Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Danzig
actually, i'm a bit of a cheerleader of hers as well. but my issue is with any poster who acts as tho zenyatta is a great horse whilst rachel is a bum-or as someone wrote, the east coast version of pepper's pride. that i find ridiculous, whether pointed toward the filly or the mare.
as for the male division....some say that it's not as tough right now-so why is rachel the only one who can claim a win? if it's sooo easy, why isn't anyone proving that point? why isn't anyone else showing that it can be done?
|
Please know that I do not bash one to raise up the other ..
I frankly think they are both terrific ...
I fail to see the Pepper's Pride analogy via Rachel---Rachel is not undefeated and has won at more than one locale--did you mean Zenyatta ???? I have seen that--GAG ...
To the question why isn't anyone else doing it ???
In the old days there were not so many lucrative spots for fillies and mares as there are today--so more were run against males ...
It is generally acknowledged that in SOME circumstances, males have the edge--so why risk the whole pot for a portion of the pot or less against the boys ...
Rachel was so spectacularly better than her own sex group, and the males in general so unspectacular, that Jackson saw a perfect opportunity to go for it---I would have myself ...
This was a less daring plan than running Cicada against Ridan, or Silver Spoon in the Derby, or Azeri in the BCC, Glorious Song against Spectacular Bid and more, and a better opportunity for success ..
It was gravy and it was golden --taking NOTHING away from Rachel ....
Pity the Mosses didn't do this with their mare ...