![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() 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. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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). |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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 |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Still trying to outsmart me, aren't you, mule-skinner? You want me to think that you don't want me to go down there, but the subtle truth is you really don't want me to go down there! |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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 |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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 |