Rachel vs. Zenyatta: Which run the better race?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

RA was compromised by trip and fractions in the Preakness ... of course Zenyatta probably gets to her and goes by her late that day.

Still, we are taking about a 3yo filly in middle may vs. a 5yo that is easily the best older horse in the land on synthetic ... and easily the best older mare in the land on dirt too .. though more because the others kind of suck than anything else.

I'm not convinced Zenyatta would have beat Rachel in the Preakness. Since we're throwing out hypotheticals, do you (fat man) think Zenyatta would have won the Preakness if Rachel had an easier pace?

Also has Zenyatta ever gone farther than 1 1/8th? Dont her owners/trainer not even want to run her farther than 1 1/8th?

And horseofcourse, I do really believe that Rachel did not handle the Pimlico track the same way she handled Churchill and Belmont. Not only did her jockey say so right after the race in which she won a classic (must have really been on his mind, I mean, how often do you hear a jockey making excuses eventhough he just WON a classic with a filly!), but just watching how easy she was moving at Belmont compared to Pimlico makes me believe the jockey. I dont really care that the race was given a 108... what does that mean anyway? I'm going off of what my eyes saw... not that that means anything either.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

And horseofcourse, I do really believe that Rachel did not handle the Pimlico track the same way she handled Churchill and Belmont. Not only did her jockey say so right after the race in which she won a classic (must have really been on his mind, I mean, how often do you hear a jockey making excuses eventhough he just WON a classic with a filly!), but just watching how easy she was moving at Belmont compared to Pimlico makes me believe the jockey. I dont really care that the race was given a 108... what does that mean anyway? I'm going off of what my eyes saw... not that that means anything either.

I am not talented enough to tell watching a winning race that a horse isn't handling a track like tector can. She's an outstanding horse. I have no clue if she's better than Zenyatta.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

I am not talented enough to tell watching a winning race that a horse isn't handling a track like tector can. She's an outstanding horse. I have no clue if she's better than Zenyatta.

Its my opinion that Rachel is better... just think if she continues to improve and races as a 5 year old, like what Z is now..

But I guess its impossible to prove until they race each other in a real race (not a match race - Rachel would have the obvious advantage). Shoot, when you really think about it they arent even running in the same division (not talking about age or sex).. one runs on turf alternative and one runs on dirt... makes it even harder to compare.

I'll tell ya what, even if Z doesnt race against Rachel... but if Z runs against boys in a grade 1 (hopefully on dirt) and wins, then I'll re-work my opinion (though I still may come up with the same answer).