Jerry Brown's letter to TDN on HOY discussion

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Probably none, which is reflective of racing in 2009.

I think several of the horses that I previously listed above would have won either the Preakness or Woodward more impressively, had they contested that sort of race with similar pace dynamics and similar quality of opponents. While I think Rachel had several things in her favor in the Haskell, her performance in that race is now pretty hard to knock.

So the best (fastest, game etc) races were run by the same horse that being Rachel Hence it is crystal clear she is HoY at least in 2009.. Again that doesnt mean she is better then Zenyatta..that is a question that we will never have a definative answer too.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by freddymo

So the best (fastest, game etc) races were run by the same horse that being Rachel Hence it is crystal clear she is HoY at least in 2009.. Again that doesnt mean she is better then Zenyatta..that is a question that we will never have a definative answer too.

Not so fast, my friend. The question was whether any other horse in training in 2009 could have navigated the Woodward or Preakness in the same fashion as Rachel did. That does not mean she should be horse of the year.

Now my turn for one question: in light of the Breeders' Cup Classic result, do you believe that if Zenyatta had been the horse coming after Rachel in the Woodward, as opposed to Macho Again, that Rachel still would have won the race?

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Now my turn for one question: in light of the Breeders' Cup Classic result, do you believe that if Zenyatta had been the horse coming after Rachel in the Woodward, as opposed to Macho Again, that Rachel still would have won the race?

I'll take the bait knowing the what-if game shouldn't factor on a Horse of the Year vote...

It depends if Zenyatta's dirt form is of the 109-110 variety... her only dirt start was not. That said, she would probably be closing late for sure.

But, it wasn't her... she was waiting to beat-up the same ole's in the Lady's Secret. She could have made this whole thread a moot point by running in the Pacific Classic instead.

In a typical year, what she did would be a-okay - a few easy starts before winning the Classic - and she'd have the trophy. But this was not a typical year because of the score Rachel Alexandra posted. Rachel posted 5-under par, and while Zenyatta finished with an eagle, she was a stroke short.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

I'll take the bait knowing the what-if game shouldn't factor on a Horse of the Year vote...

It depends if Zenyatta's dirt form is of the 109-110 variety... her only dirt start was not. That said, she would probably be closing late for sure.

But, it wasn't her... she was waiting to beat-up the same ole's in the Lady's Secret. She could have made this whole thread a moot point by running in the Pacific Classic instead.

In a typical year, what she did would be a-okay - a few easy starts before winning the Classic - and she'd have the trophy. But this was not a typical year because of the score Rachel Alexandra posted. Rachel posted 5-under par, and while Zenyatta finished with an eagle, she was a stroke short.

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.

[Antitrust32]

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!

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

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"

Why? We do it when we analyze horse races (for gambling purposes) every day.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Why? We do it when we analyze horse races (for gambling purposes) every day.

Because its not based on a hypothetical matchup, its based on accomplisments throughout 2009.

For every one person who says Z would crush Rachel on synthetics at 10 panels or dirt at 10 panels another person could say Rachel would crush Z at 8 or 9 panels. Its assumptions not based on fact and should not be the criteria to pick HOY.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Why? We do it when we analyze horse races (for gambling purposes) every day.

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.

NT

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

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!

I agree but Zenyatta had a great year and did win the Classic its not like she is Peppers Pride.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I agree but Zenyatta had a great year and did win the Classic its not like she is Peppers Pride.

Zenyatta had a terrifically unbelievable Classic and pulled off some good victories in her other races when sometimes pace was not on her side.

But when you put the two horses accomplisments side by side, its very clear, at least for me, who should get HOY.

I really wish they could just split the award though and make everyone happy.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I agree but Zenyatta had a great year and did win the Classic its not like she is Peppers Pride.

well on this very forum she has been compared to Peppers Pride

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Not so fast, my friend. The question was whether any other horse in training in 2009 could have navigated the Woodward or Preakness in the same fashion as Rachel did. That does not mean she should be horse of the year.

Now my turn for one question: in light of the Breeders' Cup Classic result, do you believe that if Zenyatta had been the horse coming after Rachel in the Woodward, as opposed to Macho Again, that Rachel still would have won the race?

Clearly the best races were Rachel's in 2009. HoY is based on accomplishments not on subjective opinions of who is better.. Shoot, the best horse in 2009 wouldnt have had to race then..Rail Trip might be the most talented horse of 2009..I dont think he is but couldnt I argue with Ron Ellis if he told me Rail trip would kick all there butts?

As for your question I can only speculate..Zenyatta ran once on dirt again i would yield to the subjective Sherriffs as he is probably the only one who thinks he knows with any true reality!

I am not sure if she would have beatin Rachel in the Woodward.. Gun to my head I think Rachel would be lost the Woodward to Zenyatta..Shame Zenyatta wasn't there...

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Shame Zenyatta wasn't there...

Another thing we can agree upon.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Rail Trip might be the most talented horse of 2009..I dont think he is but couldnt I argue with Ron Ellis if he told me Rail trip would kick all there butts?

Any horse that lost to Ball Four can't be in the conversation for "most talented horse" of 2009.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Any horse that lost to Ball Four can't be in the conversation for "most talented horse" of 2009.

Agreed... but the point was to rebut the "best horse" theory as it pertains to HoY ..

[letswastemoney]

I still don't understand how Gio Ponti is not considered if he faced open G1 competition and won against open G1 competition more often than the other 2 fillies

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

I still don't understand how Gio Ponti is not considered if he faced open G1 competition and won against open G1 competition more often than the other 2 fillies

1) Rachel Alexandra
2) Gio Ponti
3) Zenyatta