BEYER: Defining Zenyatta's historical role

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by goingtothewhip

More to your point regarding surfaces, I think many are failing to realize that all of the synthetic surfaces (Hwood, Santa Anita, Del Mar) are extremely different in the way they play as they are different brand surfaces (cushion, pro ride hybrid, and polytrack respectively). To lump them all together under the synthetic moniker is misleading in many ways.

Misleading? Who cares which brand of synthetic track any of them are? It's all moot since they're all going to be forgotten. The underlying point is that the entire synthetic track disaster is going to ultimately be regarded as a footnote in racing history, the way Tartan Track is for instance. That is at the core of Beyer's piece.

People that want to elevate results produced on synthetic tracks to the level of the previous century of racing history refuse to acknowledge certain facts. One is that a generation of horses bred to perform on racing's irrefutable main track surface were denied an opportunity to make their marks if they were forced to spend their career on synthetic surfaces (of any brand).

The second is that horses with previously established levels of achievement (or excellence) on racing's principal main track surface, were forced unrealistically and unfairly to try to succeed in two irrelevant Breeders' Cups held on the patchwork synthetic surface at Santa Anita in 2008-09.

And the central theme, and frustration, of those questioning Zenyatta's possible historical greatness, is that her connections denied her very real, plausible and myriad opportunities available to provide definition by irrefutable standards of how good she is/was... And as a frank aside, the fact that wild-eyed fans of hers cannot discern that nuance is what has now made her so unpalatable to those that legitimately question her achievements beyond the core performances that lend credence to how good a horse she has been.