BEYER: Defining Zenyatta's historical role

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

amen. no, hes not biased either after his numbers said zenyatta was slow last year....oh wait a minute, then she won the BC classic. must be the surface...oh, the horse won two graded stakes on the dirt too.....that doesn't count. it almost makes me want her to win at churchill. just to read what kind of garbage makes her not "historical" after that....what a joke of an article....did it even have a point? i noticed the trend that these articles usually come up after his numbers get tanked or he has to justify them. if she was not one of the best horses of the last decade.....who is andy? i thought you followed this game...lol....lol,

Do you ever have a point with your drivel?

[goingtothewhip]

Probably she isn't;dirt and synthetics are so different that few horses are top-class on both. (The 0-for-43 record of horses making the transition from dirt to synthetics in the Santa Anita Breeders Cups laid to rest the cliché that "a good horse can run on anything."

Just off the top of my head: Looking at Lucky, I Want Revenge, Colonel John?
A few "slow" synthetic based horses that seemed to do alright making the transition to dirt.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by goingtothewhip

Just off the top of my head: Looking at Lucky, I Want Revenge, Colonel John?
A few "slow" synthetic based horses that seemed to do alright making the transition to dirt.

What does your response have to do with the passage you quoted?

[goingtothewhip]

dirt and synthetics are so different that few horses are top-class on both. (The 0-for-43 record of horses making the transition from dirt to synthetics in the Santa Anita Breeders Cups laid to rest the cliché that "a good horse can run on anything."

Those are 3 obvious examples of horses that are top class on both surfaces. If the surface is so divergent why were they able to transfer their form to dirt?

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by goingtothewhip

Those are 3 obvious examples of horses that are top class on both surfaces. If the surface is so divergent why were they able to transfer their form to dirt?

Colonel John wasn't top class on any surface and I'm not sure I Want Revenge was either. He was better on dirt, but top class? It's debateable.

Do you really think the surfaces aren't different in the way they play and how horses handle them?

[goingtothewhip]

Of course not, but to say that a horse isn't going to be as "potent" on dirt because of a breeder's cup stat that has dirt horses going 0-43 on synth is a very weak argument.

More to your point regarding surfaces, I think many are failing to realize that all of the synthetic surfaces (Hwood, Santa Anita, Del Mar) are extremely different in the way they play as they are different brand surfaces (cushion, pro ride hybrid, and polytrack respectively). To lump them all together under the synthetic moniker is misleading in many ways.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by goingtothewhip

More to your point regarding surfaces, I think many are failing to realize that all of the synthetic surfaces (Hwood, Santa Anita, Del Mar) are extremely different in the way they play as they are different brand surfaces (cushion, pro ride hybrid, and polytrack respectively). To lump them all together under the synthetic moniker is misleading in many ways.

Misleading? Who cares which brand of synthetic track any of them are? It's all moot since they're all going to be forgotten. The underlying point is that the entire synthetic track disaster is going to ultimately be regarded as a footnote in racing history, the way Tartan Track is for instance. That is at the core of Beyer's piece.

People that want to elevate results produced on synthetic tracks to the level of the previous century of racing history refuse to acknowledge certain facts. One is that a generation of horses bred to perform on racing's irrefutable main track surface were denied an opportunity to make their marks if they were forced to spend their career on synthetic surfaces (of any brand).

The second is that horses with previously established levels of achievement (or excellence) on racing's principal main track surface, were forced unrealistically and unfairly to try to succeed in two irrelevant Breeders' Cups held on the patchwork synthetic surface at Santa Anita in 2008-09.

And the central theme, and frustration, of those questioning Zenyatta's possible historical greatness, is that her connections denied her very real, plausible and myriad opportunities available to provide definition by irrefutable standards of how good she is/was... And as a frank aside, the fact that wild-eyed fans of hers cannot discern that nuance is what has now made her so unpalatable to those that legitimately question her achievements beyond the core performances that lend credence to how good a horse she has been.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Misleading? Who cares which brand of synthetic track any of them are? It's all moot since they're all going to be forgotten. The underlying point is that the entire synthetic track disaster is going to ultimately be regarded as a footnote in racing history, the way Tartan Track is for instance. That is at the core of Beyer's piece.

People that want to elevate results produced on synthetic tracks to the level of the previous century of racing history refuse to acknowledge certain facts. One is that a generation of horses bred to perform on racing's irrefutable main track surface were denied an opportunity to make their marks if they were forced to spend their career on synthetic surfaces (of any brand).

The second is that horses with previously established levels of achievement (or excellence) on racing's principal main track surface, were forced unrealistically and unfairly to try to succeed in two irrelevant Breeders' Cups held on the patchwork synthetic surface at Santa Anita in 2008-09.

