BEYER: Defining Zenyatta's historical role

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

So do you think 20 years from RA is going to have a greater legacy than Zenyatta because she did take on and win such demanding races for a filly?

I think I would take that bet if you wanted it.

i'm pretty sure it was eng that wrote he expects another mare to win the bcc before another filly wins the preakness, haskell and woodward. i'm thinking that's true.

it's funny....when zenyatta is the greatest folks start posting, and get some negative feedback, they bring up who rachel beat. but no one is saying rachel is an all-time great, are they? not that i know of. so, if you can't even settle if zenyatta is better than rachel, how can anyone say where she fits historically?

i think it's safe to say, in a ballpark figure way, that 1980 divides the end of the golden age of racing from the modern day. any top ten list of all time best thoroughbreds would include spectacular bid. any horse since then? most likely not.
you have the triumvirate of man o war, secretariat and citation. that leaves seven. after that, others get put in the mix for a variety of reasons, but you really have to be special to be in the top tier, maybe even top 20. could someone put zenyatta there? no, i don't think so.

so, now greatness gets watered down when you start adding more and more to the list...suddenly, great isn't quite so great.
so, let's say you limit it to past 1980...where does she fit? another round of arguing would begin. but, much of the current crowd arguing the point doesn't have much history to go by, which is why they get grief when they suggest a mare with one lifetime open win to her credit is an all-time great. are we talking all-time, all-time...or just recent memory all-time great?
zenyatta winning the bc was special, because she was the first distaffer to manage it. she's special because she's undefeated. but all-time, ahead of ruffian great? dr. fager, damascus, round table great? john henry? i don't think so.