Jerry Brown's letter to TDN on HOY discussion

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

The debate continues, yet everyone refuses to bring dynamics into play when talking about the Woodward. It's making my head hurt. I don't care if she beat Macho Again by a whisker's whisker... the dynamics of the race were piled against her as high as you can pile them, and she still won.

I've posted on this before. Speaking in the historical perspective of two turn Grade I races at Saratoga (Whitney and Woodward), the internal fractions of the Woodward were not that fast. They were average, at best, for a Grade I race at 9F.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by CSC

It wasn't like everything went her way completely, she had a flat footed start spotted the field more than a few lengths, like I said this is a grade one field with fractions of 24.16 - 47.88 fractions a walk in the park for a horse like Regal Ransom. I think what is lost or taken for granted is the ease in which she went by the best dirt/synth field of the yr, we can argue surfaces but you put a very good horse on a big stage and she exceeds expectations, that's something great in my books.

Your passionate distaste for Rachel Alexandra and your incessant fervor to prop up Zenyatta clearly makes you incapable of objectively analyzing the way the Classic played out.

Look at the chart and see where the horses on the lead finished. It'll become very clear.

Look, the Classic was a very good effort from an exceptional horse but to turn it into some other-worldly performance like you seem to be trying to do is irrational. In truth, Zenyatta's Classic win was probably about the fourth most impressive Classic win in the last six years.

NT

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

So Rachel gets questioned for being the first filly ever to win the Woodward because of the field quality but Zenyatta is heroic because she was the first filly to win the BC Classic, quality of field be damned?

Neither the Woodward nor the Classic was a great field, historically speaking. But I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that the quality of the 2009 Classic was significantly better than that of the 2009 Woodward.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I don't really like the who did they beat argument because it takes away from the historical significance of both and the thing is they both did tremendous things historically. I think it's safe to say that history is going to treat both of them very, very well.

I agree with this completely.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Your passionate distaste for Rachel Alexandra and your incessant fervor to prop up Zenyatta clearly makes you incapable of objectively analyzing the way the Classic played out.

Look at the chart and see where the horses on the lead finished. It'll become very clear.

Look, the Classic was a very good effort from an exceptional horse but to turn it into some other-worldly performance like you seem to be trying to do is irrational. In truth, Zenyatta's Classic win was probably about the fourth most impressive Classic win in the last six years.

NT

That's nothing new my distaste of Rachel , I doubt whatever I say will be considered objective when it comes to Rachel, Summer Bird and now Zenyatta. At this rate there will be no more horses to discuss...You are a sharp poster NTamm so this puzzles me how you could ignore the obvious, did you seriously think Regal Ransom was going to be a factor in the race as a win prospect? Did it occur to you that Rip Van Winkle may just not have liked the surface as per other Coolmore failures in Classics, these 2 were the only 2 pace threats and they just happen to be very unrelible to cite as a collasping pace because they could have gone 25 - 50 and still lost. Is it just possible the closers were better this time around...

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you're wasting your time.

I feel the exact same way, a waste of time.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by CSC

That's nothing new my distaste of Rachel , I doubt whatever I say will be considered objective when it comes to Rachel, Summer Bird and now Zenyatta. At this rate there will be no more horses to discuss...You are a sharp poster NTamm so this puzzles me how you could ignore the obvious, did you seriously think Regal Ransom was going to be a factor in the race as a win prospect? Did it occur to you that Rip Van Winkle may just not have liked the surface as per other Coolmore failures in Classics, these 2 were the only 2 pace threats and they just happen to be very unrelible to cite as a collasping pace because they could have gone 25 - 50 and still lost. Is it just possible the closers were better this time around...

So basically you're saying the best field of the year had two complete bums that set the pace, neither of them having any chance? If I give you some more time can you elucidate how any of the remaining ten horses were useless as win prospects?

Your argument in this discussion has gone from saying that the pace was slow, to which I responded that it was not, to then saying it was slow again, to which I responded that it clearly was not, to now saying that it probably doesn't matter because the horses who set the pace had no chance. That's inexplicable.

Even the most mundane, elementary, and ordinary pace analysis regarding the Classic is going to make it clear that it collapsed. There were three horses in the top 5 at the 1/2 mile mark who were 11-1 or less and they finished 5th, 10th, and 11th respectively.

NT

[CSC]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

So basically you're saying the best field of the year had two complete bums that set the pace, neither of them having any chance? If I give you some more time can you elucidate how any of the remaining ten horses were useless as win prospects?

Your argument in this discussion has gone from saying that the pace was slow, to which I responded that it was not, to then saying it was slow again, to which I responded that it clearly was not, to now saying that it probably doesn't matter because the horses who set the pace had no chance. That's inexplicable.

Even the most mundane, elementary, and ordinary pace analysis regarding the Classic is going to make it clear that it collapsed. There were three horses in the top 5 at the 1/2 mile mark who were 11-1 or less and they finished 5th, 10th, and 11th respectively.

