world t bred rankings
 

zenyatta at no 10..lol

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...hbred-rankings

reality check

Harbinger was by far the best horse in the world this year. Only having him six better than any other horse in the world is understating his overwhelming superiority.

Not really. Those rankings are a joke, and I'm not even talking about Zenyatta. If you subscribe to their legitimacy, you have Goldikova as being only the fourth best miler in Europe and merely on par with Twice Over.

If Blame is the #2 horse in anything we have a HUGE PROBLEM in horse racing.
His nost victory over her and horrible effort in the JCGC make him the #2 horse in the world.
These rankings are a total joke.

and Zenyatta beat 3 horses on that list

What was so horrible about Blame's JCGC if looked upon as a "prep" race?

Weren't a lot of people touting him as an up-and-comer last season after a similar effort in Regal Ransom's merry-go-round Super Derby?

On which surface, dirt or synthetic?

I'd say Shuback sums it up pretty well in his column when comparing 'Z' and Goldikova on drf.com:


Both Goldikova and Zenyatta won five Group or Grade 1 races in 2010, but there is little resemblance in the quality of the fields the two were beating in those races.

In her four Group 1 victories in Europe and her Grade 1 Breeders’ Cup Mile triumph, Goldikova was beating 16 winners of 37 Group or Grade 1 races. The overall Group/Grade 1 record of her competition in those five races is 157-37-25-19.

In her five Grade 1 victories this year, Zenyatta was beating not a single Grade 1 winner. The overall Group/Grade 1 record of her competition in those five races is 28-0-1-2. Moreover, Zenyatta beat just two Grade 2 winners in those five races, St Trinians in the Vanity Handicap and Switch in the Lady's Secret.

In fact, while Zenyatta’s five victories this year were all technically Grade 1’s, the quality of the competition indicates that they were no better than Grade 3’s.

http://drf.com/news/goldikova-rules-world

Absolutely nothing of course...and considering how he ran in the Classic those of us that viewed his JCGC as a prep were obviously correct. Remember when horses ran preps and after it (pre internet) people didn't think they sucked if they didn't win a race that was clearly a prep?

I say that every time.

The list, in its entirety...

http://www.horseracingintfed.com/res...0_1111_WTR.asp

Sure he was, and why would that 750k Grade 1 be a prep? He was in it to win it.
Im just not crazy about him. He is in the bottom 5 of BC Classic winners all time. Im waiting for PP's so I can do a list....
But just since 2000 he is not better then... IMO he is not better then Zenyatta. Not better then Ravens Pass. Not better then Curlin, likely not better then Hard Spun or Street Sense, both in that 2007 Classic. Kinda reminds me of Invasor, not sure he is better, 100% not better then Bernardini who ran 2nd. Not better then Saint Liam, not better then RHT who scratched morning of. Not better then Ghostzapper and about 5 others in that 2004 race. Not better then Pleasantly Perfect. Maybe, MAYBE BETTER THEN VOLPONI who ran some huge beyers in some big spots. Not better then Tiznow, not better then either Euro Tiznow beat, and not better then a bunch of horses out of those 2000-2001 Classics.

A $750k stakes is a prep when it is used to prepare a horse for a much richer race.

Not too long ago, your dirt stakes horses that went a route of ground would prep for their big engagements in allowance races at sprint distances. For some reason, this does not quite happen as often, but prep races are alive and well in the dirt ranks.

If it was a prep then maybe thats a big problem with the game. What about all those bettors that made him odds on? He really should have run 3rd, if Fly Down could just figure things out.

every spring race leading up to the derby is called a prep-and some are with million dollar purses. obviously the jcgc would have been a nice race to win...but blame lost that battle and won the war. sounds like it all worked out just fine. and yes, it is a prep. one with a nice purse, but a prep for bigger and better all the same.

Imagine the idea that running in a prep race is what is wrong with the game? It's the complete opposite. Horses not running is a huge part of what is wrong with the game. That is why we see 5 horse stakes races. Because everyone would rather duck and dodge for the perfect spot instead of running.

What? That horses are flesh and blood and can't be expected to run their top race every time they run?

Those are the bettors that you make money off of. The one's that don't see the big picture (BC Preview Day) or recognize today's conditions (lone speed horse, Haynesfield, a multiple winner over the track and distance) may not be ideal.

The same type of bettors that "overreact" to the progression or regression of a horse. Blame had only been favored in one stakes race in his career up to that point, the Grade 3 Schaefer at Pimlico. He was suddenly a monster because he beat the much lauded Quality Road at Saratoga.

The same thing occured, full circle, with Unrivaled Belle this year. She trumped uber-filly Rachel Alexandra and therefore became an instant "monster", going off at odds-on in 2 of her next 3 starts. Yet fans had enough of her runner-up efforts in those races, including a 2nd in the Beldame (yet another perfect "prep" if you look at the big picture), and let her go off at 7-1 in the BC Distaff.

That would have been great. Then those with your mentality might have really got off him and let him get away at 8-1 or so.

Haynesfield was a winner at 10f before the JCGC?

Yeah, you got me. I guess the Suburban is only 9f nowadays.

Disregard everything I said.

