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.