HOTY: If Zenyatta wins the Classic...

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by CSC

Bailey doesn't sugarcoat anything, many don't like him because he speaks his mind but I don't know how anyone could think Macho Again and Bullsbay are better than Summer Bird or Quality Road now and then....In my opinion the connections picked the easier spot and laid out the premptive notion if she won she had done enough this year. If Bailey wants to call it 'ducking' I'm 100% behind that notion.

Oh yea, thats why Jess Jackson bought Rachel to duck horses, thats it I do recall that was the reasoning behind the purchase. I remember JJ saying all year that he wasnt going to run her on synthetics. Zenyatta's connections confirmed she would race in the Classic like 2 weeks before it was run. How is that ducking? His argument holds no water. I commend Jess for taking a stand against synthetics this year, good for him. That surface is 100% rubbish. It made his superstar Curlin look like an average horse why would he do that to her. If I were him as long as I was still breathing and they ran the BC on the rubber and carpet I would purchase the best horse in training on dirt that year and hold him or her out of the breeders cup until they learn their lesson about that **** surface.
As far as Bailey goes, him allowing himself to get caught up in the moment with no clear reasoning behind his statements, forgetting all the amazing accomplishments by RA, ALL YEAR LONG and saying they were ducking and anointing Zen HOY immediately after the race has me questioning his sanity.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Oh yea, thats why Jess Jackson bought Rachel to duck horses, thats it I do recall that was the reasoning behind the purchase. I remember JJ saying all year that he wasnt going to run her on synthetics. Zenyatta's connections confirmed she would race in the Classic like 2 weeks before it was run. How is that ducking? His argument holds no water. I commend Jess for taking a stand against synthetics this year, good for him. That surface is 100% rubbish. It made his superstar Curlin look like an average horse why would he do that to her. If I were him as long as I was still breathing and they ran the BC on the rubber and carpet I would purchase the best horse in training on dirt that year and hold him or her out of the breeders cup until they learn their lesson about that **** surface.
As far as Bailey goes, him allowing himself to get caught up in the moment with no clear reasoning behind his statements, forgetting all the amazing accomplishments by RA, ALL YEAR LONG and saying they were ducking and anointing Zen HOY immediately after the race has me questioning his sanity.

He only wants to race her if the conditions overwhelmingly favor her, when the result is not so much in doubt. On the surface yes he raced her in tougher spots, but upon closer examination he didn't campaign in the most challenging spots to make you question the result. It's up to each person to decide if they want to call this a duck or not. But he chose the safest route to pile on the resume.

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by CSC

He only wants to race her if the conditions overwhelmingly favor her, when the result is not so much in doubt. On the surface yes he raced her in tougher spots, but upon closer examination he didn't campaign in the most challenging spots to make you question the result. It's up to each person to decide if they want to call this a duck or not. But he chose the safest route to pile on the resume.

If going the safest route is racing her against the 3yr old boys for the most part after buying her and then stepping her up to older males and racing and beating the horses that ran 1-2 in the grade 1 Whitney a few weeks back on the same surface, then I really don't know what you would consider tougher spots. Oh yea and wasnt she the first filly to win the Woodward? I though so.
Believe me when I tell you that Zenyatta had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with RA not running in the classic PERIOD.......... The decision was set in stone before the purchase was even made. It absolute Tom Foolery to think otherwise

[NTamm1215]

It's funny how everyone's bashing Jess Jackson now for ducking tough spots but that's exactly what the Zenyatta camp did prior to this race. Take that for what it's worth.

It really boils down to whether you think the BC supersedes everything else that happens during the year. I don't.

NT

[Rupert Pupkin]

I think it’s a close call with regard to who should win horse of the year. There is no doubt that Rachel had an incredible year. Zenyatta, on the other hand is the first filly or mare in history to win the BC Classic. I think that is a very big deal. In addition, she was undefeated this year. With regard to who the better horse is, I think Zenyatta is probably the better horse at 1 ¼ miles. Rachel never ran 1 ¼ miles. The furthest she ever ran was 1 3/16 miles in the Preakness and she was getting very tired at the end of that race. If Zenyatta was in that field, I think she would have won fairly handily. In the Woodward, Rachel was getting very tired and barely held off Macho Again. If Zenyatta was in that field, I think she would have easily won that race. And if Rachel would have been in the BC Classic yesterday, I don’t think she would have beaten Zenyatta. So that’s 3 different races this year, where if they would have faced each other I think Zenyatta would have beaten her.

