Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CSC
For the most part I agree with the theme of your post, well thought out and written, the only thing I disagree on is the 49 fraction part.
|
I guess if it was at Churchill, Rachel could go quite a bit faster than that and still have a great chance. In the Ky Oaks, I think she went :47 3/5. I don't know if anyone could have beaten her that day.
But the thing about Zenyatta as I said in my previous post is that we still don't know how good she really is. They've never really gotten to the bottom of her. She's never really been all out. If someone didn't recognize this, I could see how they wouldn't have thought she was that good before yesterday's race. Even after yesterday's race, I could see someone making an argument that she still didn't prove she's a true superstar. I mean it was a relatively weak field for the BC Classic. There were no Roses in Mays, Ghostzappers, Pleasantly Perfects, Curlins, Invasors, Bernardidnis, etc. I admit that it wasn't a great field. But that doesn't matter. It was the way she did it. Everything went against her. She came out of the gate totally flat-footed and didn't switch leads for well over an 1/8th of a mile. So she ends up 15 lengths back on a :24 1/5 opening quarter. Yet she still ended up winning relatively easily and she wasn't even all out.
With Rachel Alexander, I thought the sky was the limit after the Ky Oaks. She was winning by 20 lengths and she wasn't even all out. But eventually we did end up seeing her all out in both the Preakness and the Woodward. She barely won those races. She may be the biggest freak in the world at Churchill. But at other tracks, if she is close to a pretty fast pace, she is not invincible. She would have lost both the Preakness and the Woodward if there would have been a really good horse in either one of those races.