![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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? |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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!
__________________
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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.
__________________
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"...Voltaire |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
![]() 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
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
2) Gio Ponti 3) Zenyatta |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|