I need to listen to ATR more often

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm just playing the devil's advocate. Out of Personal Ensign's 13 lifetime races, 10 of them were at Belmont and she never travelled out to the west coast.

I didn't hear people complaining that practically all her races were at Belmont.

The truth of the matter is, it is silly to knock either one of them.

In Zenyatta's 5 year old season she won 5 grade 1's including the BC Classic against the boys. This year she went to Oaklawn and won a grade 1 there. She has now won 8 grade 1's in a row.

Did PE ever run in the same race twice? It isnt silly to knock the schedule that Zenyatta's people have taken.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Did PE ever run in the same race twice? It isnt silly to knock the schedule that Zenyatta's people have taken.

Yes, she did. She ran in the Beldame twice.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, she did. She ran in the Beldame twice.

Shug just has no imagination...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Shug just has no imagination...

He has a great imagination. He just kept running her over and over again at Belmont. 10 out of her 13 lifetime races were at Belmont.

[Rupert Pupkin]

The truth of the matter is, there really aren't any great filly or mare dirt horses out there right now aside from Zenyatta or Rachel. So if Zenyatta did go back east again and beat up on some mediocre fillies, that wouldn't prove any more than what she's been proving out here. People knock her for beating up on the same mediocre fillies over and over again out here, but she won even easier when she went to Oaklawn.

Is there any filly (aside from Rachel) back east on the dirt that would give Zenyatta a tougher time than St Trinians? I highly doubt it. I think Zenyatta would win even easier back east on the dirt against fillies and she's already proven it twice.

Some of you will probably argue that she should be running against the boys. Why should she? She did it once and she's going to do it again in the BC Classic later this year. That will be twice in her career. How many times did Azeri run aganist the boys? How many times did Personal Ensign run against the boys. If a great mare runs against the boys a couple of times in their career, that is quite reasonable.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Some of you will probably argue that she should be running against the boys. Why should she? She did it once and she's going to do it again in the BC Classic later this year. That will be twice in her career. How many times did Azeri run aganist the boys? How many times did Personal Ensign run against the boys. If a great mare runs against the boys a couple of times in their career, that is quite reasonable.

More invocation of ghosts from the past. Why does it matter what Azeri or Personal Ensign did? It's irrelevant to this conversation. What is relevant is that Zenyatta has already proven, ad nauseum, that she's better than the older girls in California and Arkansas. What she's doing right now is accomplishing nothing new for her legacy other than another stupid notch in the winning streak. Don't trot her out to do the same thing against the same lousy horses over and over again and then complain when people bristle at her being called the greatest racemare in 30 years.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

More invocation of ghosts from the past. Why does it matter what Azeri or Personal Ensign did? It's irrelevant to this conversation. What is relevant is that Zenyatta has already proven, ad nauseum, that she's better than the older girls in California and Arkansas. What she's doing right now is accomplishing nothing new for her legacy other than another stupid notch in the winning streak. Don't trot her out to do the same thing against the same lousy horses over and over again and then complain when people bristle at her being called the greatest racemare in 30 years.

Why does it matter what Azeri or Personal Ensign did? Because those are some of the great mares that we are comparing Zenyatta to. Why should there be a double-standard? Why should Zenyatta have to travel all over the country to be considered great when Personal Ensign didn't? Why should Zenyatta have to run 5 times against the boys to be considered great when Azeri was considred great even though she never beat the boys? There is such a double-standard.

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The truth of the matter is, there really aren't any great filly or mare dirt horses out there right now aside from Zenyatta or Rachel. So if Zenyatta did go back east again and beat up on some mediocre fillies, that wouldn't prove any more than what she's been proving out here. People knock her for beating up on the same mediocre fillies over and over again out here, but she won even easier when she went to Oaklawn.

Is there any filly (aside from Rachel) back east on the dirt that would give Zenyatta a tougher time than St Trinians? I highly doubt it. I think Zenyatta would win even easier back east on the dirt against fillies and she's already proven it twice.

Some of you will probably argue that she should be running against the boys. Why should she? She did it once and she's going to do it again in the BC Classic later this year. That will be twice in her career. How many times did Azeri run aganist the boys? How many times did Personal Ensign run against the boys. If a great mare runs against the boys a couple of times in their career, that is quite reasonable.

you are right. what will they say if she(zenyatta) wins the classic again at churchill? not good enough......thats where those idiots ruined rachel they ran her against the boys over and over. zenyatta showed up ready to race in april...the other horse had to lower to garbage just to get a win and could not even think about racing zenyatta when she was supposed to for 5 million. so whose ducking who here? i 90 % think rachel won't be in the classic this year. as it is right now she has not a prayer of placing in it. she most likely would of lost at belmont saturday if she were entered in the ogden phipps. but , as usual, instead of reality you get the bone heads turning it into an argument about one or the other. they are both good horses, one continues to win and impress....the other has questions about soundness and fitness. who cares about horses in the past and comparing....can i bet crap like that in a race???....i doubt it. why even argue with these clowns. if you can't tell which horse was mismanaged for yourself than you are an idiot and probably lose all the time anyway. theres so many moron comments on here that i read them and gain betting confidence by doing so. waste your time and energy arguing about things that don't mean a thing. if people can't see which horse is better by now they are living in delusion land....let them bet and lose their money like they do most of the time. besides you are arguing over horses that go off 2-5 in every race anyway.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

