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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by CSC

Yes, she did have a nice trip, by staying on the rail until Smith let her out. but let's not confuse this into a 'Giacomo' random result. The pace was not super fast and she did it with authority. I think alot of people just like to look at that inside - outside move as the only reason she won. It couldn't be further from the case, I never was a fan of hers till this race but one thing I can do is recognize an extraordinary performance as she had that day. She never asked for my respect as a racefan but she earned it that day.

Originally Posted by Danzig

you're wasting your time.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

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

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

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.

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Rachel ran a very gutsy race in the Woodward, and it was an awesome experience to be at Saratoga that afternoon. But let's not make the performance more than it was. To say that she "wilted" the competition is a gross overstatement. Da' Tara was eased in his race prior to the Woodward (was he wilted that afternoon by Le Grand Cru), so to use his result as evidence of the strength of the pace is not compelling. The only other forwardly-placed horse in the race was Past the Point who, as evidenced by his subsequent effort in the Bold Ruler, is clearly not the same horse that took Curlin to the wire in the 2008 Woodward.

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Rachel ran a very gutsy race in the Woodward, and it was an awesome experience to be at Saratoga that afternoon. But let's not make the performance more than it was. To say that she "wilted" the competition is a gross overstatement. Da' Tara was eased in his race prior to the Woodward (was he wilted that afternoon by Le Grand Cru), so to use his result as evidence of the strength of the pace is not compelling. The only other forwardly-placed horse in the race was Past the Point who, as evidenced by his subsequent effort in the Bold Ruler, is clearly not the same horse that took Curlin to the wire in the 2008 Woodward.

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Rachel ran a very gutsy race in the Woodward, and it was an awesome experience to be at Saratoga that afternoon. But let's not make the performance more than it was. To say that she "wilted" the competition is a gross overstatement. Da' Tara was eased in his race prior to the Woodward (was he wilted that afternoon by Le Grand Cru), so to use his result as evidence of the strength of the pace is not compelling. The only other forwardly-placed horse in the race was Past the Point who, as evidenced by his subsequent effort in the Bold Ruler, is clearly not the same horse that took Curlin to the wire in the 2008 Woodward.

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

So the horses on the pace were bad, which means she should have set a very fast pace and buried them. Then the horses who were closing are also bad so she should have been able to hold them off easily.

Those are high expectations for a 3YO filly who had been tested on multiple occasions and was facing older horses for the first time.

Originally Posted by freddymo

Name the last horse to run with Rachel and live to tell about it? Is Big Drama or was Big Drama quick enough.. Even wonder colt lol Summer Bird was left for dead in the Haskel .. Because Rachel is HoY doesn't mean she is necessarily better then Zenyatta it just means her total years accomplishments are superior to the efforts of Zenyatta.. I have really no clue which one is better? To me Rachel SEEMS faster SEEMS better..

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Just so words aren't put in my mouth, I'll give you my recap of the race: Rachel set a rapid (not suicidal, as has been described) pace. Calvin chose to put her on the pace and out in the 2-3 path rather than taking back and getting boxed (as many people before the race thought Past the Point was likely to be a "dead send" from the outside post, as he was in last year's Woodward, and if Borel rated, Rachel could end up a marked horse like Ginger Punch was in the 2008 Go For Wand). She faced steady pressure to her inside from a weak race horse in Da' Tara for about five furlongs. When Da' Tara gave way, Rachel was hounded by Past the Point, but hard, head-to-head pressure from that rival never materialized. She shook loose on the turn and held off a determined challenge from an in-form closer in Macho Again (no world beater, but a legitimate Grade II type) under steady pressure in a very gutsy effort.

She was clearly the best horse in the Woodward, as she was in all her races this year and is a future Hall of Famer, but the attempts by some to elevate the Woodward performance to some kind of other-worldly performance, IMO, are wrong. Efforts of that caliber in this race belong to horses such as Holy Bull, Formal Gold and Ghostzapper. When trying to compare great performances in an historic race, I don't think "for a filly" is the standard. (And just so no one thinks I'm Rachel-bashing, while Zenyatta's win in the Classic was an outstanding performance by a terrific mare, it pales in comparison to the Breeders' Cup Classic performances of horses like Ghostzapper, Ferdinand, Sunday Silence, Awesome Again and the 3YO Tiznow.)

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Just so words aren't put in my mouth, I'll give you my recap of the race: Rachel set a rapid (not suicidal, as has been described) pace. Calvin chose to put her on the pace and out in the 2-3 path rather than taking back and getting boxed (as many people before the race thought Past the Point was likely to be a "dead send" from the outside post, as he was in last year's Woodward, and if Borel rated, Rachel could end up a marked horse like Ginger Punch was in the 2008 Go For Wand). She faced steady pressure to her inside from a weak race horse in Da' Tara for about five furlongs. When Da' Tara gave way, Rachel was hounded by Past the Point, but hard, head-to-head pressure from that rival never materialized. She shook loose on the turn and held off a determined challenge from an in-form closer in Macho Again (no world beater, but a legitimate Grade II type) under steady pressure in a very gutsy effort.

