Jerry Brown's letter to TDN on HOY discussion

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cardus

You don't mean her career record, do you?

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

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cardus

In what way -- in terms of Eclipse voting -- does 2008 matter in 2009?

There is a ballot where both years matter: Hall of Fame voting.

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.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

Lol … did the "new owner" conveniently forget about the race she won at Keeneland, spencer?

The guy made a BUSH-LEAGUE call to skip the championship event and I'd love to see it bite him in the ass.


And yeah, she can get 10 panels … hell, any horse can run that far. Question is … could she get the classic distance with a high-quality router like Z breathing down her throat in the lane?

HIGHLY unlikely, in my estimation…

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.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Point Given was HOTY in 2001.

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

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

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Point Given was HOTY in 2001.

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

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

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.

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.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Point Given was HOTY in 2001.

Doesn't mean it was the right decision.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by kgar311

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.

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.

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by CSC

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

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by kgar311

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.

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.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

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

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

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?

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.

[NTamm1215]

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.

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?

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.

What seals it in my opinion is the quality of the campaign, the year, etc. That's where the scale starts to get tilted in one direction in my opinion.

NT

[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.

[CSC]

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.

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.

[NTamm1215]

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.

So the fractions and race flow didn't matter because Quality Road got scratched? Wow.

The fact of the matter is that Zenyatta had a TERRIFIC trip in the Classic. The fact that Smith negotiated those tight spots with that heffer without getting into any trouble is nothing short of amazing. The pace completely collapsed in front of her, but I guess you and Trevor Denman are the only people who thought she needed to be a "superhorse" to win from four lengths out on a track that favored closers in a race that was falling apart.

Zenyatta did some terrific things and ran against the race flow repeatedly in her career, but she did not do so in the Classic. Not in any way, shape or form.

NT

[CSC]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

The fact of the matter is that Zenyatta had a TERRIFIC trip in the Classic. The fact that Smith negotiated those tight spots with that heffer without getting into any trouble is nothing short of amazing. The pace completely collapsed in front of her, but I guess you and Trevor Denman are the only people who thought she needed to be a "superhorse" to win from four lengths out on a track that favored closers in a race that was falling apart.

Zenyatta did some terrific things and ran against the race flow repeatedly in her career, but she did not do so in the Classic. Not in any way, shape or form.

NT

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.

[NTamm1215]

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.

Who's confusing it to a Giacomo type result? The trip goes far beyond the fact that Smith saved ground then got a break every time he needed a spot before the sea parted for her just outside the eighth pole.

You can't possibly analyze trips without taking the pace into account and it worked incredibly well in Zenyatta's favor in the Classic.

Like I said before she won despite some negative pace setups earlier in her career, of course she beat complete mediocrities in doing so, but she did it nonetheless.

NT

[CSC]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Who's confusing it to a Giacomo type result? The trip goes far beyond the fact that Smith saved ground then got a break every time he needed a spot before the sea parted for her just outside the eighth pole.

You can't possibly analyze trips without taking the pace into account and it worked incredibly well in Zenyatta's favor in the Classic.

Like I said before she won despite some negative pace setups earlier in her career, of course she beat complete mediocrities in doing so, but she did it nonetheless.

NT

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 still exceeds expectations, that's something great in my books.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Who's confusing it to a Giacomo type result? The trip goes far beyond the fact that Smith saved ground then got a break every time he needed a spot before the sea parted for her just outside the eighth pole.

You can't possibly analyze trips without taking the pace into account and it worked incredibly well in Zenyatta's favor in the Classic.

Like I said before she won despite some negative pace setups earlier in her career, of course she beat complete mediocrities in doing so, but she did it nonetheless.

NT

you're wasting your time.