Rachel vs. Zenyatta: Which run the better race?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

RA was compromised by trip and fractions in the Preakness ... of course Zenyatta probably gets to her and goes by her late that day.

Still, we are taking about a 3yo filly in middle may vs. a 5yo that is easily the best older horse in the land on synthetic ... and easily the best older mare in the land on dirt too .. though more because the others kind of suck than anything else.

I'm not convinced Zenyatta would have beat Rachel in the Preakness. Since we're throwing out hypotheticals, do you (fat man) think Zenyatta would have won the Preakness if Rachel had an easier pace?

Also has Zenyatta ever gone farther than 1 1/8th? Dont her owners/trainer not even want to run her farther than 1 1/8th?

And horseofcourse, I do really believe that Rachel did not handle the Pimlico track the same way she handled Churchill and Belmont. Not only did her jockey say so right after the race in which she won a classic (must have really been on his mind, I mean, how often do you hear a jockey making excuses eventhough he just WON a classic with a filly!), but just watching how easy she was moving at Belmont compared to Pimlico makes me believe the jockey. I dont really care that the race was given a 108... what does that mean anyway? I'm going off of what my eyes saw... not that that means anything either.