I think that at 1 ¼ miles, Zenyatta would beat Rachel almost every time unless it was a totally paceless field. If it was a field with no speed, where Rachel got an easy lead in :49, then maybe she would have a chance. And I think Rachel would have a good chance to beat Zenyatta in the slop. We know that Rachel loves the slop. Whether Zenyatta would like the slop is anyone's guess.

On the other hand, I don’t know if Zenyatta could have beaten Rachel in the Ky Oaks. Rachel freaked that day. She loves Churchill. I don't know if Zenyatta could beat her at Churchill in a relatively paceless race. It still is hard to tell just how good Zenyatta is because she always wins so effortlessly. Even yesterday, she wasn’t all out. She broke totally flat-footed and took well over an 1/8th of a mile to switch leads and ended up 15 lengths behind on a :24 1/5 opening quarter. Everything went against her, yet she still won relatively easily. She just does what she needs to do. Once she hits the lead, she pulls herself up. She doesn’t win by 20 lengths like Rachel, so she doesn’t look as spectacular as Rachel. But as spectacular as Rachel looked against easy fields, when she ran in races where the fields were a little tougher and the pace was faster, she barely won. But in fairness to Rachel, she’s still only 3 years old. She’s not even fully mature yet. So I think it’s tough to compare the two horses.

If RA and Zenyatta faced each other tomorrow, I highly doubt Rachel would beat Zenyatta at 1 1/8 or 1 1/4 miles if there was a fairly fast pace and Rachel was close to that pace. When Rachel has been close to fairly fast paces (on fast tracks not sloppy tracks), she has barely held off mediocre horses. Does that prove that Zenyatta is better? Probably, but not necessarily. Maybe Rachel could show a new dimension if she needed to.

[letswastemoney]

The RA camp was ducking synthetics, they weren't hiding from the Classic field.

It would be the equivalent to Cigar ducking a turf race because he's not a turf horse.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

The RA camp was ducking synthetics, they weren't hiding from the Classic field.

It would be the equivalent to Cigar ducking a turf race because he's not a turf horse.

Very well put.

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think it’s a close call with regard to who should win horse of the year. There is no doubt that Rachel had an incredible year. Zenyatta, on the other hand is the first filly or mare in history to win the BC Classic. I think that is a very big deal. In addition, she was undefeated this year. With regard to who the better horse is, I think Zenyatta is probably the better horse at 1 ¼ miles. Rachel never ran 1 ¼ miles. The furthest she ever ran was 1 3/16 miles in the Preakness and she was getting very tired at the end of that race. If Zenyatta was in that field, I think she would have won fairly handily. In the Woodward, Rachel was getting very tired and barely held off Macho Again. If Zenyatta was in that field, I think she would have easily won that race. And if Rachel would have been in the BC Classic yesterday, I don’t think she would have beaten Zenyatta. So that’s 3 different races this year, where if they would have faced each other I think Zenyatta would have beaten her.

I think that at 1 ¼ miles, Zenyatta would beat Rachel almost every time unless it was a totally paceless field. If it was a field with no speed, where Rachel got an easy lead in :49, then maybe she would have a chance. And I think Rachel would have a good chance to beat Zenyatta in the slop. We know that Rachel loves the slop. Whether Zenyatta would like the slop is anyone's guess.

