Jerry Brown's letter to TDN on HOY discussion

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

That's really comparing apples and oranges. Raven's Pass won a single race in North America in 2008. Say what you will about the competition faced by Zenyatta in her pre-Breeders' Cup campaign in 2009, but she did win three North America Grade Is and a Grade II.

I know why RP didnt win I was just trying to make a comparison. The people in Zenyatta's camp want to throw out her prior four races and all of RA's 8 races and give her HOY based on winning the Classic. It just isnt right to give a horse HOY honors for winning one race. I was just saying if they didnt do it for RP they are not going to do it for Zen.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by kgar311

I know why RP didnt win I was just trying to make a comparison. The people in Zenyatta's camp want to throw out her prior four races and all of RA's 8 races and give her HOY based on winning the Classic. It just isnt right to give a horse HOY honors for winning one race. I was just saying if they didnt do it for RP they are not going to do it for Zen.

Actually, it's just the opposite. I don't think anyone in Zenyatta's camp is advocating that people throw out her three Grade I wins. They are using the fact that she won three other Grade Is to assert that she wasn't the "one-hit wonder" that many of those in the Rachel camp would try to make Zenyatta out to be.

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Actually, it's just the opposite. I don't think anyone in Zenyatta's camp is advocating that people throw out her three Grade I wins. They are using the fact that she won three other Grade Is to assert that she wasn't the "one-hit wonder" that many of those in the Rachel camp would try to make Zenyatta out to be.

Are you calling her competition in those 3 races grade 1 caliber??? Come on now those races were grade 1 in name only contested against horses that would be 40k claimers in NY.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Are you calling her competition in those 3 races grade 1 caliber??? Come on now those races were grade 1 in name only contested against horses that would be 40k claimers in NY.

This argument can be made both ways. Or haven't you seen how Macho Again and Bullsbay have raced after the Woodward. I'm not looking for a long winded reply because this will turn into a merry go round exchange that has been said many times over this week...month, I'm just saying that argument can be made both ways.

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by CSC

This argument can be made both ways. Or haven't you seen how Macho Again and Bullsbay have raced after the Woodward. I'm not looking for a long winded reply because this will turn into a merry go round exchange that has been said many times over this week...month, I'm just saying that argument can be made both ways.

you are right and its a damn shame that sh*t plastic made a champ like Curlin look like a 40 claimer. Its a travesty. Dirt is the bar not plastic

[Smooth Operator]

Originally Posted by kgar311

you are right and its a damn shame that sh*t plastic made a champ like Curlin look like a 40 claimer. Its a travesty. Dirt is the bar not plastic

You must be joking, kgar311 … the surface had nothing to do with Curlin getting exposed, imo.

He was the Winstrol "champ" … the Barry Bonds of horses, if you will.

Never had that same acceleration after the 'roid influence waned in spring of '08.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Are you calling her competition in those 3 races grade 1 caliber??? Come on now those races were grade 1 in name only contested against horses that would be 40k claimers in NY.

No, but it often happens that a "big horse" scares the opposition away. It's why I've never thought that the idea of post-race grading had any merit. If Zenyatta had been NY-based and she defeated less than stellar fields in races like the Phipps, Go For Wand and Beldame, I don't think she would have been knocked as much.

If you're going to knock the quality of the fillies that Zenyatta beat, it's not like the Kentucky Oaks was a "Grade I" field this year either, and the trip that Rachel got in the Mother Goose while the other two fillies needlessly dueled each other into defeat (with a 44 and change half) could not have been any better. Rachel beat historically weak fields in the Preakness and Woodward. Her Haskell was very impressive.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

If you're going to knock the quality of the fillies that Zenyatta beat, it's not like the Kentucky Oaks was a "Grade I" field this year either, and the trip that Rachel got in the Mother Goose while the other two fillies needlessly dueled each other into defeat (with a 44 and change half) could not have been any better. Rachel beat historically weak fields in the Preakness and Woodward. Her Haskell was very impressive.

You know why she ran in the Ky Oaks and it wasn't her fault that the chief competition was scratched on the morning of the race. It's not like Justwhistledixie was even going to put a scare into her that day. The filly she happened to bury on the lead did come back and win a Grade I the following month too.

It was definitely Rachel's trip that got the job done in the Mother Goose too. She wouldn't have ever caught those two if they went :47 and change.

A historically weak running of the Woodward? Have you looked at who ran behind Curlin and Lawyer Ron in 2008 and 2007 or looked at the 2006 field recently?