And the central theme, and frustration, of those questioning Zenyatta's possible historical greatness, is that her connections denied her very real, plausible and myriad opportunities available to provide definition by irrefutable standards of how good she is/was... And as a frank aside, the fact that wild-eyed fans of hers cannot discern that nuance is what has now made her so unpalatable to those that legitimately question her achievements beyond the core performances that lend credence to how good a horse she has been.

[slotdirt]

This thread needed that.

[goingtothewhip]

Feel the rage. LoL.

People that are wagering on the tracks in question probably care what type of synthetic surfaces they are dealing with. Thus my comment on using the generic term synthetic being misleading.

Sorry the fans and lack of a rigorous campaign has left a nasty taste on your palate, but the fact is neither have any bearing on how good she is. To let those factors sully your opinion of a horse seems kind of silly.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by goingtothewhip

Sorry the fans and lack of a rigorous campaign has left a nasty taste on your palate, but the fact is neither have any bearing on how good she is. To let those factors sully your opinion of a horse seems kind of silly.

How can we really have a gauge of how good she is historically, which is hardly an exercise I want to undertake, when she's had such a carefully planned, cookie-cutter campaign? Greatness needs to be defined by taking on the best, the most significant tests and proving yourself in those scenarios. A final campaign with 5 exhibitions and the Breeders' Cup Classic was hardly what I was looking for from her this year.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

How can we really have a gauge of how good she is historically, which is hardly an exercise I want to undertake, when she's had such a carefully planned, cookie-cutter campaign? Greatness needs to be defined by taking on the best, the most significant tests and proving yourself in those scenarios. A final campaign with 5 exhibitions and the Breeders' Cup Classic was hardly what anyone with half a brain and a true love of the sport was looking for from her this year.

FTFY Nick

[goingtothewhip]

How can we really have a gauge of how good she is historically, which is hardly an exercise I want to undertake, when she's had such a carefully planned, cookie-cutter campaign? Greatness needs to be defined by taking on the best, the most significant tests and proving yourself in those scenarios. A final campaign with 5 exhibitions and the Breeders' Cup Classic was hardly what I was looking for from her this year.

i can't really argue with any of that (pre fix).

I can understand questioning her place in history, but it seems the vast majority of opinions are now polarized. She is the best ever or a mere curiosity. I'm going to hold off till she is done before writing what i think in my diary.

[PeteMugg]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

How can we really have a gauge of how good she is historically, which is hardly an exercise I want to undertake, when she's had such a carefully planned, cookie-cutter campaign? Greatness needs to be defined by taking on the best, the most significant tests and proving yourself in those scenarios. A final campaign with 5 exhibitions and the Breeders' Cup Classic was hardly what I was looking for from her this year.

Perhaps next year?

[hockey2315]

Interesting use of the word "fast" in the title. . . I wonder if that was Andy's doing or an editor's.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by goingtothewhip

Feel the rage. LoL.

People that are wagering on the tracks in question probably care what type of synthetic surfaces they are dealing with. Thus my comment on using the generic term synthetic being misleading.

Sorry the fans and lack of a rigorous campaign has left a nasty taste on your palate, but the fact is neither have any bearing on how good she is. To let those factors sully your opinion of a horse seems kind of silly.

Congratulations on illustrating the point I was making perfectly with one more example of why no attempt to have a discussion of racing history or offer perspective on it is worthwhile when this particular topic is broached. It's a complete waste of energy on a group that has no interest in even attempting to understand the nuances of any element of the game, breed, races, racing surfaces, competition levels, or any other historic element that goes into comparisons of this nature.

[Indian Charlie]

I'm going to make up a bunch of bumper stickers reading "WWZD" and sell them at her last two starts.

How many will I need to make to assure I don't sell out?

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I'm going to make up a bunch of bumper stickers reading "WWZD" and sell them at her last two starts.

How many will I need to make to assure I don't sell out?

That is actually an unbelievable idea, you could get $5 for those, and make a killing. I would say you would need 2500.

[Smooth Operator]

Like I said before, just do some simple math:

17 (wins) + 1 (BCD win) + 1 (BCC win) + 1 (BCC dirt win) + 0 (losses) = LIVING LEGEND

[goingtothewhip]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Congratulations on illustrating the point I was making perfectly with one more example of why no attempt to have a discussion of racing history or offer perspective on it is worthwhile when this particular topic is broached. It's a complete waste of energy on a group that has no interest in even attempting to understand the nuances of any element of the game, breed, races, racing surfaces, competition levels, or any other historic element that goes into comparisons of this nature.

.

Please don't waste any more of your energy. I'm not as impressed w/ your perspective as you seem to be.