On the other hand, I don’t know if Zenyatta could have beaten Rachel in the Ky Oaks. Rachel freaked that day. She loves Churchill. I don't know if Zenyatta could beat her at Churchill in a relatively paceless race. It still is hard to tell just how good Zenyatta is because she always wins so effortlessly. Even yesterday, she wasn’t all out. She broke totally flat-footed and took well over an 1/8th of a mile to switch leads and ended up 15 lengths behind on a :24 1/5 opening quarter. Everything went against her, yet she still won relatively easily. She just does what she needs to do. Once she hits the lead, she pulls herself up. She doesn’t win by 20 lengths like Rachel, so she doesn’t look as spectacular as Rachel. But as spectacular as Rachel looked against easy fields, when she ran in races where the fields were a little tougher and the pace was faster, she barely won. But in fairness to Rachel, she’s still only 3 years old. She’s not even fully mature yet. So I think it’s tough to compare the two horses.

If RA and Zenyatta faced each other tomorrow, I highly doubt Rachel would beat Zenyatta at 1 1/8 or 1 1/4 miles if there was a fairly fast pace and Rachel was close to that pace. When Rachel has been close to fairly fast paces (on fast tracks not sloppy tracks), she has barely held off mediocre horses. Does that prove that Zenyatta is better? Probably, but not necessarily. Maybe Rachel could show a new dimension if she needed to.

100% incorrect. It wasnt even a logical discussion that Zen could beat Rachel at any point during the year. It was unanimous thought that there was no way Zen could catch Rachel in any race. Now months down the line Zen beats a bunch of turf horses and dirt specialists on her own turf and she automatically is better then Rachel now . Remember, when Rachel was running 116 beyers Zen was running 94's and barely beating average filly and mares at best and in one case only winning by a nose.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by kgar311

100% incorrect. It wasnt even a logical discussion that Zen could beat Rachel at any point during the year. It was unanimous thought that there was no way Zen could catch Rachel in any race. Now months down the line Zen beats a bunch of turf horses and dirt specialists on her own turf and she automatically is better then Rachel now . Remember, when Rachel was running 116 beyers Zen was running 94's and barely beating average filly and mares at best and in one case only winning by a nose.

So you don't think Zenyatta would have won the Preakness or the Woodward?

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by kgar311

100% incorrect. It wasnt even a logical discussion that Zen could beat Rachel at any point during the year. It was unanimous thought that there was no way Zen could catch Rachel in any race. Now months down the line Zen beats a bunch of turf horses and dirt specialists on her own turf and she automatically is better then Rachel now . Remember, when Rachel was running 116 beyers Zen was running 94's and barely beating average filly and mares at best and in one case only winning by a nose.

The whole "who is better" debate at this point is kind of pointless. They are both exceptional future Hall of Famers; it's like arguing over who's better, Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle.

However, one consistent theme of many on this board throughout the year has been that somehow Zenyatta is inferior to Rachel because she's much "slower" on the Beyer scale. If many let go of their slavish reliance on the Beyers (which are pretty unreliable on synthetic surfaces), they might discover that Zenyatta is not as "slow" as they thought. On the Ragozin Sheets, Zenyatta was the "fastest" route horse in yesterday's Classic. She earned a "0" for her Vanity win and a 1.5 for her much-maligned victory in the Hirsch. The only other Classic horses to run faster than a "2" on the Sheets in a non-turf route race were Summer Bird (.75 in JCGC), Einstein (1.25 in Foster), and Quality Road (1.75 in JCGC - he earned a pair of "2"s for his trumpeted wins in the Fountain of Youth and Florida Derby).

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think it’s a close call with regard to who should win horse of the year. There is no doubt that Rachel had an incredible year. Zenyatta, on the other hand is the first filly or mare in history to win the BC Classic. I think that is a very big deal. In addition, she was undefeated this year. With regard to who the better horse is, I think Zenyatta is probably the better horse at 1 ¼ miles. Rachel never ran 1 ¼ miles. The furthest she ever ran was 1 3/16 miles in the Preakness and she was getting very tired at the end of that race. If Zenyatta was in that field, I think she would have won fairly handily. In the Woodward, Rachel was getting very tired and barely held off Macho Again. If Zenyatta was in that field, I think she would have easily won that race. And if Rachel would have been in the BC Classic yesterday, I don’t think she would have beaten Zenyatta. So that’s 3 different races this year, where if they would have faced each other I think Zenyatta would have beaten her.

