Winning Colors vs. Rags to Riches
 

When we look back in history, which brilliant mare will be better.....
and right now; did Winning Colors do more winning the Derby or Rags winning the Belmont. Let's hear the opinions.

Put me in the Winning Colors camp...

The jury is still out on Rags, would like to see what she can accomplish this year. Winning Colors' 4 year old campaign was generally a disappointment save for the '88 BC Distaff. Would have to give Winning Colors' Derby the nod over Rags' Belmont though.

Genuine Risk beats them both, in history and on the track

Winning Colors was a 3YO in 1988.

However, for whatever it's worth, Winning Colors dwarfs Rags to Riches.

Wasn't the '88 BC Distaff during WC's 3 year old campaign?

I think the historical significance of a filly winning the Belmont is more impressive than the Derby. Primarily because it had been longer since it had been accomplished. I have to say my opinion is probably jaded as I wasn't a fan of Winning Colors while she was running.

Winning Colors for me.

I don't know that I would put Winning Colors as far ahead of Rags as some on here seem to be saying, but I would put WC first.

This is in part due to the fact that I would certainly put horses like Risen Star, Personal Ensign, Forty Niner, and Goodbye Halo far ahead of horses such as Octave, Lear's Princess, Baroness Thatcher and (the lone bright spot) Curlin.

Give me Winning Colors. Everyone remembers her Derby and her run in the BC Distaff but people seem to forget her SA Derby and her Preakness. What I like about her is that she beat the boys in races at regularly run distances and in races everyone was gunning for. She didn't come in at the last moment and have one horse to beat and do it at an irregular distance against a worn down rival. Not that what Rags did wasn't significant because it was but I would have liked to have seen it in the Derby instead. Also, for me, Winning Colors' Preakness might have been the moment that sealed it for me. In the SA Derby, the Ky Derby, the Maskette, and the BC Distaff, she displayed one talent........her speed. She was faster than her rivals, she went to the front, and she made them try and catch her. That Preakness, though she lost, she was great. Pat Day on Forty Niner had instructions to do whatever it took to not allow her to win. It was Forty Niner that was on the lead in that race (23 1/5, 47, 1:11 1/5), not Winning Colors. She sat right off of his neck on the outside in second. They both set it up perfectly for Risen Star but what impressed me was how it was Forty Niner that was the one backing out of it and not Winning Colors. She dueled with him and put him away. And if people don't remember, Forty Niner was a good horse. It was that race that showed me she wasn't just a one-dimensional speed horse. It's unfortunate that her ending diminshes her in some people's minds but at her best, she was damn good.

Rags to Riches

You weren't even alive, much less a preposterous know-it-all, when Winning Colors was running.

So, I have all of her races on tape.

Don't see how there can even be comparisons when Rags has still only run against the boys once. She'd have to do it at least once more for a fair comparison to be made.

i would have to give the nod to winning colors--how could you not? she's far more accomplished, and consistently faced far better horses, than rags to riches.
but for a legendary horse running the race of her life, she'd have won that distaff.
even if she had never run past the derby, her santa anita/ky derby double put her ahead of rags. hell, just her winning the derby puts her ahead of a belmont winner.

That's true, I forgot, you are an expert at judging horses from television.

Last year, for instance, you told us just by seeing the Tampa Bay Derby on television that there was no way Street Sense would even run in the KY Derby much less win it.

As long as you continue your medical school charade I seriously hope the US doesn't take tort reform seriously.

she got you there btw! :rolleyes:

From what I've seen from both fillies, it's pretty obvious that WC at 3 was considerably better than R2R.

However, I thought prior to R2R getting hurt, that she hadn't shown us her best yet and that she was continuing to improve. The potential was there for R2R to be a better filly, especially since AP Indy's tend to get better with age, but speaking strictly as 3 yos, no contest.

Exactly. Based on accomplishments you would have to give it to WC, but Rags to Riches is the greater talent of the two. The Belmont Stakes proved it. Rags could get any distance, and was improving. WC obviously had distance limitations.

Oh, now I get it, the better horse is always the one that would win at the farthest possible distance. Thank God that's finally cleared up.

I can't wait for the new addition of the Jazil wing to the Hall of Fame.

Uh, that's not exactly what I said or meant.

If you could put both of them as 3yos in a race, I have little doubt WC would beat Rags pretty handily. Talent wise, I'd go with WC.

What I was trying to say is that I don't think we saw the full measure of how good Rags actually is/was. Whether or not she would continue to develop until she was better than WC, I can't say really. My guess is not, but I could have seen it happening before all the nonsense started happening with her.

At least I didn't say that Lawyer Ron was slow or that Lost in the Fog wasn't that good of a horse.;)

And horse racing experts agree with me about Street Sense and the Tampa Bay Derby. Something was amiss with that horse all winter, and it showed up again before the Belmont Stakes in his workout. You don't add front wraps to a horse for no reason.

BTW, Street Sense was my pick after the BG stakes to win the Derby because whatever was wrong with him was temporarily fixed, and he looked really nice in the BG stakes despite finished second.;)

Wow, I didn't even notice her saying that about WC, the distance limitation.

