That's really comparing apples and oranges. Raven's Pass won a single race in North America in 2008. Say what you will about the competition faced by Zenyatta in her pre-Breeders' Cup campaign in 2009, but she did win three North America Grade Is and a Grade II.

I know why RP didnt win I was just trying to make a comparison. The people in Zenyatta's camp want to throw out her prior four races and all of RA's 8 races and give her HOY based on winning the Classic. It just isnt right to give a horse HOY honors for winning one race. I was just saying if they didnt do it for RP they are not going to do it for Zen.

I agree but haven't the Zenyatta backers turned this into a Classic vs. Woodward type of deal in a sense?

NT

Actually, it's just the opposite. I don't think anyone in Zenyatta's camp is advocating that people throw out her three Grade I wins. They are using the fact that she won three other Grade Is to assert that she wasn't the "one-hit wonder" that many of those in the Rachel camp would try to make Zenyatta out to be.

In some respects, yes, because it suits their opinion: Zenyatta's win in the Classic was a more impressive win than Rachel's in the Woodward. But that's not all there is to the issue. There are a whole lot of arguments from both sides that I don't find particularly persuasive. And I'm sure that there are some facts that I consider relevant (such as Zenyatta being unbeaten) that others find irrelevant.

Yes, I do. There is a context to everything.

I don't get this "horse of two years" argument, as if it's a knock on Zenyatta in the 2009 HOY debate. In my mind, her win in the Distaff (er, Ladies' Classic) in 2008 was as impressive a race as there was in North America last year. Unfortunately, her summer campaign caused a number of people to forget how brilliant she was/is. She reaffirmed her brilliance in the race formerly known as the Lady's Secret and again in the Classic. And let's not forget that many writers, such as Steve Crist, said that she should pass the Classic, as she had everything to lose there. In some respects, taking on the Classic and risking her undefeated record was akin to Ted Williams refusing to sit out on the last day of the 1941 baseball season. I think that those circumstances do factor into the equation.

I think Goldikova has a better shot at 2009 Champion turf filly because of her victory in the 2008 Mile than she would have without it in the back of voters' minds. How is that any different than the HOY debate? The fact that Tiznow was the "defending champ" helped him win HOY in 2001 despite some suspect efforts in the Woodward and Goodwood that fall.

It's amusing to me why anyone would believe anything that comes out of the mouth of Jess Jackson, using that argument that just because the owner says a horse won't race in the Championships because of reasons for only he knows is a nonsensical argument, especially when one comes looking for year end honors. The fact is one horse was there and one wasn't, if you have the best horse racing or one that many claim to be, you better show up and defend your honor, no excuses, just race baby...Decide it on the track, Zenyatta did and she gets big props for doing so. She did, RA may have. I will go with DID everyday of the week rather than, coulda or woulda...

Good post.

Wait a minute! He didn't show up for the championship event!

Did he at least have a Point Given Day at Hollywood Park?

My bad. You know what they say is the first thing to go ...

Are you calling her competition in those 3 races grade 1 caliber??? Come on now those races were grade 1 in name only contested against horses that would be 40k claimers in NY.

Doesn't mean it was the right decision.

This argument can be made both ways. Or haven't you seen how Macho Again and Bullsbay have raced after the Woodward. I'm not looking for a long winded reply because this will turn into a merry go round exchange that has been said many times over this week...month, I'm just saying that argument can be made both ways.

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

No, but it often happens that a "big horse" scares the opposition away. It's why I've never thought that the idea of post-race grading had any merit. If Zenyatta had been NY-based and she defeated less than stellar fields in races like the Phipps, Go For Wand and Beldame, I don't think she would have been knocked as much.

If you're going to knock the quality of the fillies that Zenyatta beat, it's not like the Kentucky Oaks was a "Grade I" field this year either, and the trip that Rachel got in the Mother Goose while the other two fillies needlessly dueled each other into defeat (with a 44 and change half) could not have been any better. Rachel beat historically weak fields in the Preakness and Woodward. Her Haskell was very impressive.

You know why she ran in the Ky Oaks and it wasn't her fault that the chief competition was scratched on the morning of the race. It's not like Justwhistledixie was even going to put a scare into her that day. The filly she happened to bury on the lead did come back and win a Grade I the following month too.

It was definitely Rachel's trip that got the job done in the Mother Goose too. She wouldn't have ever caught those two if they went :47 and change.

A historically weak running of the Woodward? Have you looked at who ran behind Curlin and Lawyer Ron in 2008 and 2007 or looked at the 2006 field recently?

NT