I think that at 1 ¼ miles, Zenyatta would beat Rachel almost every time unless it was a totally paceless field. If it was a field with no speed, where Rachel got an easy lead in :49, then maybe she would have a chance. And I think Rachel would have a good chance to beat Zenyatta in the slop. We know that Rachel loves the slop. Whether Zenyatta would like the slop is anyone's guess.

On the other hand, I don’t know if Zenyatta could have beaten Rachel in the Ky Oaks. Rachel freaked that day. She loves Churchill. I don't know if Zenyatta could beat her at Churchill in a relatively paceless race. It still is hard to tell just how good Zenyatta is because she always wins so effortlessly. Even yesterday, she wasn’t all out. She broke totally flat-footed and took well over an 1/8th of a mile to switch leads and ended up 15 lengths behind on a :24 1/5 opening quarter. Everything went against her, yet she still won relatively easily. She just does what she needs to do. Once she hits the lead, she pulls herself up. She doesn’t win by 20 lengths like Rachel, so she doesn’t look as spectacular as Rachel. But as spectacular as Rachel looked against easy fields, when she ran in races where the fields were a little tougher and the pace was faster, she barely won. But in fairness to Rachel, she’s still only 3 years old. She’s not even fully mature yet. So I think it’s tough to compare the two horses.

If RA and Zenyatta faced each other tomorrow, I highly doubt Rachel would beat Zenyatta at 1 1/8 or 1 1/4 miles if there was a fairly fast pace and Rachel was close to that pace. When Rachel has been close to fairly fast paces (on fast tracks not sloppy tracks), she has barely held off mediocre horses. Does that prove that Zenyatta is better? Probably, but not necessarily. Maybe Rachel could show a new dimension if she needed to.

For the most part I agree with the theme of your post, well thought out and written, the only thing I disagree on is the 49 fraction part.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by CSC

For the most part I agree with the theme of your post, well thought out and written, the only thing I disagree on is the 49 fraction part.

I guess if it was at Churchill, Rachel could go quite a bit faster than that and still have a great chance. In the Ky Oaks, I think she went :47 3/5. I don't know if anyone could have beaten her that day.

But the thing about Zenyatta as I said in my previous post is that we still don't know how good she really is. They've never really gotten to the bottom of her. She's never really been all out. If someone didn't recognize this, I could see how they wouldn't have thought she was that good before yesterday's race. Even after yesterday's race, I could see someone making an argument that she still didn't prove she's a true superstar. I mean it was a relatively weak field for the BC Classic. There were no Roses in Mays, Ghostzappers, Pleasantly Perfects, Curlins, Invasors, Bernardidnis, etc. I admit that it wasn't a great field. But that doesn't matter. It was the way she did it. Everything went against her. She came out of the gate totally flat-footed and didn't switch leads for well over an 1/8th of a mile. So she ends up 15 lengths back on a :24 1/5 opening quarter. Yet she still ended up winning relatively easily and she wasn't even all out.

With Rachel Alexander, I thought the sky was the limit after the Ky Oaks. She was winning by 20 lengths and she wasn't even all out. But eventually we did end up seeing her all out in both the Preakness and the Woodward. She barely won those races. She may be the biggest freak in the world at Churchill. But at other tracks, if she is close to a pretty fast pace, she is not invincible. She would have lost both the Preakness and the Woodward if there would have been a really good horse in either one of those races.

[deltagulf]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

It's funny how everyone's bashing Jess Jackson now for ducking tough spots but that's exactly what the Zenyatta camp did prior to this race. Take that for what it's worth.

It really boils down to whether you think the BC supersedes everything else that happens during the year. I don't.

NT

the bc is for championships. just like football was used earlier. new england went 17 and 0. lost super bowl. so new england didnt get the reward. even with something that probably wont be repeated again.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by deltagulf

the bc is for championships. just like football was used earlier. new england went 17 and 0. lost super bowl. so new england didnt get the reward. even with something that probably wont be repeated again.

No they're not, that's what Greg Avioli would like you to believe.

