RAGS or RACHEL
 

Rags to Riches even though I think Rachel is perhaps the better of the two.

Rags by far. Horrible break. And beat one of the greatest horses in a number of years in a battle down the stretch. She showed extraordinary courage and toughness. We aren't even sure yet who Rachael has beaten. But I don't think there is a curlin lurking in there.

Dont think there is a Curlin lurking in that field? How about a field better off curling?

Dead Heat....even to me. Both showed they could handle the assignment at the time.

rachel, party of one for me. why? she faced heat from start to finish in the race on saturday, and still prevailed. she didn't steal the race. she broke from post 13-go look up the last time they had a winner from the 13-and had big drama throughout much of the race pressing her. every horse that ran with her early, or tried to, finished-where?
besides, she also won the oaks by a record margin. then there's her martha washington....her average margin of victory this year has been pretty awesome. rags on the other hand, didn't control every part of the race in her belmont win. i enjoyed it very much, but i would give the nod to rachel. as for beating curlin vs beating mine that bird....i was never a big curlin fan. to me he proved the adage that it was better to be lucky than good. he benefitted by having every other good member of his crop retire while he went on to beat a big pile of nothing at four.

I am taking the opposite stance from Cowgirlintexass.

I was far more impressed with RA's Preakness than I was with Rags Belmont, but I think Rags was the better filly.

Interesting you mentioned the Martha Washington, Eight Belles won that by quite a margin also and if I can humbly say I would rank her 2nd in the derby though not a win was quite an accomplishment also, especially when you are referencing R2R and RA performances against the opposite sex.

but rachel shaved two seconds off the record in that win. that's why i mentioned it.
as for eight belles, that derby had her and big brown, and nothing else.

Why does the competition that Eight Belles and Rags To Riches (and by curious extension HOY Curlin) ran against come into play against them, and yet the same standard is not extended to Rachel Alexandra?

i think the field saturday is the best one rachel has faced, i haven't said otherwise. i also think eight belles gets more credit than she deserves because of her death. and i'll probably get crap for saying that, but it's true and is my opinion. yes, she got second in the derby-i'd have been shocked if she hadn't, considering who else ran...
i don't think curlin is that good, so why would i give points for rags beating him by a head bob? i think there were better horses in that crop that year than curlin, and that he benefitted by them all clearing the field and leaving him to it all at age four.


edit~ the question was which race i thought was better, i gave my answer and why i thought that way-that's all.

Did you see the '07 JCGC and BC Classic? Who of consequence was missing from those races?

I suppose Curlin loses points for being both versatile and durable?

As for the edit, you've clearly gone beyond the initial question. Else, why are we talking about multiple renewals of the Martha Washington?

yes, i saw them.
also, i went beyond the topic because i saw mention from others of not just who they thought had the better race, but who was the better horse-so i chose to expound on my answer and how i arrived at my thinking.

as for curlin, i am mostly thinking of his four year old season when i say he had the field to himself. i thought he had a very good season at three, as did a few others. i think it's a shame they all retired, and left him to play all alone.

Some people forget that Any Given Saturday was a shorter price than Curlin in the Breeders Cup Classic in which he won...and the Belmont Stakes the year R2R won it was such an insanely slow paced race and Curlin was down inside at Belmont.

I realize R2R beat a far more legit horse ... but it's tempting to pick RA's Preakness because R2R's Belmont was run at a snail's pace at an uncommonly long distance.

I voted dead heat.

Another less tricky poll would be RA's Oaks win vs RA's Preakness win.

i don't know...some would pick the oaks because of the margin, but i would definitely vote for saturdays effort.

It would be a close call.

The Oaks obviously visually ... but I'm of the opinion that her Preakness win was much more dominant than it appears.

Seeing Rags' Belmont was far and away the most exciting race I've seen live, but I'd give the edge to Rachel for most impressive.

I would rate Zarkava's win in the Arc higher than Rags or Rachel if their was a button to push in the poll, but that's just me. :rolleyes:

start another poll!

I would say Rags to Riches but she did lose in her next start with her own sex.

