ruffian and rachel

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Apparently you didn't read the title or the thread. We are looking at fillies and within that Ruffian and Rachel....Nothing else....Another reason why you got my vote for worst poster.

I read it, but almost every thread is about how great she is. So why does it matter where I post my opinion? Should I create a new thread for it?

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

I read it, but almost every thread is about how great she is. So why does it matter where I post my opinion? Should I create a new thread for it?

why even bother? shes real good, of course shes a great racehorse. but these boobs will go on and on about it. its as crazy as the guys that followed micheal jackson. there was even a thread about how "poor rachel" should not get whipped in hard races. its borderline absurdity. what do you people want to hear shes better than secretariat, forego and ruffian even though shes never won at 10 furlongs. hell, shes better than pegasus and he could fly. are you happy now. you call him the worst poster. i'll call this a stupid thread. every great horse has a place in history but some are not happy unless they argue about who was better. everyone jump in the waters great! get on the bandwagon folks. the whole point of this garbage is mute. if you spent as much energy handicapping maybe you could cash on something thats higher than 3-5!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

why even bother? shes real good, of course shes a great racehorse. but these boobs will go on and on about it. its as crazy as the guys that followed micheal jackson. there was even a thread about how "poor rachel" should not get whipped in hard races. its borderline absurdity. what do you people want to hear shes better than secretariat, forego and ruffian even though shes never won at 10 furlongs. hell, shes better than pegasus and he could fly. are you happy now. you call him the worst poster. i'll call this a stupid thread. every great horse has a place in history but some are not happy unless they argue about who was better. everyone jump in the waters great! get on the bandwagon folks. the whole point of this garbage is mute. if you spent as much energy handicapping maybe you could cash on something thats higher than 3-5!

feel better now?

you're forgetting that people do this with all types of sports-who was better, joe montana or tom brady? were the patriots better than the '72 dolphins? sampras or federer, navratilova or graf?

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Danzig

feel better now?

you're forgetting that people do this with all types of sports-who was better, joe montana or tom brady? were the patriots better than the '72 dolphins? sampras or federer, navratilova or graf?

the whole thing is stupid, what are you going to do resurect ruffian and race her? the same with the football teams or any other sport. different era , different tactics, different oppenents. blah, blah' blah.....it proves nothing. rachels the best theres ever been . are you all happy now !

[King Glorious]

Give me Go for Wand as the best 3yo filly I've seen followed by Miesque and then Zarkava. Winning Colors is next and then Rachel.

[dean smith]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Give me Go for Wand as the best 3yo filly I've seen followed by Miesque and then Zarkava. Winning Colors is next and then Rachel.

Really? I'm calling b.s. on this one. I think maybe you're just trying to be antagonistic. You're just trying to "go against the grain" and blow our minds with your four top filly picks. Nobody really thinks all four of those fillies were better than RA. Love the hype and the connections or loathe them, her body of work speaks much louder than the others. She hasn't ducked anybody and she doesn't lose. She has dominated her own kind, has soundly beaten the boys her own age, and then graduated from opening up cans of Whupass on colts to opening cans of Whupass on horses. All the way she's done it in dramatic fashion -- whether it be leaving the field 20 lengths behind or gutting it out down the stretch. C'mon. You're a more intelligent guy than that. Please retract your statement.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by dean smith

Really? I'm calling b.s. on this one. I think maybe you're just trying to be antagonistic. You're just trying to "go against the grain" and blow our minds with your four top filly picks. Nobody really thinks all four of those fillies were better than RA. Love the hype and the connections or loathe them, her body of work speaks much louder than the others. She hasn't ducked anybody and she doesn't lose. She has dominated her own kind, has soundly beaten the boys her own age, and then graduated from opening up cans of Whupass on colts to opening cans of Whupass on horses. All the way she's done it in dramatic fashion -- whether it be leaving the field 20 lengths behind or gutting it out down the stretch. C'mon. You're a more intelligent guy than that. Please retract your statement.

I don't know man. You can make a pretty solid case for Go For Wand and Miesque. A fairly compelling case for Winning Colors.

You are probably right about KG with Zarkeva.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by dean smith

Really? I'm calling b.s. on this one. I think maybe you're just trying to be antagonistic. You're just trying to "go against the grain" and blow our minds with your four top filly picks. Nobody really thinks all four of those fillies were better than RA. Love the hype and the connections or loathe them, her body of work speaks much louder than the others. She hasn't ducked anybody and she doesn't lose. She has dominated her own kind, has soundly beaten the boys her own age, and then graduated from opening up cans of Whupass on colts to opening cans of Whupass on horses. All the way she's done it in dramatic fashion -- whether it be leaving the field 20 lengths behind or gutting it out down the stretch. C'mon. You're a more intelligent guy than that. Please retract your statement.

It's funny to me that this group of 3yo males and older horses can be thoroughly maligned as among the worst in memory but then when she beats them, it's said that she's done something great. Nobody is calling Summer Bird an all-time great for beating the same horses. Is it beating Summer Bird that makes her an all-time great? If she wasn't in that Woodward, nobody would have cared about the race or those horses but now because she beat them, it's special? I don't see it. Just because it's not an American tradition to run a 3yo filly against older males doesn't mean that itsomething extra special. If I've watched Zarkava, Goldikova, Miesque, Ridgewood Pearl and others do it, and beat better horses while doing it, why would I be overwhelmed by Rachel doing it? Zarkava dominated the top grass runners in the world in the top grass race in the world. She dominated Goldikova and you know how good that one is. I'd rate beating Goldikova higher than beating Macho Again. But maybe that's just me.

[dean smith]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

why even bother? shes real good, of course shes a great racehorse. but these boobs will go on and on about it. its as crazy as the guys that followed micheal jackson. there was even a thread about how "poor rachel" should not get whipped in hard races. its borderline absurdity. what do you people want to hear shes better than secretariat, forego and ruffian even though shes never won at 10 furlongs. hell, shes better than pegasus and he could fly. are you happy now. you call him the worst poster. i'll call this a stupid thread. every great horse has a place in history but some are not happy unless they argue about who was better. everyone jump in the waters great! get on the bandwagon folks. the whole point of this garbage is mute. if you spent as much energy handicapping maybe you could cash on something thats higher than 3-5!

Johnny Pinhead. What's the Michael Jackson reference all about, anyway? Everybody who knows anything about music is in agreement: Prince eats Jacko up for breakfast!

Believe it.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

why even bother? shes real good, of course shes a great racehorse. but these boobs will go on and on about it. its as crazy as the guys that followed micheal jackson. there was even a thread about how "poor rachel" should not get whipped in hard races. its borderline absurdity. what do you people want to hear shes better than secretariat, forego and ruffian even though shes never won at 10 furlongs. hell, shes better than pegasus and he could fly. are you happy now. you call him the worst poster. i'll call this a stupid thread. every great horse has a place in history but some are not happy unless they argue about who was better. everyone jump in the waters great! get on the bandwagon folks. the whole point of this garbage is mute. if you spent as much energy handicapping maybe you could cash on something thats higher than 3-5!

moot