Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Travis Stone
I'll take the bait knowing the what-if game shouldn't factor on a Horse of the Year vote...
It depends if Zenyatta's dirt form is of the 109-110 variety... her only dirt start was not. That said, she would probably be closing late for sure.
But, it wasn't her... she was waiting to beat-up the same ole's in the Lady's Secret. She could have made this whole thread a moot point by running in the Pacific Classic instead.
In a typical year, what she did would be a-okay - a few easy starts before winning the Classic - and she'd have the trophy. But this was not a typical year because of the score Rachel Alexandra posted. Rachel posted 5-under par, and while Zenyatta finished with an eagle, she was a stroke short.
|
Come on, you didn't answer the question. After watching the 2008 Apple Blossom - Zenyatta's fourth lifetime start - I'm hard-pressed to come to the conclusion that, had she been campaigned on dirt, she would not have been just as effective. I think both Dick Jerardi and Randy Moss recently wrote columns about how speed figures are not a particularly useful measure when looking at a horse with Zenyatta's running style, so quoting me the Beyer figure from the Apple Blossom does not say much to me.
I respect the opinion of those who think that Rachel should be horse of the year, based on her "body of work" in 2009, and that the award need not necessarily go to the "best horse." At the same time, however, it amazes me how the Rachel backers go to great lengths to avoid conceding any point that might even remotely suggest that Zenyatta may have been the better horse.