BEYER: Defining Zenyatta's historical role

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Rudeboyelvis]

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 my pointless canard 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.

FTFY

Steve hates pointless canards, by the way...

[Danzig]

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.

well said....

[chucklestheclown]

WTF? Keeneland, Del Mar, Hollywood, Arlington and Dubai have synthetic tracks. It DOES make a difference in knowing the differences between them. Anyone who doesn't think so should get their head examined...or not...like that other guy said, I'll just take your money.

[JerseyJ]

This is getting beyond the point of ridiculous with the Zenyattatards. It really is. The big issue is that while her zealots continue to call her the best ever without taking into account the circumstances under which she picked up her wins with. Except for two very weak editions of the Apple Blossom where obviously, she wasn't forced to run an exceptional race, she has run every race of her career on synthetic tracks, types of synthetics not withstanding because the synthetic track make-up has always seemd to cater towards the running style of Zenyatta which is to make that sweeping wide last move into the stretch, always more often successful on the synthetic tracks or turf than dirt.

Let's be honest here, she has never had to run on a track which really could prove her greatness or run against a field which was brought together that would prove how great she is. She has never had to deal with slow fractions on dirt that would put her up against it coming from off the pace. As an add on to this, she's never had to deal with a negative track bias as her running style picks up a positive bias out in So Cal on those synthetic tracks. Just look at Sinister Minister the one year in Keeneland in the Blue Grass. Was he a legitimate top class, G1 horse? Not a chance in hell and at any other track he's probably up the track in the Blue Grass. But on that one day he used his speed to ride the ridiculous bias to a dominating G1 victory because no one was going to catch that horse on that track on that day. We've never had a day where she's run where she's been up against a speed bias on a dirt track where front runners aren't coming back to the field, or where she's had to run down a top class horse on the dirt. Simply put she's never faced any adversity. It's equivalent to being a Major League caliber ballplayer who dominates AAA his whole career, gets called up to the Majors a few times, always hits well in his cups of coffee and yet continues to get sent down each year for higher regarded prospects.

[knickslions2]

Originally Posted by JerseyJ

This is getting beyond the point of ridiculous with the Zenyattatards. It really is. The big issue is that while her zealots continue to call her the best ever without taking into account the circumstances under which she picked up her wins with. Except for two very weak editions of the Apple Blossom where obviously, she wasn't forced to run an exceptional race, she has run every race of her career on synthetic tracks, types of synthetics not withstanding because the synthetic track make-up has always seemd to cater towards the running style of Zenyatta which is to make that sweeping wide last move into the stretch, always more often successful on the synthetic tracks or turf than dirt.

Let's be honest here, she has never had to run on a track which really could prove her greatness or run against a field which was brought together that would prove how great she is. She has never had to deal with slow fractions on dirt that would put her up against it coming from off the pace. As an add on to this, she's never had to deal with a negative track bias as her running style picks up a positive bias out in So Cal on those synthetic tracks. Just look at Sinister Minister the one year in Keeneland in the Blue Grass. Was he a legitimate top class, G1 horse? Not a chance in hell and at any other track he's probably up the track in the Blue Grass. But on that one day he used his speed to ride the ridiculous bias to a dominating G1 victory because no one was going to catch that horse on that track on that day. We've never had a day where she's run where she's been up against a speed bias on a dirt track where front runners aren't coming back to the field, or where she's had to run down a top class horse on the dirt. Simply put she's never faced any adversity. It's equivalent to being a Major League caliber ballplayer who dominates AAA his whole career, gets called up to the Majors a few times, always hits well in his cups of coffee and yet continues to get sent down each year for higher regarded prospects.

Ya she blows