Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NTamm1215
Right, but aren't there a significant amount of extenuating circumstances that come into play? Put Rachel and Zenyatta in a field of five going nine furlongs at Belmont where the other three horses have no speed and I'm 100% positive Rachel wins. On the other hand, put Zenyatta in a race like the Woodward and she'd have a hell of a chance.
The wild card among the two being that they both have incredible will to win. Rachel could have folded after the pace duels in the Preakness or Woodward and didn't. Zenyatta could have easily come up short in the Clement Hirsch. Neither of them did.
The exercise in question is not figuring out which is better or who would win a head-to-head match. Without knowing the particulars it's futile. The exercise is determining who had a better year.
|
I agree with much of what you say. The problem is that there is no established definition of what "horse of the year" is. Some think it's based on "body of work" in 2009 solely; others base it on who they think the "better" horse is. Without the Eclipse people providing definitive guidelines (and I'm not proposing that there should be such guidelines), neither is necessarily wrong, especially when you are dealing with two undefeated horses who never faced one another.