Originally Posted by Indian Charlie (Post 723992)

I don't understand. I thought Zenyatta was 75 lengths back after the first 1/4 and 120 lengths back after the half mile. That means for her to run a 49.70 the pace setters would have had to run like a 38 second half mile.

Originally Posted by slotdirt (Post 724158)

So Big Z ran her fourth 1/8th in about 10 seconds? I'm impressed.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 724155)

We were talking about the earliest stages of the race. As you can see, I corrected my post before you made your post. As I said in the edited post, "When they went into the clubhouse turn, she was a good 20 lengths back. She ran her first 3 furlongs in somewhere between :38 and :39. That's not even close to the fastest she's run in the early stages of her races the last two years. It's actually one of the slowest."

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS (Post 724161)

I don't make numbers to that point - but - you have to take into consideration that she was exiting brutally slow paced races - some of which over days when the racing surface was yielding much quicker times.

Mike Smith just let her settle away from the gate like he always does. The only difference is that she was in with MUCH quicker horses this time - and on a surface that is much less kind to closers. Smith started to push her along after a quarter mile to keep her from dropping 30 back - and she basically had to work hard for 8 furlongs.

The idea that Smith "waited too long" is the single most retarded thought a person can have. He literally moved 8 furlongs out on her - and Zenyatta, with all that momentum on Blame - never got past him after the wire.

Had Smith let her drop 30 lengths back early and get comfortable - who knows what would have happened. She would have made up an insane amount of ground late and exploded past the wire for sure - but it's anyones guess what the result would have been.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 724167)

I agree with you 100% about Mike Smith. He didn't "wait too long". He didn't want to be that far back. She didn't want to run in the early going. It wasn't his fault. She looked to me like she didn't like getting hit with the dirt. The thing that people are forgetting is that her two races at Oaklawn were in a 5 horse field and a 6 horse field. In the 6 horse field, she had post 6. She took very little dirt in those races.

It is true that Zenyatta never got passed Blame on the gallop-out but I think there are good explanations as to why. Blame was much fitter than Zenyatta. Blame has been running 1 1/8 mile races and 1 ¼ mile races. Not only had Zenyatta not run 1 ¼ miles in a year, she hadn’t even run 1 1/8 miles for 5 months. Her last two races were both 1 1/16 miles. As good of a trainer as John Shireffs is (even if he’s the best trainer in the world at getting a horse ready for a big race), I still think that Zenyatta was at a disadvantage coming into a 1 ¼ mile race against the best horses in the world, coming out of 1 1/16 mile races. Don’t get me wrong, 1 ¼ miles is definitely her best distance but it’s hard to be 100% fit to run 1 ¼ miles when you haven’t even run 1 1/8 miles for 5 months.

In a normal race, all Zenyatta needs to do is run a strong final 3 furlongs. In this race, she was a good 20 lengths back (between calls) going into the clubhouse turn. This forced her to have to make a prolonged run for the final 7 furlongs rather than just the final 3 furlongs. I’ll bet you she ran her final 7 furlongs in 1:22 and change, which is unheard of. So she’s coming out of 1 1/16 mile races and she is forced to sprint her final 7 furlongs in a 1 ¼ mile race. It’s not surprising that she didn’t gallop out as strong as Blame.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 724180)

One of the most ridiculous arguments that Beyer makes is that Zenyatta is better on synthetic surfaces and that running on synthetic surfaces are the main reason that she was 19 for 19. It's totally the opposite. She almost lost a few different races because of the surface. On the synthetic surfaces, she's beating horses by a neck that she would be beating on the dirt by 5 lengths (more like 10 lengths at 1 1/4 miles).

Beyer argues that come-from-behinders do beter on synthetic tracks. It is true that synthetic surfaces favor come-from-behinders in general. That is true in general, but all come-from-behinderds are not the same. Some have a really quick turn of foot and have push-button acceleration. That type of come-from-behinder is going to have a big edge on synthetics. A big, long-striding horse (like Zenyatta) that doesn't have that push-button acceleration, is actually at a disadvantage on a synthetic track. She's at a disadvantage because she is sometimes forced to make up 2-3 lengths in the final 1/8th of a mile against a horse that can sprint home the final 1/8th. It's tough to make up 2-3 lengths on a horse that is sprinting home in :11 2/5. That is why she barely beat some horses that she would beat by 5 lengths on the dirt. On the dirt, you don't have to worry about somebody sprinting home in :11 2/5.

Originally Posted by Dahoss (Post 724193)

So in your opinion her record would have been the same if there was no such thing as synthetics? That seems like a pretty big stretch.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 724180)

She's at a disadvantage because she is sometimes forced to make up 2-3 lengths in the final 1/8th of a mile against a horse that can sprint home the final 1/8th. It's tough to make up 2-3 lengths on a horse that is sprinting home in :11 2/5.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 724195)

It depends who she would have been running against. If she would have been running in 12 horse fields against grade I males, of course she would have got beaten plenty of times.

But against the horses she faced in California, I think she would have won by far bigger margins had the races been on dirt.

Originally Posted by NTamm1215 (Post 724196)

Therein lies the problem. She can make up that type of ground with those types of final furlongs on synthetics. She'd have no prayer of doing that on dirt.

The pace advantages that she spotted horses in the Clement Hirsch the last two years and the Lady's Secret in 2009 would be the end of her on dirt. It would be next to impossible to do that on dirt.

Originally Posted by Dahoss (Post 724198)

I think she would have had a hard time running down Hystericalady in the 2008 Lady's Secret the way the pace of that race unfolded.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 724201)

I totally disagree. Those fillies that she faced in those races would not be able to sprint home on the dirt. They could be going 1:15 and she could still spot those mediocre mares a 3-4 length lead at the quarter pole and run them down. It would be much tougher to do that on a synthetic track.

Watch her first race at Oaklawn. She made up over 10 lengths in the stretch (she was 6 lengths back at the quarter pole and ended up winning by 4 1/2 lengths). She could have never done that on a synthetic track.

Originally Posted by NTamm1215 (Post 724204)

You're making a comparison using horses with little to no or horrible dirt form. Would Zenyatta dispose of Rinterval on dirt? Of course she would because Rinterval likely wouldn't take to dirt. She's never tried it.

Like Dahoss said, throw Zenyatta into a dirt race against a dirt horse like Hystericalady, or Life at Ten in this year's Del Cap where she walked on the lead, and it's going to be dicey in the last quarter.

The song about Zenyatta being better on dirt has been sung. Unfortunately her connections disagreed or else they might have tried her more on it.

Originally Posted by NTamm1215 (Post 724196)

Therein lies the problem. She can make up that type of ground with those types of final furlongs on synthetics. She'd have no prayer of doing that on dirt.

The pace advantages that she spotted horses in the Clement Hirsch the last two years and the Lady's Secret in 2009 would be the end of her on dirt. It would be next to impossible to do that on dirt.