Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Danzig
how can a horse who can win from on the lead, or off the pace, on a fast, good or sloppy track, be called one dimensional? i know you and a few others are on some sort of crusade to find a horse that's better than the filly, but this is really getting ridiculous- as is the bitching about the races she's been entered, with folks claiming the 'easy' way is being taken with rachel, when in fact she's run more races, and at more tracks, than just about any horse running in top competition-if not all of them. this whole discussion is becoming ridiculous.
|
I'm glad you asked that Danizg, I was in a hurry posting this afternoon and I may have been misunderstood.
Let me start in saying RA is a fantastic horse, when I referred to one dimensional I didn't mean her running style, in which she has shown a high crusing speed and the ability to kick on. Really I haven't seen many horses that have this innate ability. It's a special talent.
What I was referring to was she hasn't shown the dimension to win on Synth(other than a non stks Keeneland race) as she has on dirt. Until she does this is what I mean't by one dimensional. Like it or not we are in a new age of racing on 3 surfaces. I don't expect all horses to be great on both turf and dirt when Cigar was mentioned in comparison to RA, it is true he was no great shakes on turf, but it was somewhat an unfair comment to criticize him in the same vein as I critiqued RA since there was no poly around when he raced why should he be held accountable for this?
The fact is we are in a new age of racing and horses may have to adapt to both poly and dirt to be considered great, which explains my assertion that atleast Zenyatta has shown she can win on both. So when I said superior I only mean't she was superior in this way, not that she was a better horse.