Ed DeRosa tweets get attention after the Shuvee

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Danzig

mook or no mook, zens owners and trainer made their bed with her, and they can't complain now if she doesn't get what they think is due her.
you want your horse to be considered great, you run her like she's great. you don't run her like she's not, and then get offended when people say her schedule didn't allow her to prove what she 'could' be. all we know is what she actually did.

It sounds like you don't think she was great, is that the prevailing sentiment?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

It sounds like you don't think she was great, is that the prevailing sentiment?

i can't speak for everyone, not sure it's the prevailing sentiment.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i can't speak for everyone, not sure it's the prevailing sentiment.

Whats your sentiment?

[Danzig]

i'm one of those who thinks time has to go by in order to put a horse (or anything) in a proper context. was zenyatta a great horse? i don't know.
if she's talked of in 20 years, perhaps. a horse has to do great things to be great. a horse has to stand the test of time. a winning streak alone isn't a mark of greatness (witness pepper's pride for instance). people like those, but it seems to happen with greater frequency these days, rather than with less.
you can't do the usual, and expect to get unusual accolades. they didn't test the mare. i love, love, love the story of round table. dr. fager, who hated grass but would not give up, and won on a turf course he didn't like. who carried high weight, and broke the mile record. forego, kelso, war admiral who suffered an injury that could have caused retirement during the belmont, and won the race anyway. that is greatness.

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm one of those who thinks time has to go by in order to put a horse (or anything) in a proper context. was zenyatta a great horse? i don't know.
if she's talked of in 20 years, perhaps. a horse has to do great things to be great. a horse has to stand the test of time. a winning streak alone isn't a mark of greatness (witness pepper's pride for instance). people like those, but it seems to happen with greater frequency these days, rather than with less.
you can't do the usual, and expect to get unusual accolades. they didn't test the mare. i love, love, love the story of round table. dr. fager, who hated grass but would not give up, and won on a turf course he didn't like. who carried high weight, and broke the mile record. forego, kelso, war admiral who suffered an injury that could have caused retirement during the belmont, and won the race anyway. that is greatness.

She was a great racemare. She never set any track records or defeated anyone of historical significance but neither did John Henry. To me what was remarkable about her was that she was life and death against Rinterval (sp?) and Tough Tiz's Sis yet ran by the best males available in the BCC. Her races were memorable and exciting. I've never seen a horse look hopelessly beaten as many times as she was and still win. In her two greatest races the fans were treated to some the most compelling and exciting finishes in the history of the sport.

Her career is by far the most controversial one in the history of message boards. That is the only opinion I undeniably stand by.