View Single Post
  #113  
Old 11-08-2009, 07:38 PM
Rupert Pupkin Rupert Pupkin is offline
Del Mar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,102
Default

I think it’s a close call with regard to who should win horse of the year. There is no doubt that Rachel had an incredible year. Zenyatta, on the other hand is the first filly or mare in history to win the BC Classic. I think that is a very big deal. In addition, she was undefeated this year. With regard to who the better horse is, I think Zenyatta is probably the better horse at 1 ¼ miles. Rachel never ran 1 ¼ miles. The furthest she ever ran was 1 3/16 miles in the Preakness and she was getting very tired at the end of that race. If Zenyatta was in that field, I think she would have won fairly handily. In the Woodward, Rachel was getting very tired and barely held off Macho Again. If Zenyatta was in that field, I think she would have easily won that race. And if Rachel would have been in the BC Classic yesterday, I don’t think she would have beaten Zenyatta. So that’s 3 different races this year, where if they would have faced each other I think Zenyatta would have beaten her.

I think that at 1 ¼ miles, Zenyatta would beat Rachel almost every time unless it was a totally paceless field. If it was a field with no speed, where Rachel got an easy lead in :49, then maybe she would have a chance. And I think Rachel would have a good chance to beat Zenyatta in the slop. We know that Rachel loves the slop. Whether Zenyatta would like the slop is anyone's guess.

On the other hand, I don’t know if Zenyatta could have beaten Rachel in the Ky Oaks. Rachel freaked that day. She loves Churchill. I don't know if Zenyatta could beat her at Churchill in a relatively paceless race. It still is hard to tell just how good Zenyatta is because she always wins so effortlessly. Even yesterday, she wasn’t all out. She broke totally flat-footed and took well over an 1/8th of a mile to switch leads and ended up 15 lengths behind on a :24 1/5 opening quarter. Everything went against her, yet she still won relatively easily. She just does what she needs to do. Once she hits the lead, she pulls herself up. She doesn’t win by 20 lengths like Rachel, so she doesn’t look as spectacular as Rachel. But as spectacular as Rachel looked against easy fields, when she ran in races where the fields were a little tougher and the pace was faster, she barely won. But in fairness to Rachel, she’s still only 3 years old. She’s not even fully mature yet. So I think it’s tough to compare the two horses.

If RA and Zenyatta faced each other tomorrow, I highly doubt Rachel would beat Zenyatta at 1 1/8 or 1 1/4 miles if there was a fairly fast pace and Rachel was close to that pace. When Rachel has been close to fairly fast paces (on fast tracks not sloppy tracks), she has barely held off mediocre horses. Does that prove that Zenyatta is better? Probably, but not necessarily. Maybe Rachel could show a new dimension if she needed to.
Reply With Quote