NT

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

You know why she ran in the Ky Oaks and it wasn't her fault that the chief competition was scratched on the morning of the race. It's not like Justwhistledixie was even going to put a scare into her that day. The filly she happened to bury on the lead did come back and win a Grade I the following month too.

It was definitely Rachel's trip that got the job done in the Mother Goose too. She wouldn't have ever caught those two if they went :47 and change.

A historically weak running of the Woodward? Have you looked at who ran behind Curlin and Lawyer Ron in 2008 and 2007 or looked at the 2006 field recently?

The issue was the level of her competition. If you want to argue that Rachel beat a "Grade I" field in the Oaks, be my guest. I think you know better than that. (To use the Acorn winner to somehow justify the quality of the Oaks field is not a strong argument, IMO. The Acorn was not a good field this year, and the winner took advantage of a rail bias to beat a very suspect bunch of fillies.)

I didn't say Rachel won because of the trip in the Mother Goose. But those two other fillies collapsing before the top of the stretch due to their duel likely exaggerated the final margin of victory.

Yes, this was a historically weak edition of the Woodward, largely due to a weak older male division. Unfortunately, that's been the case in recent times. But history did not start in 2006.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

The issue was the level of her competition. If you want to argue that Rachel beat a "Grade I" field in the Oaks, be my guest. I think you know better than that. (To use the Acorn winner to somehow justify the quality of the Oaks field is not a strong argument, IMO. The Acorn was not a good field this year, and the winner took advantage of a rail bias to beat a very suspect bunch of fillies.)

I didn't say Rachel won because of the trip in the Mother Goose. But those two other fillies collapsing before the top of the stretch due to their duel likely exaggerated the final margin of victory.

Yes, this was a historically weak edition of the Woodward, largely due to a weak older male division. Unfortunately, that's been the case in recent times. But history did not start in 2006.

So Rachel gets questioned for being the first filly ever to win the Woodward because of the field quality but Zenyatta is heroic because she was the first filly to win the BC Classic, quality of field be damned?

I don't really like the who did they beat argument because it takes away from the historical significance of both and the thing is they both did tremendous things historically. I think it's safe to say that history is going to treat both of them very, very well.

What seals it in my opinion is the quality of the campaign, the year, etc. That's where the scale starts to get tilted in one direction in my opinion.

NT

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

The issue was the level of her competition. If you want to argue that Rachel beat a "Grade I" field in the Oaks, be my guest. I think you know better than that. (To use the Acorn winner to somehow justify the quality of the Oaks field is not a strong argument, IMO. The Acorn was not a good field this year, and the winner took advantage of a rail bias to beat a very suspect bunch of fillies.)

I didn't say Rachel won because of the trip in the Mother Goose. But those two other fillies collapsing before the top of the stretch due to their duel likely exaggerated the final margin of victory.

Yes, this was a historically weak edition of the Woodward, largely due to a weak older male division. Unfortunately, that's been the case in recent times. But history did not start in 2006.

If you are a great horse, you are supposed to beat a weak field by open lengths. the KY Oaks and the Mother Goose were both weak fields? I forget, Rachel only won them by a nose right?

Geez Loise she shattered records in the Mother Goose.. It was her against the timer, and she kicked the timers butt!

[Travis Stone]

The debate continues, yet everyone refuses to bring dynamics into play when talking about the Woodward. It's making my head hurt. I don't care if she beat Macho Again by a whisker's whisker... the dynamics of the race were piled against her as high as you can pile them, and she still won.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

The debate continues, yet everyone refuses to bring dynamics into play when talking about the Woodward. It's making my head hurt. I don't care if she beat Macho Again by a whisker's whisker... the dynamics of the race were piled against her as high as you can pile them, and she still won.

Yes, but by only a desparate head. One can say the same thing about Zenyatta's Classic, the race was hardly made for a deep closer to win especially with the loss of a pace prescence moments before the start of the race and she did it with more authority and against a much deeper field quality wise than RA did. If HOY was solely based on who is the superior horse, Zenyatta should win, Rachel is a fine filly in her own right but competition does matter and given both had to overcome some sort adversity in both races. How can anyone say Zenyatta wasn't more impressive.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

The debate continues, yet everyone refuses to bring dynamics into play when talking about the Woodward. It's making my head hurt. I don't care if she beat Macho Again by a whisker's whisker... the dynamics of the race were piled against her as high as you can pile them, and she still won.

I've posted on this before. Speaking in the historical perspective of two turn Grade I races at Saratoga (Whitney and Woodward), the internal fractions of the Woodward were not that fast. They were average, at best, for a Grade I race at 9F.