I need to listen to ATR more often

[Left Bank]

Let's see what Smooth Operator has to say about this comparison:
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/hor...nda&id=5295105

[DaTruth]

You can keep the win streaks. I would rather remember a horse for races like these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FS0aimp4Y0

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

You can keep the win streaks. I would rather remember a horse for races like these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FS0aimp4Y0

In the Champion Stakes, Pebbles dusted Helen Street, the dam of Street Cry.

Means she was better than Zenyatta.

[Smooth Operator]

Originally Posted by Left Bank

Let's see what Smooth Operator has to say about this comparison:
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/hor...nda&id=5295105

Time for Goldilocks to step up and compete against the best horses in the biggest, richest, and most prestigious race in North America … the BCC.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

Time for Goldilocks to step up and compete against the best horses in the biggest, richest, and most prestigious race in North America … the BCC.

If what we have here are the best horses than Euro racing should just be abolished.

[letswastemoney]

Originally Posted by HomerS

I love a good debate but really dont understand why there is so much emotion about Zenyetta anymore. I thought HOY could have gone either way last year- would have given slight edge to RA. What has happened this year has no bearing on last year. But all that being said Zenyetta has proven herself time and again to be one of the all time greats. Just like I thought Rachel has to be considered one of the all time great fillies- jury out on how good she will be this year.To me I thought we were well past that.

I see people holding her to a different standard then other filles and mares from the past (who were running in pre-synthetic days). She hasnt lost. If she does lose I am sure you are going to have people come out and say see she isnt that good. As if all time greats dont lose. Again love a good debate. But not sure why people are still dug in against Zenyetta. Baffling. Just like baffling to hear people say Rachel shouldnt have won HOY based on this year.

There's no synthetic history to go on. Who do you compare her to?

[ManilaRose]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

There's no synthetic history to go on. Who do you compare her to?

Obviously you put her up there with synthetic greats like Tiago and Lava Man.

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

There's no synthetic history to go on. Who do you compare her to?

There is no way I will compare her to the most famous american turf runner but your question sparked my curiosity and I found an interesting article about the origins of turf racing in the US.
http://www.governmentlaw.org/files/DryMonopole.pdf

[slotdirt]

The most famous American turf runner? You're talking about English Channel, right?

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

The most famous American turf runner? You're talking about English Channel, right?

Yes. English Channel.

The early 1950's was the beginning of widespread turf racing in the US and the first award for turf horse of the year.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

There's no synthetic history to go on. Who do you compare her to?

While it is fair to question her dirt form because really she hasn't raced on it enough to gauge whether she will be just as good or better on it, you can't take away what she has done on the "synthetics". People like to make the point she beat just turf horses in the classic, since turf horses handle synth just as good if not better, she then beat some pretty good turf, dirt, and synth runners in the BCC last year. Infact she made minced meat out of them. You can take issue she hasn't been tested on dirt, you can take issue with her campaign, but you cannot take issue with the field she beat last fall at SA, to do so you are ignoring all the Euro's that have fared well on synth the last 2 yrs at SA.

[Gaining Ground]

Originally Posted by CSC

While it is fair to question her dirt form because really she hasn't raced on it enough to gauge whether she will be just as good or better on it, you can't take away what she has done on the "synthetics". People like to make the point she beat just turf horses in the classic, since turf horses handle synth just as good if not better, she then beat some pretty good turf, dirt, and synth runners in the BCC last year. Infact she made minced meat out of them. You can take issue she hasn't been tested on dirt, you can take issue with her campaign, but you cannot take issue with the field she beat last fall at SA, to do so you are ignoring all the Euro's that have fared well on synth the last 2 yrs at SA.

i dont know if you missed it or not but i asked a question in another thread and am curious about your thoughts. zenyatta is clearly the best synthetic runner we have seen. she might be the best synthetic runner we will ever see. until we are able to see more what is wrong with calling her the best synthetic runner of all time, but not one of the best of all time?

if american racing has historically been dirt and turf, why are some so quick to annoint greatness to a horse who has made 2 starts on one of the surfaces we determine greatness on? i know people want to say synthetics are here and i agree, they are.

tennis seems like a good analogy here. rafael nadal is the best clay court player, maybe ever. but, hes also beat the best on grass and hard court. so far zenyatta has beaten the equine quivalent of james blake on dirt and people want to compare her to rod laver.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Gaining Ground

i dont know if you missed it or not but i asked a question in another thread and am curious about your thoughts. zenyatta is clearly the best synthetic runner we have seen. she might be the best synthetic runner we will ever see. until we are able to see more what is wrong with calling her the best synthetic runner of all time, but not one of the best of all time?

if american racing has historically been dirt and turf, why are some so quick to annoint greatness to a horse who has made 2 starts on one of the surfaces we determine greatness on? i know people want to say synthetics are here and i agree, they are.

tennis seems like a good analogy here. rafael nadal is the best clay court player, maybe ever. but, hes also beat the best on grass and hard court. so far zenyatta has beaten the equine quivalent of james blake on dirt and people want to compare her to rod laver.

I wouldn't object to people calling her the greatest horse of the synthetics era, this discussion has many layers, supposing she ran only on dirt and won those 17 races in a row, many would still question what she has beaten? I believe if she were able to capture the BCC this fall, one would have to be forced to look at her as one of the greatest in the game. I'm not sure what the naysayer would say then, but seeing how many do not want to put her in that select group, I'm sure something trivial will be produced, even if she answers the only question left in her career, beating males on dirt in the toughest dirt race in the world.

[slotdirt]

So, honest question, just for the sake of argument, but if Nashoba's Key hadn't passed on like she did, would Zenyatta still be 17-17?