BEYER: Defining Zenyatta's historical role

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

So do you think 20 years from RA is going to have a greater legacy than Zenyatta because she did take on and win such demanding races for a filly?

I think I would take that bet if you wanted it.

i'm pretty sure it was eng that wrote he expects another mare to win the bcc before another filly wins the preakness, haskell and woodward. i'm thinking that's true.

it's funny....when zenyatta is the greatest folks start posting, and get some negative feedback, they bring up who rachel beat. but no one is saying rachel is an all-time great, are they? not that i know of. so, if you can't even settle if zenyatta is better than rachel, how can anyone say where she fits historically?

i think it's safe to say, in a ballpark figure way, that 1980 divides the end of the golden age of racing from the modern day. any top ten list of all time best thoroughbreds would include spectacular bid. any horse since then? most likely not.
you have the triumvirate of man o war, secretariat and citation. that leaves seven. after that, others get put in the mix for a variety of reasons, but you really have to be special to be in the top tier, maybe even top 20. could someone put zenyatta there? no, i don't think so.

so, now greatness gets watered down when you start adding more and more to the list...suddenly, great isn't quite so great.
so, let's say you limit it to past 1980...where does she fit? another round of arguing would begin. but, much of the current crowd arguing the point doesn't have much history to go by, which is why they get grief when they suggest a mare with one lifetime open win to her credit is an all-time great. are we talking all-time, all-time...or just recent memory all-time great?
zenyatta winning the bc was special, because she was the first distaffer to manage it. she's special because she's undefeated. but all-time, ahead of ruffian great? dr. fager, damascus, round table great? john henry? i don't think so.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's funny....when zenyatta is the greatest folks start posting, and get some negative feedback, they bring up who rachel beat. but no one is saying rachel is an all-time great, are they?

In all fairness to the Zenyattards out there, people last year were saying RA is among the greats of all time.

Which was equally as stupid as saying Z is.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm pretty sure it was eng that wrote he expects another mare to win the bcc before another filly wins the preakness, haskell and woodward. i'm thinking that's true.

it's funny....when zenyatta is the greatest folks start posting, and get some negative feedback, they bring up who rachel beat. but no one is saying rachel is an all-time great, are they? not that i know of. so, if you can't even settle if zenyatta is better than rachel, how can anyone say where she fits historically?

i think it's safe to say, in a ballpark figure way, that 1980 divides the end of the golden age of racing from the modern day. any top ten list of all time best thoroughbreds would include spectacular bid. any horse since then? most likely not.
you have the triumvirate of man o war, secretariat and citation. that leaves seven. after that, others get put in the mix for a variety of reasons, but you really have to be special to be in the top tier, maybe even top 20. could someone put zenyatta there? no, i don't think so.

so, now greatness gets watered down when you start adding more and more to the list...suddenly, great isn't quite so great.
so, let's say you limit it to past 1980...where does she fit? another round of arguing would begin. but, much of the current crowd arguing the point doesn't have much history to go by, which is why they get grief when they suggest a mare with one lifetime open win to her credit is an all-time great. are we talking all-time, all-time...or just recent memory all-time great?
zenyatta winning the bc was special, because she was the first distaffer to manage it. she's special because she's undefeated. but all-time, ahead of ruffian great? dr. fager, damascus, round table great? john henry? i don't think so.

I think the cutoff is a bit later than that, about 1990. I think horses like Easy Goer, Lady's Secret, Sunday Silence, John Henry all fit in very well with horses from the 50, 60, 70's.

Its not fair to really compare the two era's IMO because the game has changed.

So what do you do then, say there are no great horses? Can a single horse though be good enough to be placed in that group? I think so, but as a whole its not going to be very many.

We see the same thing in many sports. Now with 85 scholarship limits I guarentee you the best college football teams cant compete with the best of the 1980's.

With the salary caps you can say the same for the NFL and NBA. The Celtics, Lakers, Pistons of the 80's were better than any recent winners.

So what do you do? Its probably best to confine it to your contemporaries. Zenyatta fits in at the top of any list the past 10-15 years IMO.

To my original point though, going 19-0, or God forbid the meltdown that will come if she goes 20-0, is going to stand longer than winning the Preakness, a race that has definitely become watered down.

[Danzig]

rachel was the first filly to win the preakness in decades....zenyatta is the first to win 19 straight since PP. who passed cigar among others. that's fairly recent. at any rate, both did special things last year...and neither is an all time great

[shanej974]

I wish there were more all-time non-greats like Zenyatta.

[Indian Charlie]

I wish there were less annoying people in the world.

[shanej974]

You could buy yourself a flight into outer space for about $20 million. That would be one less.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by shanej974

You could buy yourself a flight into outer space for about $20 million. That would be one less.

If I had the 20 mil, I'd buy DT from Byk and ban you.