Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parsixfarms
I agree, but today I guy said to me this afternoon that Rachel's better than Ruffian. Now, I don't know what Ruffian beat (before my time), but I do know that the fields that Rachel has beaten don't stack up to what Winning Colors defeated in the Derby (Forty Niner, Risen Star, Private Terms, Seeking the Gold, etc.) or what Rags to Riches defeated in the Belmont (Curlin, Hard Spun).
While I think that Rachel's connections deserve credit for running her against the boys, unless they run her in the Travers, which I highly doubt, they will have opted for the more opportunistic spot each time they tried the boys. Under the circumstances, the Preakness was an easier task than the Belmont, and the Haskell a softer assignment than the Travers. It's a shame that she won't face Zenyatta in a fairly run race.
|
this is why i try not to compare horses that are still running with those that retired years ago-you know how those from the past finished up, as well as their competition. rachel and company are still a work in progress, and it'll be a few years before we know what their true spot will be.
by the same token, i can't recall the last horse i saw that won with such aplomb in top races vs the best of its peers. rachel doesn't just win, much of the time it's an annihilation-and as i used to read back when, if a horse hasn't got competition they still have the clock. rachel seems otherwordly right now-she's certainly the best 3 yo this year by a wide margin. historically? we need to be patient on that score.
a great horse is a horse that transcends time-a horse that's used as a measuring stick for horses that come later. if in ten, twenty years, people say 'he/she's the best since rachel' then you'll know she was great because she stood the ultimate test-'what have you done lately?' the truly special ones remain in the memory.