HOTY: If Zenyatta wins the Classic...

[CSC]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

He ran her three times against males. How is that not taking the most challenging spots? It wasn't like they shipped her to New York after the purchase and stuck to the Goose-CCOA-Alabama-Beldame route.

I'm sorry but Semantics aside, because I know the RA backers like to keep banging this point of taking on males, she did take the less challenging set of races. A true tougher test would have been to have gone in the Derby rather than Oaks, I'm okay with the Preakness however the Belmont would have been more of a challenge to her, The Travers rather than the Woodward, and deciding to pack it in before the BC and at most the JCGC was extremely premature and certainly not one that screams out challenge and taking risks from a horse that is proclaimed by many as one of the greatest fillies of all time.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by CSC

I'm sorry but Semantics aside, because I know the RA backers like to keep banging this point of taking on males, she did take the less challenging set of races. A true tougher test would have been to have gone in the Derby rather than Oaks, I'm okay with the Preakness however the Belmont would have been more of a challenge to her, The Travers rather than the Woodward, and deciding to pack it in before the BC and at most the JCGC was extremely premature and certainly not one that screams out challenge and taking risks in a horse that is proclaimed by many as one of the greatest fillies of all time.

So now you're going to bring up the past connections' decision to not run in the Derby? You're s.hitting all over races like the Preakness, Haskell (where she kicked the s.hit out of your boy), and Woodward. We're not talking about the Milady, Vanity, and Clement L. Hirsch for crying out loud. She ran in traditional, historic races and her connections took chances. You're sitting back critiquing every aspect because it wasn't the route you'd have chosen.

I would be more inclined to vote for Zenyatta as HOY if her connections had done at least one more thing that was ambitious. Sitting in cozy Cali all year long running in garbage races does not an HOY make. They chose to run her on the biggest stage but unfortunately by the time they did there had already been a bigger star.

NT

[CSC]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

So now you're going to bring up the past connections' decision to not run in the Derby? You're s.hitting all over races like the Preakness, Haskell (where she kicked the s.hit out of your boy), NT

This has nothing to do with the connections, The RA camp are the one's that are claiming she took on the most challenging set of races available to her this year, I am just pointing out that this wasn't the case and it is foolhardy to keep saying she did.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by CSC

This has nothing to do with the connections, The RA camp are the one's that are claiming she took on the most challenging set of races available to her this year, I am just pointing out that this wasn't the case and it is foolhardy to keep saying she did.

Who cares what they said, this thread is about who we think should be HOY. Jess Jackson also said that Curlin was one of the all-time greats. He can say whatever he wants because from the time in which he bought her she did have one of the most challenging sets of races a horse has ever had, that's undeniable. You're choosing to pick them apart as if what she did is mundane.

If you want to dissect each horse's campaign then I think Zenyatta should have run in the race on Oaks day regardless of track condition, the Californian instead of the Milady, the Hollywood Gold Cup instead of the Vanity, the San Diego Handicap instead of the Clement Hirsch, the Pacific Classic instead of the Lady's Secret.

You see they were really ducking the phenomenal west coast handicap horses like Rail Trip, Dakota Phone, and Colonel John.

That ridiculous argument that I just posited is roughly equivalent to what you're saying about Rachel Alexandra.

NT

[CSC]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Who cares what they said, this thread is about who we think should be HOY. Jess Jackson also said that Curlin was one of the all-time greats.

If you want to dissect each horse's campaign then I think Zenyatta should have run in the race on Oaks day regardless of track condition, the Californian instead of the Milady, the Hollywood Gold Cup instead of the Vanity, the San Diego Handicap instead of the Clement Hirsch, the Pacific Classic instead of the Lady's Secret.

You see they were really ducking the phenomenal west coast handicap horses like Rail Trip, Dakota Phone, and Colonel John.

That ridiculous argument that I just posited is roughly equivalent to what you're saying about Rachel Alexandra.

NT

As with many I was critical of Zenyatta's campaign also, sure I would have loved to have seen her ship and be tested more, however seeing how she ran yesterday I can understand why they did what they did.