you are right. what will they say if she(zenyatta) wins the classic again at churchill? not good enough......thats where those idiots ruined rachel they ran her against the boys over and over. zenyatta showed up ready to race in april...the other horse had to lower to garbage just to get a win and could not even think about racing zenyatta when she was supposed to for 5 million. so whose ducking who here? i 90 % think rachel won't be in the classic this year. as it is right now she has not a prayer of placing in it. she most likely would of lost at belmont saturday if she were entered in the ogden phipps. but , as usual, instead of reality you get the bone heads turning it into an argument about one or the other. they are both good horses, one continues to win and impress....the other has questions about soundness and fitness. who cares about horses in the past and comparing....can i bet crap like that in a race???....i doubt it. why even argue with these clowns. if you can't tell which horse was mismanaged for yourself than you are an idiot and probably lose all the time anyway. theres so many moron comments on here that i read them and gain betting confidence by doing so. waste your time and energy arguing about things that don't mean a thing. if people can't see which horse is better by now they are living in delusion land....let them bet and lose their money like they do most of the time. besides you are arguing over horses that go off 2-5 in every race anyway.

how ridiculous. the only time i think rachel was mishandled is when they tried to rush her back off the shelf to suit jess jacksons ego. you can't put up a horse for months, let them get fat and lazy, and then get them revved right up because there's 5 mil on the line.

i still don't understand why the need is there to knock her in an attempt to elevate zenyatta. it's absolutely ridiculous. and i find it funny that you bash others for wasting their time with the argument of who's better, and then you give your opinion of who is obviously better. you're engaging in the very thing you're criticizing others for doing!!

[Cannon Shell]

The problem in a nutshell is that after 17 races we are still dealing with conjecture. If she were to run against so and so on a dry dirt track....If she were to ship east....if, if, if....

[2 Dollar Bill]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The problem in a nutshell is that after 17 races we are still dealing with conjecture. If she were to run against so and so on a dry dirt track....If she were to ship east....if, if, if....

Didnt Bill P. say.... "" You are what your record is "" ?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by 2 Dollar Bill

Didnt Bill P. say.... "" You are what your record is "" ?

I don't think any of Parcells' teams were playing against the NAIA 90% of the time.

[PeteMugg]

Isn't hyperbole the crux of the matter?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I don't think any of Parcells' teams were playing against the NAIA 90% of the time.

Or playing 15 home games a year

[dean smith]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Or playing 15 home games a year

Eh... aren't all the other horses she's beating also "at home"?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Did PE ever run in the same race twice? It isnt silly to knock the schedule that Zenyatta's people have taken.

By the way, I think the double standard is ridiculous. Zenyatta is going to go back east twice this year and yet people don't think that is enough.

Some of the New York horses never came out west. If one did come out west twice in a year, that would be considered a very ambitious campaign. Yet Zenyatta going back east twice this year is not enough.

I guess Zenyatta needs to fly back east 3 or 4 times this year. That would be a really smart way to get her to peak on BC day, just keep flying her back and forth from California to the east coast.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

By the way, I think the double standard is ridiculous. Zenyatta is going to go back east twice this year and yet people don't think that is enough.

Some of the New York horses never came out west. If one did come out west twice in a year, that would be considered a very ambitious campaign. Yet Zenyatta going back east twice this year is not enough.

I guess Zenyatta needs to fly back east 3 or 4 times this year. That would be a really smart way to get her to peak on BC day, just keep flying her back and forth from California to the east coast.

since when did arkansas and kentucky move to the east? last i looked, i was still in the central time zone....if i wish to go to louisville, i head north-north-east.
and i personally don't think heading to cali proves nearly as much as heading eastward(kentucky, louisiana, arkansas, illinois, as well as to the east coast, where you have new york, maryland and florida. west, encompasses california, and synthetic tracks only. that's one state versus seven right there.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

since when did arkansas and kentucky move to the east? last i looked, i was still in the central time zone....if i wish to go to louisville, i head north-north-east.
and i personally don't think heading to cali proves nearly as much as heading eastward(kentucky, louisiana, arkansas, illinois, as well as to the east coast, where you have new york, maryland and florida. west, encompasses california, and synthetic tracks only. that's one state versus seven right there.

So which circuit over the last 30 years has been the best? Winning on which circuit means the most?

I think over the years that winning in California has usually proven a lot. The California horses have generally faired extremely well when they have gone back east. The New York horses did not fair as well in California even when we had dirt out here.

To this day, the California horses usually get bet heavily when they go back east and they usually fair very well.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

So which circuit over the last 30 years has been the best? Winning on which circuit means the most?

I think over the years that winning in California has usually proven a lot. The California horses have generally faired extremely well when they have gone back east. The New York horses did not fair as well in California even when we had dirt out here.

To this day, the California horses usually get bet heavily when they go back east and they usually fair very well.

its too bad you californians had to go and screw it all up so now you run on tracks made of junk which nobody cares about.

California used to be right at the top of the racing "circuits". Now they are a joke.

[geeker2]

I blame GBBob and SCAV for that crap at Arlington