She was clearly the best horse in the Woodward, as she was in all her races this year and is a future Hall of Famer, but the attempts by some to elevate the Woodward performance to some kind of other-worldly performance, IMO, are wrong. Efforts of that caliber in this race belong to horses such as Holy Bull, Formal Gold and Ghostzapper. When trying to compare great performances in an historic race, I don't think "for a filly" is the standard. (And just so no one thinks I'm Rachel-bashing, while Zenyatta's win in the Classic was an outstanding performance by a terrific mare, it pales in comparison to the Breeders' Cup Classic performances of horses like Ghostzapper, Ferdinand, Sunday Silence, Awesome Again and the 3YO Tiznow.)

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

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...



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.

Originally Posted by kgar311

you are right and its a damn shame that sh*t plastic made a champ like Curlin look like a 40 claimer. Its a travesty. Dirt is the bar not plastic

Originally Posted by kgar311

If the Classic means everything then why wasn't Ravens Pass HOY last year? I believe he whooped up the eventual HOY in that race too! I think because Curlin had the better YEAR and RP had the better 1 race.
And it will not be a mistake WHEN they give RA HOY

Originally Posted by freddymo

Agree with most of these thoughts.. 1 question name any horse that ran this year that could have successfully navigated the Wood described above? Name the horse that was capable of running the Preakness or Haskel she ran? IMO there isn't a horse that could have accomplished what she did. Zenyatta's race is always going to difficult to judge because it was on rubber.

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

Would be an absolute TRAGEDY if the career undefeated, dual Breeders' Cup and Eclipse-award-winning champion older mare doesn't get the award, kgar311

Let the young Alexander filly take her shot against world-class open competition on her 'preferred surface' at the Downs next fall.

Somehow I doubt she'll get her picture taken after the 10f affair.



By the way, CSC … fine body of work in a thread filled with bad opinions…

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Probably none, which is reflective of racing in 2009.

I think several of the horses that I previously listed above would have won either the Preakness or Woodward more impressively, had they contested that sort of race with similar pace dynamics and similar quality of opponents. While I think Rachel had several things in her favor in the Haskell, her performance in that race is now pretty hard to knock.

Originally Posted by freddymo

So the best (fastest, game etc) races were run by the same horse that being Rachel Hence it is crystal clear she is HoY at least in 2009.. Again that doesnt mean she is better then Zenyatta..that is a question that we will never have a definative answer too.

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Now my turn for one question: in light of the Breeders' Cup Classic result, do you believe that if Zenyatta had been the horse coming after Rachel in the Woodward, as opposed to Macho Again, that Rachel still would have won the race?

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

Would be an absolute TRAGEDY if the career undefeated, dual Breeders' Cup and Eclipse-award-winning champion older mare doesn't get the award, kgar311

Let the young Alexander filly take her shot against world-class open competition on her 'preferred surface' at the Downs next fall.

Somehow I doubt she'll get her picture taken after the 10f affair.



By the way, CSC … fine body of work in a thread filled with bad opinions…

Originally Posted by kgar311

When will you people get this through your thick skulls????????????????????:zz: :zz: :zz: Its not horse of the career its horse of the year Sherriffs and Co have nobody else to blame but themselves for costing Zen HOY. All they had to do was either put her in the Pacific Classic or the Goodwood and won that respective race and they maybe would of had a shot at the title. But they didnt, they were chicken s*it muther f*ckers. They ducked and dived with this horse throughout her career and it cost her HOY. Case closed, game over she loses, Rachel wins period end of story.:wf

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

I'll take the bait knowing the what-if game shouldn't factor on a Horse of the Year vote...

It depends if Zenyatta's dirt form is of the 109-110 variety... her only dirt start was not. That said, she would probably be closing late for sure.

But, it wasn't her... she was waiting to beat-up the same ole's in the Lady's Secret. She could have made this whole thread a moot point by running in the Pacific Classic instead.

In a typical year, what she did would be a-okay - a few easy starts before winning the Classic - and she'd have the trophy. But this was not a typical year because of the score Rachel Alexandra posted. Rachel posted 5-under par, and while Zenyatta finished with an eagle, she was a stroke short.

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Not so fast, my friend. The question was whether any other horse in training in 2009 could have navigated the Woodward or Preakness in the same fashion as Rachel did. That does not mean she should be horse of the year.

Now my turn for one question: in light of the Breeders' Cup Classic result, do you believe that if Zenyatta had been the horse coming after Rachel in the Woodward, as opposed to Macho Again, that Rachel still would have won the race?

Originally Posted by freddymo

Shame Zenyatta wasn't there...

Originally Posted by freddymo

Rail Trip might be the most talented horse of 2009..I dont think he is but couldnt I argue with Ron Ellis if he told me Rail trip would kick all there butts?

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Any horse that lost to Ball Four can't be in the conversation for "most talented horse" of 2009.

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

I still don't understand how Gio Ponti is not considered if he faced open G1 competition and won against open G1 competition more often than the other 2 fillies