Neither camp wanted to ship to each others backyard so maybe both can be blamed for this, I do believe 1 extraordinary performance can sway minds, we talked about this with Summer Bird had he won the Classic, what Zenyatta did yesterday superceded the norm for me and she deserves HOY based on this IMO.

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by CSC

I'm sorry but Semantics aside, because I know the RA backers like to keep banging this point of taking on males, she did take the less challenging set of races. A true tougher test would have been to have gone in the Derby rather than Oaks, I'm okay with the Preakness however the Belmont would have been more of a challenge to her, The Travers rather than the Woodward, and deciding to pack it in before the BC and at most the JCGC was extremely premature and certainly not one that screams out challenge and taking risks from a horse that is proclaimed by many as one of the greatest fillies of all time.

I cant even believe im commenting on your comment here after you just displayed how little knowledge you have on the subject. Jess didnt even own here during the Derby, it was stated by her owner at the time she is a filly and will race only against filly's. This is why Jess bought her was to make sure this wasnt the case and find out how good she really is. She passed all tests and put in one of if not the greatest years of all time by any horse.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by kgar311

I cant even believe im commenting on your comment here after you just displayed how little knowledge you have on the subject. Jess didnt even own here during the Derby, it was stated by her owner at the time she is a filly and will race only against filly's. This is why Jess bought her was to make sure this wasnt the case and find out how good she really is. She passed all tests and put in one of if not the greatest years of all time by any horse.

Read above.

[2Hot4TV]

Originally Posted by kgar311

I cant even believe im commenting on your comment here after you just displayed how little knowledge you have on the subject. Jess didnt even own here during the Derby, it was stated by her owner at the time she is a filly and will race only against filly's. This is why Jess bought her was to make sure this wasnt the case and find out how good she really is. She passed all tests and put in one of if not the greatest years of all time by any horse.

You're really bitter about the whole thing. Next your going to tell us what a great sportsman Jess Jackson is.

[Rupert Pupkin]

The more I think about it, even though Rachel wasn't that impressive in the Preakness or Woodward, she may not have liked either of those tracks. I know that Borel said she didn't really handle the track at Pimlico. I didn't hear any comments from him regarding whether she liked the track at Saratoga, but I know that alot of horses don't handle that track, so she may not have liked the track there either.

So she really may have had a much bigger excuse than just going too fast early in those races. It may have been a combination of going too fast and not handling those tracks.

She may in fact be a totally different horse at tracks she likes such as Churchill, Belmont, and Monmouth.

She really did look like a different horse in those races.

So the more I think about it, if Zenyatta and Rachel faced other, I think there is a good chance it would come down to which track they ran at and how the race set up. If they ran at Santa Anita or Saratoga, my guess is that Zenyatta probably wins. But if they run at Churchill or Belmont, I think Rachel may win. The pace would obviously be a big factor too.

I was just going over Macho Again's PPs and watching some of his races. He is actually a much better horse than I realized. I had totally forgotten that he won the Stephen Foster. I think the race that Rachel ran in the Woodward was actually quite a bit better than I originally thought.

[pba1817]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The more I think about it, even though Rachel wasn't that impressive in the Preakness or Woodward, she may not have liked either of those tracks. I know that Borel said she didn't really handle the track at Pimlico. I didn't hear any comments from him regarding whether she liked the track at Saratoga, but I know that alot of horses don't handle that track, so she may not have liked the track there either.

So she really may have had a much bigger excuse than just going too fast early in those races. It may have been a combination of going too fast and not handling those tracks.

She may in fact be a totally different horse at tracks she likes such as Churchill, Belmont, and Monmouth.

She really did look like a different horse in those races.

So the more I think about it, if Zenyatta and Rachel faced other, I think there is a good chance it would come down to which track they ran at and how the race set up. If they ran at Santa Anita or Saratoga, my guess is that Zenyatta probably wins. But if they run at Churchill or Belmont, I think Rachel may win. The pace would obviously be a big factor too.