NT

What field was better? Instead of my twisting words, I do believe had Regal Ransom had run in the Woodward he would have had a better chance in that race because that field was far less deeper than the Classic. You made my point in a way without knowing it, the Classic field was a deeper field so obcourse RR had less chance, it is your words that called him a bum, I never did.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Your argument in this discussion has gone from saying that the pace was slow, to which I responded that it was not, to then saying it was slow again, to which I responded that it clearly was not, to now saying that it probably doesn't matter because the horses who set the pace had no chance. That's inexplicable.

Even the most mundane, elementary, and ordinary pace analysis regarding the Classic is going to make it clear that it collapsed. There were three horses in the top 5 at the 1/2 mile mark who were 11-1 or less and they finished 5th, 10th, and 11th respectively.

NT

So what are you saying, it was a suicidal pace? Yep I think most will have a hard time buying that one. Parsixfarms has a better gauge than you on this one.

By the way you also seem to have forgotten her less than perfect start...maybe I should throw the your obvious distaste for Zenyatta card that you like to brand with me all too easily.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by CSC

What field was better? Instead of twisting words, I do believe had Regal Ransom had run in the Woodward he would have had a better chance in that race because that field was far less deeper than the Classic. You made my point in a way without knowing it, the Classic field was a deeper field so obcourse RR had less chance, it is your words that called him a bum, I never did.

I'm through fencing with you. You said the Classic field was the best field of any race in this country this year then an hour later you talked about how the speed horses were not good win prospects. That's a tad hypocritical.

It's one thing to favor one horse in the whole Rachel-Zenyatta discussion but it's really another to be so shackled by one's opinion that they divorce themself from the ability to analyze both rationally. When faced with the realization that Zenyatta had just about everything go her way in the Classic you chose to grasp at straws by questioning the quality of the horses who set the pace. You do understand the double standard of saying in one breath that a one-run closer beat such a vastly accomplished field then in the next saying that the horses who were setting the table for her had no chance of staying, right?

NT

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by CSC

So what are you saying, it was a suicidal pace? Yep I think most will have a hard time buying that one. Parsixfarms has a better gauge than you on this one.

There's no middleground on pace then, it's either suicidal or slow?

I missed where anyone else even mentioned the pace in the Classic but one thing that I definitely need to get better guage on is not replying to trolls.

NT

[CSC]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I'm through fencing with you. You said the Classic field was the best field of any race in this country this year then an hour later you talked about how the speed horses were not good win prospects. That's a tad hypocritical.

NT

Nevermind I'm through with this Zenyatta - Rachel debate, and in particular the RA faction to make any critique of her as to take it as personal affront to her has become too predictable and tiresome. It is especially confusing since they like to use the same tactics when criticizing Zenyatta, so what was fair for the goose was not so fair indeed.

[10 pnt move up]

Just because one horse might get horse of 2009 does not mean they were the better horse, either way it goes.

[10 pnt move up]

I do find it odd Zenyatta is being critizised for not beating anything in several of her pre classic wins, yet she beat Life is Sweet three times and I think it could be argued that Life is Sweet was as impressive as anyone in two days of races at Santa Anita.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

I do find it odd Zenyatta is being critizised for not beating anything in several of her pre classic wins, yet she beat Life is Sweet three times and I think it could be argued that Life is Sweet was as impressive as anyone in two days of races at Santa Anita.

Well, I think you'd agree that Life Is Sweet ran below form in the Clement Hirsch and Lady's Secret, not to mention was very much aided by the pace situation in the Distaff.

It's along the same lines as using Einstein's 11th place finish in the Classic as some sort of barometer.

Certainly Zenyatta dusted her on the level in the Milady. However, IMO Gomez didn't do himself any favors playing cat and mouse with Smith in that one.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Well, I think you'd agree that Life Is Sweet ran below form in the Clement Hirsch and Lady's Secret, not to mention was very much aided by the pace situation in the Distaff.

It's along the same lines as using Einstein's 11th place finish in the Classic as some sort of barometer.

Certainly Zenyatta dusted her on the level in the Milady. However, IMO Gomez didn't do himself any favors playing cat and mouse with Smith in that one.

Because that sort of non-critical analysis also leads one to dismiss Zenyatta beating Life is Sweet because Life is Sweet couldn't beat Anabaa's Creation in the matchup we're going to allegedly use to boost Zenyatta? So either Anabaa is that good to press Zenyatta to a dirty head to the wire AND beat Life is Sweet, or she's still not that good which is why she's a better fit for a $50K claimer. The backers need to make sense of that conundrum in short order here.If you want the Life is Sweet card all year, you also need the only-a-head-better-than-Anabaa's-Creation card in the deck too. Can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

There's no middleground on pace then, it's either suicidal or slow?

I missed where anyone else even mentioned the pace in the Classic but one thing that I definitely need to get better guage on is not replying to trolls.

NT

Why, Nick, do you insist on ignoring Zenyatta's flat-footed start?!

That flat-footed start left her in LAST!!!! Instead of....last.....where she would have been regularly without it.