Your mostly right anyway, I just think when a horse is crushed to odds on, he should be ready to run. I get the prep thing, just arguing my point.

Why even waste your time? You're talking to someone that thinks running in a prep is what is wrong with the sport. I guess if you started following the sport 5 years ago and had no desire to have any understanding of it prior to that it would make sense....or if you were an idiot.

He should be ready to run? For who's benefit? It's called handicapping. Bettors are competing against each other, not the horsemen. There's much more to it besides merely identifying the fastest horse. That's why they put all those trainer stats and what not along with the PPs.

Bettors are on the outside looking in, for the most part disconnected from the intentions of the horsemen (who are involved in a totally different aspect of the sport). Sometimes being aware of (or at least considering) the patterns and trends that have more to do with the human connections rather than the horse itself can be an advantage.

I've seen countless examples of horses running giant races in what connections have called "preps" going in .. only to lay an egg when supposed to step up in their main objective.

I think Blame and Fly Down both ran every bit as well as they did in the BC Classic that they did in the JCGC. I know the speed figures won't reflect it - though I've heard CJ say he thinks the 111 Classic Beyer is a little too high and I agree.

I think the difference between the two races was that Haynesfield was loose on an unpressured lead in one ... and in the other one - he got squeezed hard coming out of the gate - and was denied the lead in the BC Classic pace meltdown.

I think a better example of horse prepping is obviously Zenyatta. All of her wins this year can be called preps. And in true "prep race" fashion - her trainer all of a sudden turned up the heat in her training right before the Classic.

To me - if a race is really a prep - and you have a horse short - there should be a sign of more intense training leading into the objective race. They worked Zenyatta hard for 7fs and 6fs in her final two works - and actually ran a fresh horse at her in the middle of a tag team workout.

Harmonious before her Grade 1 win at Keeneland is another example - she had 28 published works in her career leading into her final race before the KEE win and NOT ONE single bullet work - her first two works for that KEE race are both bullets. She steps up and destroys Evening Jewel (who beat her last time) and wins by a huge margins.

The idea of the prep is to have the horse at his/her best for the target. I realize it doesn't often happen like it is planned...but IMO Stall did not have Blame fully cranked for the JCGC. I said as much after the race. Why would he if the goal was the Classic? That is what I am talking about in regards to a prep.

In regards to Harmonius you're ignoring that she was probably lengths best in the Del Mar Oaks. Evening Jewel got a much better trip and Harmonious drifted out like Swain in the stretch.

My only point was that these rankings are comical. If Blame is 2 then Z should be tied for, if not 1.

Why exactly should she be ranked ahead of him?

Because she is the better horse. I have no doubt about it. When she was winning the BCLC 3 years ago he was nothing, last year when she was winning the biggest rAce in America the BCC, he had not even won a Stakes yet. He beat her by a nose this year, congrats. The list of legit excuses for Z runs long.

Hard to fault this spot on analysis. :zz:

This is some of the worst logic ever posted on this board. That's no mean feat, considering the filth that has been strewn about this place.

And yet, it cut through all that like a hot knife through butter.

Does this mean Switch should be tied with Blame, too?

Is one of them that the stretch at CD was too short?

If there was an award for post of the week, this one would get it.

"If not 1" - wow, just wow.

Tears Jerry, tears.

Harmonius showed much more speed than ever before and absolutely obliterated Evening Jewel by an extremely lopsided margin for a turf race at Keeneland.

I don't disagree that she was better than EJ when EJ beat her in the Del Mar Oaks .. but that doesn't mean you have to pretend that she didn't improve a ton in her next race when Shirreffs started to drill on her.

Dougie..

Not that we need it, but for further evidence of Shirreffs' skill in the prep/drill department, dig up Giacomo's page through the Derby. The works leading up to and on the Sunday or Monday before Derby showed the same screw-tightening method. While the race ultimately fell in his lap, Giacomo was at least ready to run the best race he was capable of that day, and that's all you can ask of a horse.

I remember thinking he would be a good bet because of the way he looked in the Santa Anita Derby only to get off him because everyone was talking about final fraction and times.

and I was convinced Closing Argument would run 2nd.

polycrap has ruined most of the derby prep race axioms I used to hold.
maybe with Santa Anita going back to dirt, Cali horses will be relevant again.

John..

You have no excuse! If you go back to the Yahoo DT, and you were certainly a member then, you'll recall that I wrote extensively about that Santa Anita Derby and was high on the top 4 coming out of it. And the funny thing is that the horse who may have been most likely from it, General John B (Roger Stein!), got hurt and couldn't make Derby. Wilko (6th) and Buzzard's Bay (5th) both turned in solid efforts in the Derby though, further confirming the form coming out of Santa Anita...

has wilko sired a winner yet?

His progeny are yearlings. They hit the track in '11.

this can't be right; there's an obvious bias against west coast horses!! :D

Since they're done overseas I can't fault you for not knowing how these are compiled. The numbers are assigned to horses based on their best performance in a given year. If you're not familiar with Harbinger go to Youtube and watch his race at Ascot. If you watch it and then think that she should be ranked with him my hats off to you.

As far as what happened one, two and three years ago, they matter as much in those rankings as they do the HOTY vote. Blame was also a graded stakes winner before she won the Classic last year.