Horse racing, unlike the NFL is simply a long season that has a culminating day where you can CHOOSE to run in them. That's why BC Classic winners in the past have earned no end of season honors.

NT

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

No they're not, that's what Greg Avioli would like you to believe.

Horse racing, unlike the NFL is simply a long season that has a culminating day where you can CHOOSE to run in them. That's why BC Classic winners in the past have earned no end of season honors.

NT

So they believe Vale of York is 2yr old colt champion?

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by CSC

He only wants to race her if the conditions overwhelmingly favor her, when the result is not so much in doubt. On the surface yes he raced her in tougher spots, but upon closer examination he didn't campaign in the most challenging spots to make you question the result. It's up to each person to decide if they want to call this a duck or not. But he chose the safest route to pile on the resume.

He ran her three times against males. How is that not taking the most challenging spots? It wasn't like they shipped her to New York after the purchase and stuck to the Goose-CCOA-Alabama-Beldame route.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

He ran her three times against males. How is that not taking the most challenging spots? It wasn't like they shipped her to New York after the purchase and stuck to the Goose-CCOA-Alabama-Beldame route.

I'm sorry but Semantics aside, because I know the RA backers like to keep banging this point of taking on males, she did take the less challenging set of races. A true tougher test would have been to have gone in the Derby rather than Oaks, I'm okay with the Preakness however the Belmont would have been more of a challenge to her, The Travers rather than the Woodward, and deciding to pack it in before the BC and at most the JCGC was extremely premature and certainly not one that screams out challenge and taking risks from a horse that is proclaimed by many as one of the greatest fillies of all time.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by CSC

I'm sorry but Semantics aside, because I know the RA backers like to keep banging this point of taking on males, she did take the less challenging set of races. A true tougher test would have been to have gone in the Derby rather than Oaks, I'm okay with the Preakness however the Belmont would have been more of a challenge to her, The Travers rather than the Woodward, and deciding to pack it in before the BC and at most the JCGC was extremely premature and certainly not one that screams out challenge and taking risks in a horse that is proclaimed by many as one of the greatest fillies of all time.

So now you're going to bring up the past connections' decision to not run in the Derby? You're s.hitting all over races like the Preakness, Haskell (where she kicked the s.hit out of your boy), and Woodward. We're not talking about the Milady, Vanity, and Clement L. Hirsch for crying out loud. She ran in traditional, historic races and her connections took chances. You're sitting back critiquing every aspect because it wasn't the route you'd have chosen.

I would be more inclined to vote for Zenyatta as HOY if her connections had done at least one more thing that was ambitious. Sitting in cozy Cali all year long running in garbage races does not an HOY make. They chose to run her on the biggest stage but unfortunately by the time they did there had already been a bigger star.

NT

[CSC]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

So now you're going to bring up the past connections' decision to not run in the Derby? You're s.hitting all over races like the Preakness, Haskell (where she kicked the s.hit out of your boy), NT

This has nothing to do with the connections, The RA camp are the one's that are claiming she took on the most challenging set of races available to her this year, I am just pointing out that this wasn't the case and it is foolhardy to keep saying she did.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by CSC

This has nothing to do with the connections, The RA camp are the one's that are claiming she took on the most challenging set of races available to her this year, I am just pointing out that this wasn't the case and it is foolhardy to keep saying she did.

Who cares what they said, this thread is about who we think should be HOY. Jess Jackson also said that Curlin was one of the all-time greats. He can say whatever he wants because from the time in which he bought her she did have one of the most challenging sets of races a horse has ever had, that's undeniable. You're choosing to pick them apart as if what she did is mundane.

If you want to dissect each horse's campaign then I think Zenyatta should have run in the race on Oaks day regardless of track condition, the Californian instead of the Milady, the Hollywood Gold Cup instead of the Vanity, the San Diego Handicap instead of the Clement Hirsch, the Pacific Classic instead of the Lady's Secret.

You see they were really ducking the phenomenal west coast handicap horses like Rail Trip, Dakota Phone, and Colonel John.

That ridiculous argument that I just posited is roughly equivalent to what you're saying about Rachel Alexandra.

NT