Wow.

The only limitations WC had were her trainer and the trainer of 49r.

talent doesn't bring home trophies, running and winning does. hell, there could have been a thousand other fillies born with more talent then both-so what? talent is in the eye of the beholder, and opinion, while race record/opponents defeated, is a fact.

to say rags was improving is pure speculation. she won over the boys at an obsolete distance that none will ever see again. how does that equate to multiple wins over the boys? or winning the derby? or losing in the last jump to an undefeated personal ensign, a champion who also defeated males, including an eclipse winner? it doesn't.

Lost in the Fog was one of the most overrated horses of my lifetime. A very nice, and well managed, horse but not even close to the horse people pretended he was. The fact that you don't know that is even further, unnecessary, proof of how little you really know while pretending to know everything.

As for the racing experts comment......note to self.....don't read your posts while eating or drinking.

Talent and accomplishments. WC would have never beat Curlin in that Belmont Stakes. WC would have never beat Street Sense in the Derby. WC would have not been able to match Curlin and SS in the Preakness. I can see Rags to Riches being right there in all three. She would have been very close if not hitting the wire first. All of it is pure speculation really. I just like Rags to Riches better because I think that she is the better horse. I think that she would have beat winning colors every time. And if Rags to Riches can beat both Curlin and Hard Spun, then I think she could have won multiple other Grade Is against the boys if she would have ran in them. I think that she would have been Horse of the Year if she would have stayed healthy.

lemme go get my boots on, it's getting deep in here.

Aside from her foolishness......can you imagine how Winning Colors would have been revered on message boards had the internet been around in the 80s?

rags wouldn't have won last years derby, let alone the one in which winning colors ran-and won.
everyone knows the derby is ranked ahead of the belmont. it's why all 10f races are referred to as the 'classic' distance. not 12f. the belmont is an anomaly, as are quite a few of its winners!

I was on the Internet in 87, but yeah, WC would have had many fan clubs.

You know, I always wondered why you are so hard on KRIM, but I think I see why now.

Oh, and if the 3yo WC prior to her getting assassinated by Woody Stephens in the Preakness had run in this past years Belmont, WC would have had an enormous lead and won by a distance.

WC in this past Oaks would have aired in there too. I'm not even sure that Rags would have beaten Goodbye Halo!

i'll take cold, hard facts/results over speculation any day.

WC did hold her own in the preakness against the likes of forty niner and risen star, after defeating all comers in ky, and held her own vs the great personal ensign. i'll take that over rags one memorable race any day.
rags didn't run three straight races vs boys, winning two, and showing an incredible will in the third, just two weeks after a win vs those boys. winning colors finished third, unable to run her usual race, and with a horse running with ONE goal-to keep her from winning.

rags had a spring campaign nothing like winning colors.







"At 3:
Won Santa Anita Derby (G1), Kentucky Derby (G1), Santa Anita Oaks (G1), La Centinela S.
2nd Breeders' Cup Distaff S. (G1), Las Virgenes S. (G1), Maskette S. (G1)
3rd Preakness S. (G1)
4th Spinster S. (G1)
At 4:
Won Turfway Breeders' Cup S.
4th Maskette S. (G1)

1988 Eclipse Champion Three Year Old Filly.

One of three fillies to ever win the Kentucky Derby."

hell, winning colors has won more races than rags has even run in.


and could you explain the bold above? rags didn't even try, so what does speculation about what Winning Colors would have done last year have to do with rags? keep in mind, winning colors repeatedly took on the top three year old colts-with a win in the derby--not a no show like rags.

Rags gained big fame from the Belmont.
To me, that Belmont was absolutely bizarre.
We got to see which horse was fastest
after walking on their knees for close to a mile.

The finish was great, but the race too weird.

WC.

It's also worth mentioning that when she was second in the Maskette she lost by a half length to Personal Ensign.

Winning Colors for the insignificant internet debate win.

Can you please let me know who these experts were so I can be sure to never read anything else they ever write and to laugh at them on sight? Something was amiss with him all winter. That explains why he won the Derby and ran the eventual HOY to a nose in the Preakness in the spring. The front wraps were added to further prove your point. That explains why he was able to win the Travers in the summer.

Look. After the Tampa Bay Derby, I was also on here saying that it wouldn't surprise me if either he or AGS were knocked out because it may have been too much, too early. What that's called is being wrong. It's ok to be wrong dear and to admit it. It's much better than sticking with the BS like you are doing now.

i can't imagine rags finishing within daylight of personal ensign. or winning colors for that matter.

wasn't there something involving a record at tampa as well??? might explain that too. obviously something wrong.
just think what he could have done had everything been just right?!

Holy Jesus!!

I just perused the contents of this thread.

T.O.Y Nominee.

I actually think Indian Charlie put it best when he pretty much alluded to Rags's incomplete resume. For those of us who actually saw Winning Colors race, and have real perspective, there is really no comparison.

However, if you were to choose one for the Temple Gwathany then perhaps Rags to Riches would be the right horse. Perhaps.