Actually it comes down to the distance... Rachel was breathing fire in the Preakness(1 3/16) and the Woodward(1 1/4), she was at her bottom for sure in both of those huge efforts.

Zenyatta would run right past RA at anything further than 1 1/8, any thing less, RA is outta sight from Z.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pba1817

Actually it comes down to the distance... Rachel was breathing fire in the Preakness(1 3/16) and the Woodward(1 1/4), she was at her bottom for sure in both of those huge efforts.

Zenyatta would run right past RA at anything further than 1 1/8, any thing less, RA is outta sight from Z.

The Woodward is only 1 1/8 miles, not 1 1/4 miles. I think it would come down to the track just as much the distance. At Churchill in the Ky Oaks, it looked like Rachel could have gone another 1/8 of a mile with no problem.

[pba1817]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The Woodward is only 1 1/8 miles, not 1 1/4 miles. I think it would come down to the track just as much the distance. At Churchill in the Ky Oaks, it looked like Rachel could have gone another 1/8 of a mile with no problem.

I stand corrected... yea she sure does love CD surface, and a little help from mother nature sure wouldn't lower her chances!!

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by pba1817

Actually it comes down to the distance... Rachel was breathing fire in the Preakness(1 3/16) and the Woodward(1 1/4), she was at her bottom for sure in both of those huge efforts.

Zenyatta would run right past RA at anything further than 1 1/8, any thing less, RA is outta sight from Z.

Honestly, if Rachel hadnt have had to sprint 1 3/16 in the Preakness and sprint for 1 1/8th in the Woodward, she may have not been so gassed at the end. It was incredible the way she won those races.. as a 3yo filly non-the-less.

If you are going on complete body of work, no doubt hands down Rachel for the HOY. But Zenyatta was really something on Saturday. Ultra impressive though I thought the Classic basically the BC turf 2nd Division.

I dont feel Zenyatta should be HOY over Rachel.. but I am totally okay with them sharing the honors, if that is possible.

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The more I think about it, even though Rachel wasn't that impressive in the Preakness or Woodward, she may not have liked either of those tracks. I know that Borel said she didn't really handle the track at Pimlico. I didn't hear any comments from him regarding whether she liked the track at Saratoga, but I know that alot of horses don't handle that track, so she may not have liked the track there either.

So she really may have had a much bigger excuse than just going too fast early in those races. It may have been a combination of going too fast and not handling those tracks.

She may in fact be a totally different horse at tracks she likes such as Churchill, Belmont, and Monmouth.

She really did look like a different horse in those races.

So the more I think about it, if Zenyatta and Rachel faced other, I think there is a good chance it would come down to which track they ran at and how the race set up. If they ran at Santa Anita or Saratoga, my guess is that Zenyatta probably wins. But if they run at Churchill or Belmont, I think Rachel may win. The pace would obviously be a big factor too.

I was just going over Macho Again's PPs and watching some of his races. He is actually a much better horse than I realized. I had totally forgotten that he won the Stephen Foster. I think the race that Rachel ran in the Woodward was actually quite a bit better than I originally thought.

Your mindset is puzzling to me.

The only thing that I was unimpressed about this year is the way Zenyatta won her 4 prior starts. Talk about dissappointing. The feeling before each one of those races was is this the day Zen get beat by a bunch of horses that are no better then 40k claimers in NY.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Your mindset is puzzling to me.

The only thing that I was unimpressed about this year is the way Zenyatta won her 4 prior starts. Talk about dissappointing. The feeling before each one of those races was is this the day Zen get beat by a bunch of horses that are no better then 40k claimers in NY.

I never said that Zenyatta's 4 wins before the BC were spectacular. But there were reasons why she didn't win by huge margins. First of all, she seems to pretty much just do what she needs to do. She runs to her competition. She pretty much just toys with them. And in the race she won by a nose, that was simply jockey error. Mike Smith rode her too confidently and gave her too much to do.

