldn't have been any fun.

would have been fun to see, IMO that was the best race, along with the 08' AB that I had seen her run. The comment line should have been "won as pleased".

Lots of people predicted the exact scenario that somewhat played out, that she would have to be used early and would not be able to make a run late because of this........I guess they believe they were proven right by the result.

WOW.

Haskin has lost it.

Then again, Zenyattas great ability to expose retardism for what it is, is priceless.

If they made a profit on the race - I doubt they'll feel like the result proved them wrong.

Either way - she was a VERY poor even money shot who happened to run fine.

You have to bet against even money shots who are wildcards. The bookies in Europe almost got smoked at 7/2 on her .. but I'm not so sure 7/2 is even a fair price on a wildcard.

If you go by results - even the very best handicappers and bettors are going to be proven wrong A LOT. They're flesh and blood animals with a human on their back. If a horse improves one second over the distance of a mile - that's six lengths. Most races are so closely matched that the way they're run will ultimately determine who wins.

Well one of them had her at 10/1 chance.........she lost so I guess they were right, I just would have loved that 10/1 at the top of the stretch, and would take it any day of the week if the race is run again and again with the same dynamics.

She was not even money on my line, I had her about 5/2 to 3/1, so she wins that race better than a quarter of the time.........after the race I think I did not give her enough credit, she probably wins it like 40%. I gave horses like Quality Road, and to a certain extent LAL to much credit for some of those easy wins against nada.

Turf Turf Dirt

If Zenyatta would have run in the allowance race at Del Mar where they went the half in :45 3/5, do you think she would have been 35 lengths back? Is that what you are saying? If you honestly think that, I give up.

In the BC Classic, there was clearly something bothering her in the early going of the race. Just watch the way she's moving. She's never looked like that before. She bobbled at least once or twice. You ask Cannon Shell or any trainer out there if that horse looked comfortable in the early going of that race.

I do agree with you that she was a very poor even-money shot. I would have made her the favorite but I made her about 5-2 or 3-1.

For a guy with an IQ well over 70 - you are truly hopeless.

No, Zenyatta would have not been 37 lengths back in that allowance race because Smith wouldn't have allowed her to race that far back. She would have been a long, long way back though.


Either you're confusing Zenyatta with Life At Ten in the Ladies Classic - or you're watching Zenyatta get outrun by much faster horses than her.


OK Cannon Shell or any trainer out there - did she look comfortable while she was getting outsprinted by MUCH faster horses in a race where the pace totally collapsed?

Also, did Ice Box and Make Music For Me look comfortable in the Kentucky Derby when they closed from 24 lengths and 28 lengths back to finish 2nd and 4th in a similar pace meltdown?

With all due respect DrugS, Joanied at PA could tell from a still picture that Zenyatta wasn't happy early. The truly enlightened can pick up on stuff like that.

I dont understand why Rupert and others are claiming that some thing was wrong with her. Was whatever was wrong with her get cured by the time she hit the backstretch? She looked like a 6 year old mare who didnt warm up properly for a race on a cold night against much faster horses than she is used to running against.

Over/under 5.5 emoticons used in her post:

Over: -200
Under: +180

I agree with you. As you said, "She looked like a 6 year old mare who didnt warm up properly for a race on a cold night against much faster horses than she's used to running against." I agree with you 100%.

There are plenty of horses that take a while to get warmed up. They're a little stiff when they first come on the track but after they warm up for a while, they look ok. As you said, she didn't warm up. That is probably why she looked so stiff and sluggish in the early stages of the race. This, along with the dirt in her face, is why she was 20 lengths back after 3 furlongs instead of 14 lengths back.