Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parsixfarms
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.
|
There is absolutely no way anyone could say the "better horse" is Zenyatta. And thats the only argument the Zenyatta has. There is also absolutely no way anyone could say the "better horse" is Rachel.
These hypotheticals "oh Z would have won the Woodward or Rachel would have lost the BC Classic" are as absurd as saying Rachel or Z is the "better horse"
You can only look at facts and the year 2009. Its pretty darn clear once you do that and get off the hypothetical horse!