Jeez. Come on dude, after all that harping on race dynamics?! Shame on you, you should know better.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by CSC

It is especially confusing since they like to use the same tactics when criticizing Zenyatta, so what was fair for the goose was not so fair indeed.

Oh brother, when will people get it, this isn't about criticizing Zenyatta. There is no lesser horse. Neither RA nor Z is less than pure excellence. It's like with the Oscars. Technically you "win" the nomination and it's an honor to be nominated,etc etc. Well you could say after that it's really crazy to pick a "better" actor per se if all 5 are supposedly brilliant and the requirements of the parts were just different. You can try to argue what was harder but it's really a mess to distinguish between levels of pure technique a lot of the time. There's a judgment call for (hopefully) one person to be recognized with a trophy and it's not a slap in the face to the ability of the other nominees. Just because you vote for Denzel doesn't mean you think Tom Hanks sucks. This is not about naming a loser.

I had many exams in school where we'd go 'well there's more than 1 right answer!' and the prof just tells you to pick the 'most right' one. Yes it's stupid and frustrating, but that's the way it is.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

The issue was the level of her competition. If you want to argue that Rachel beat a "Grade I" field in the Oaks, be my guest. I think you know better than that. (To use the Acorn winner to somehow justify the quality of the Oaks field is not a strong argument, IMO. The Acorn was not a good field this year, and the winner took advantage of a rail bias to beat a very suspect bunch of fillies.)

I didn't say Rachel won because of the trip in the Mother Goose. But those two other fillies collapsing before the top of the stretch due to their duel likely exaggerated the final margin of victory.

Yes, this was a historically weak edition of the Woodward, largely due to a weak older male division. Unfortunately, that's been the case in recent times. But history did not start in 2006.

If you are a great horse, you are supposed to beat a weak field by open lengths. the KY Oaks and the Mother Goose were both weak fields? I forget, Rachel only won them by a nose right?

Geez Loise she shattered records in the Mother Goose.. It was her against the timer, and she kicked the timers butt!

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by CSC

Yes, but by only a desparate head. One can say the same thing about Zenyatta's Classic, the race was hardly made for a deep closer to win especially with the loss of a pace prescence moments before the start of the race and she did it with more authority and against a much deeper field quality wise than RA did. If HOY was solely based on who is the superior horse, Zenyatta should win, Rachel is a fine filly in her own right but competition does matter and given both had to overcome some sort adversity in both races. How can anyone say Zenyatta wasn't more impressive.

I can.

Rachel was incredibly impressive time after time after time. Zenyatta was incredibly impressive once.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I've posted on this before. Speaking in the historical perspective of two turn Grade I races at Saratoga (Whitney and Woodward), the internal fractions of the Woodward were not that fast. They were average, at best, for a Grade I race at 9F.

Originally Posted by Cardus

It's making my head hurt that people do not understand the above.

Based upon Moss pace figures, the pace of the Woodward was one of the faster routes of the year. But the kicker is she was a 3-year-old filly facing elders! That's pretty remarkable. Furthermore, in the two of the faster races to the standard route pace call, she was a winner...



Above that, pace dynamics, race shapes and flow aren't just about the fractions. It's about pressure... which was there non-stop. She wilted the competition in the Woodward. Say what you want about Macho Again and his inconsequential future starts, but he was a quality race horse at Saratoga and in good form, yet he still couldn't catch her.



I will certainly give credit where credit is due, and Zenyatta overcame some pretty insane pace scenarios in her wins this year. Many of her races were very slow early. The question there is who you are running down. Running down a weak horse with a slow pace is a lot easier than holding off a quality horse with a fast pace, in my opinion.

For the record, the Classic was very similar to last year... as Per Moss...

And Zenyatta’s mad dash through the stretch in the Classic came after a pace that was not substantially quicker than the 2008 running.

Par: 56-66-81-91/97
Classic ’09 (Zenyatta): 52-63-77-89/97
Classic ’08 (Raven’s Pass): 53-61-73-87/96
Santa Anita Hcp ’09 (Einstein): 46-61-72-86/94

But I'm not about criticizing the abilities of either. I recognize both as pretty special. The arguments people are attempting to make to dispel Rachel Alexandra's year-long domination of horse racing, however, does not trump the big win for Zenyatta, in my opinion.

Using comparative handicapping and conditional results such as "If she beat him, then he should beat her and him while they beat the others" is baseless. Arguments about overall career records "need not apply." Speed figures? They don't count... two different surfaces. The fact Rachel Alexandra skipped the Classic? How is it fair to criticize synthetics in everyday handicapping but when someone uses the surface to dictate a decision, it's suddenly not?

Horse of the Year is not about who would beat whom. Does anyone think Favorite Trick would have beat Skip Away? Of course not. Horse of the Year is about recognizing the body of work for the year. And in my opinion, and it's unfortunate because truthfully, and ultimately, Zenyatta probably wins her fair share of head-to-head match-ups against Rachel, the body of work Rachel Alexandra put out this year was a notch or two better.