In addition, some of her races were actually much better than they appear. For example, take her win on May 23rd in the Milady. Watch that race. The race doesn’t look that good on paper and it doesn’t even look that good on video if you don't watch it carefully. But it was actually an incredible performance. Garret Gomez was on Life Is Sweet in the race. He knew that Zenyatta was the horse to beat so Gomez had Life Is Sweet off the rail going down the backstretch to try to force Zenyatta to go inside. It worked. Zenyatta went inside and then Gomez let Life Is Sweet go and Zenyatta was forced to check. So Zenyatta checks going into the far turn and after she checks, she is about 10 lengths back.

Anyway, by the time they hit the stretch, she basically had the lead. She didn’t quite have the lead because she went really wide but she was within a length or so of the lead. If she didn’t go so wide she would have had the lead at the top of the stretch. So she basically made up 10 lengths around the turn. It was unbelievable. Considering that she is a big, lumbering horse, I would have never thought that she could accelerate that quickly. It was amazing. Mike Smith totally mis-timed his move. When you make a premature, wide move like that and gun the horse around the turn, your horse will totally flatten out in the stretch. If the finish line was at the 1/8th pole, that wouldn’t be a bad move. But since the finish line is not at the 1/8th pole, it is a big mistake for a rider to time a wide move as if the finish-line is at the 1/8th pole. The horse will have nothing left for the final 1/8th of a mile. This is especially true if the move is a wide move. A premature move on the rail is not nearly as costly as a premature wide move.

Anyway, her winning margin would have been much bigger that day if she didn’t check going into the turn and then make that totally premature wide move. It was actually a pretty amazing performance on her part. By the way, you can’t really blame Mike Smith for making that move because he knew that Life Is Sweet was the horse to beat and he wanted to get the jump on her.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The more I think about it, even though Rachel wasn't that impressive in the Preakness or Woodward, she may not have liked either of those tracks. I know that Borel said she didn't really handle the track at Pimlico. I didn't hear any comments from him regarding whether she liked the track at Saratoga, but I know that alot of horses don't handle that track, so she may not have liked the track there either.

So she really may have had a much bigger excuse than just going too fast early in those races. It may have been a combination of going too fast and not handling those tracks.

She may in fact be a totally different horse at tracks she likes such as Churchill, Belmont, and Monmouth.

She really did look like a different horse in those races.

So the more I think about it, if Zenyatta and Rachel faced other, I think there is a good chance it would come down to which track they ran at and how the race set up. If they ran at Santa Anita or Saratoga, my guess is that Zenyatta probably wins. But if they run at Churchill or Belmont, I think Rachel may win. The pace would obviously be a big factor too.

I was just going over Macho Again's PPs and watching some of his races. He is actually a much better horse than I realized. I had totally forgotten that he won the Stephen Foster. I think the race that Rachel ran in the Woodward was actually quite a bit better than I originally thought.

I dont know why she needs an excuse for the Preakness and the Woodward.. I mean not only did she WIN both races but she had by FAR and by Far I mean like 1000 times tougher trip than anyone in those races. The Preakness and the Woodward may have been her best 2 races when you look at the trip.. though I do feel the Haskell was her best race.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I dont know why she needs an excuse for the Preakness and the Woodward.. I mean not only did she WIN both races but she had by FAR and by Far I mean like 1000 times tougher trip than anyone in those races. The Preakness and the Woodward may have been her best 2 races when you look at the trip.. though I do feel the Haskell was her best race.

I agree with you that RA went much too fast early in both the Preakness and the Woodward. I said that in a previous post in this thread. She ran good in both of those races.

With regard to the Haskell, she ran great but it was in the slop, so it's kind of hard to compare that race to a race on a fast track.

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by CSC

I'm sorry but Semantics aside, because I know the RA backers like to keep banging this point of taking on males, she did take the less challenging set of races. A true tougher test would have been to have gone in the Derby rather than Oaks, I'm okay with the Preakness however the Belmont would have been more of a challenge to her, The Travers rather than the Woodward, and deciding to pack it in before the BC and at most the JCGC was extremely premature and certainly not one that screams out challenge and taking risks from a horse that is proclaimed by many as one of the greatest fillies of all time.

Z never raced outside of SoCal this year. If anyone was doing the ducking, it was Z's connections.