Considering the difficulty it took just to make it back to the races that fall (aborted workout, altered race schedule), not to mention she emerged from the race with an injury that eventually led to her retirement early at 4, I think its safe to give Rags To Riches a pass for the Gazelle.

Docking her now over a year later is probably as foolish as still thinking that giant killer Lear's Princess was a legitimate Grade 1 horse, when she failed before or beyond that race to do anything to suggest she was anything more than a nice Grade 3 filly (who was probably better on turf).

Besides, apparently Rachel Alexandra has her own problems and there's always a remote chance she won't do anything beyond the Preakness.

Saturday's race was very impressive.Rags Belmont was most dramatic.

I can't choose between Forego's '76 Marlboro and John Henry's '81 million .

I either need to be paid or have a gun put to my head to make these decisions. No call.

Well the greats are supposed to overcome all obstacles.

Well, without being behind the scenes, on the surface all those "obstacles" were the consequence of the same underlying problem, ie Rags To Riches wasn't physically 100% that summer, as opposed to being separate issues that just happened to pile up.

The fact that she wasn't able to withstand more than a couple of workouts on the comeback trail before reaggravating her injury, despite an appropriate amount of time off, I think goes along with this.

Rags...... plus being TP first TC win , talk about pressure on that girl.

Rags Belmont was probably better. At the time, no filly had won a classic for the colts since Winning Colors. Now we're only two years removed from her race which takes a tiny bit of shine off what Rachael did. When you look back and see Rags beat Curlin it makes it all the more impressive....Rachael's Oaks was better than Rags.

i voted for R2R and would vote for Eight Belles. we got to see them have to dig down and find something extra to win. to me they have an extra toughness.
now i think RA is VERY special but until we get to see her dig down and find something extra, i'll hold my greatness vote.

so what do you call what happened saturday????? she definately dug down.

Rags ran toe to toe with that year's HOY. Rachel, while running an outstanding race, prevailed over a horse that was twice losing at Sunland this year. You don't have to think much of Curlin but he's light years better than Mine that Bird and thus beating him, no matter the pace of the speed figures is the more impressive race for me.

We don't know what Mine That Bird will go on to accomplish...I think it's impossible to conclude RA is better or worse at this point.

Bit surprised by this.

While she did beat Curlin, it was also in the Belmont Stakes, a race she was bred to win and the race you've typed many a novel about.

I don't believe in breeding anymore than I believe in cheese on the moon. What I say about the Belmont is that it's result is irrelevant in the overall scheme of things because it tells us who's the best 12f dirt horse in a country where they don't run anymore 12f dirt races at that level. That doesn't mean that a good horse can't be running in it or that a horse can't put in a good performance. In Rags and Curlin, I thought I saw two horses running a good race.

If you're using the defeat of Curlin as the benchmark then you can't possibly differentiate between the two fillies. We're assuming that the competition Rachel beat on Saturday is inferior to a horse like Curlin. It very well might be, but the bottom line is that right now we don't know.

Granted, there's a difference between Mine That Bird at this point in his career and Curlin, but saying that Rags' win is superior because she beat that year's HOY takes a look at the entire year and not just the first six months.

I think Rachel's win was decidedly more spectacular given the way she ran from start to finish. The "it was a phenomenal performance because of the stumble and wide trip" stuff never really made sense to me considering her running style. She was a horse who preferred being outside and off the pace.

NT

I disagree that is grounds for Rags being better than Rachel, maybe at that distance yes. I think at this point in their careers (I'm willing to excuse Rags' race in the fall) Rachel was/is the faster and better filly.

Agreed.

Coming off a negative 4 and then running with the speed the whole way and staying the distance, it is Rachel by quite a bit. She's really terrific.

I didn't say I think Rags is the better horse. I'd take Rachel over her quickly.

I'd like to see a pace figure analysis of this Preakness compared to recent ones. I think it would support your point.

I imagine (well hope anyway), the pace will be a little faster this year than when Rags won.

A Rachel / Rags race (not a match race but a race where both horses are entered) would have been the race of the decade...

Not too sure who would win but Rachel's been awfully impressive.