This talk about RA being better than...
 

Just listening to ATR with DrugS and that first caller.

Comparing RA to SBD or R2R is one thing, but GFW and Ruffian? That seems very premature at this point.

I'm pretty confident that the trio of Inside Information, Sardula and Lakeway, when they were right, were better.

I don't see it as a stretch saying that RA is better than SBD, but Doug's assessment that she's better than Rags at distances up to 1 1/4 miles seems pretty dodgy.

One thing people don't take into account is that Rags was making only her sixth start when she won the Belmont, with that being her fourth straight grade one win.

Rachel Alexandra, on the other hand, had six starts just as a two year old. She had far more seasoning by this point in their respective careers and until Saturday was facing far less talented fields of runners than Rags had been.

I'd also like to point out that Rags maiden win going 7f at SA (dirt) was spectacular. I would say RA would have a tactical advantage in a 7-8f race but by no means would she be a lock.

I think had Rags not gotten hurt (or Pletchers barn gone south?) her career would have been something truly special.

quite a possibility. sadly, we'll never know.
i think comparing to go for wand or ruffian would be premature. to horses such as personal ensign and genuine risk as well. BUT, it remains to be seen. we know what those horses did, of course rachel is still a work in progress. she's generating lots of excitement, moreso it seems in the press than rags did....the attempt to keep her out of the preakness only produced that much more interest in the race. there is no such thing as bad p.r.

as for facing more talent til saturday, that may be the case. but i thought rachel ran an outstanding race in md. that at least puts her on par with rags at this point, if not slightly ahead.

Yes and if Jordan wouldn't have retired the first time he would've won 12 championships.

Irrelevant.

Hey it's relevant because it doesn't mean jack and s.hit other than what if and woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Yeah, I made a point to say that Ruffian, Genuine Risk, and GFW were all before my time and I couldn't compare them with RA. I think Kaspet pretty much agreed with me.

But hey, I also made a point to say that Mine That Bird and Musket Man both share a May 10th birthday and that Pioneer of the Nile (May 5th) was the oldest runner to hit the board in the Derby. I'm big on horsey birthdays don't ya know.

Rachel Alexandra certainly would have defeated R2R at 9fs and very likely would have at 10fs in a fairly run race. At 12 furlongs .. you have an aggressive speedy MDO out of a Roar mare against an Ap Indy out of Demoiselle winning and Belmont Stakes producing mare who had good tactical speed and was an excellent finisher ... I'd take R2R at that distance.

That's just all plain nuts, and you know it.

In a fairly run race at 9f (you say 10) Rags probably wins more often than not. In a typical paceless 9f race, yeah, RA would have a big edge.

Going 10 or longer, RA would have to have everything go her way. Rags certainly would have beaten her in the Preakness Saturday.

Taking that approach towards anything having to do with racing would make any and all talk pointless. And yeah, I know there is no way to accurately compare horses that ran in different years but that's the a big part of why people post on boards like these. It's fun.

I loved Rags To Riches chances in the Belmont .. I said right after her Oaks win that running her in the Belmont was the prudent spot .. I thought that way because I projected improvement off of her very good form at commonly run distances.

However, her career form at commonly run distances wasn't as good as RA's form.

I would not only take RA over R2R at 9fs but also SBD over her at 9fs.

Very much disagree. There wasn't many beating her on Saturday, or the previous Friday's Oaks, either.

I think Drugs is spot on with his analysis of R2R vs. RA re: distances.

I/C,

To this point in their careers, Rachel Alexandra is very comparable to Go for Wand.

One of the problems with truly determining how good R2R and RA truly are is the competition just not being very good. In the case of R2R, Pletcher had ALL the top 3yo fillies that year, and hated to run them against each other... and Rachel just makes her weak competition look silly.

As long as they pointed out that she couldn't warm up Ruffian it's fine.

Why do I doubt they did that?

lol

because it's espn. because most people were thinking 'ruff---who?'

ruffian vs rachel...no contest. NONE.

Whoppdee ding dong. I told you she was an immortal lock to win the oaks after she broke her maiden. What does that get us?

What do you base that on? Figs?

That's ridiculous.

There weren't many that were going to beat her? MTB and MM, both pretty ordinary horses in the grand scheme of things, got pretty close to her. That race shape would have set up perfectly for R2R.

At the risk of breaking Danzig's all time consecutive post record within a single thread, I'll say this.

How are they comparable?

GFW as a two year old went 3 for 4 with one second, romping in her debut, winning by 19 in her 2nd start, running 2nd in her stakes debut and then was a romping winner in the BC. An easy win for 2yo filly champ. RA started six times with a 3-2-0 record for about 200k. Not quite equals in my book.

At three, GFW started the year with two romps before getting shocked in the Ky Oaks by the underrated Seaside Attraction. She ran in every top race and faced far superior horses compared to what RA ran against. RA cherry picked her spots, running at OP twice and FG once before the Oaks. Her opposition was horrific.

To compare opposition at three, up to this point:

GFW: Trumpets Blare, Seaside Attraction (they split), Charon and Bright Candles.

RA: Afleet Deceit (2), Peach Brew, Flying Spur (2), Our Dahlia, Just Jenda, and Stone Legacy. And, of course, the Preakness.