This talk about RA being better than...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

At the risk of breaking Danzig's all time consecutive post record within a single thread, I'll say this.

How are they comparable?

GFW as a two year old went 3 for 4 with one second, romping in her debut, winning by 19 in her 2nd start, running 2nd in her stakes debut and then was a romping winner in the BC. An easy win for 2yo filly champ. RA started six times with a 3-2-0 record for about 200k. Not quite equals in my book.

At three, GFW started the year with two romps before getting shocked in the Ky Oaks by the underrated Seaside Attraction. She ran in every top race and faced far superior horses compared to what RA ran against. RA cherry picked her spots, running at OP twice and FG once before the Oaks. Her opposition was horrific.

To compare opposition at three, up to this point:

GFW: Trumpets Blare, Seaside Attraction (they split), Charon and Bright Candles.

RA: Afleet Deceit (2), Peach Brew, Flying Spur (2), Our Dahlia, Just Jenda, and Stone Legacy. And, of course, the Preakness.

that's non morty consecutive post record there, fella!


but you say 'and, of course, the preakness' as tho that's almost an afterthought. does that race get her up more in line with the competition go for wand had faced? it might not have been the best field ever, but i thought compared to several recent preakness fields, it was better than most. but then...that may not be saying a lot.
btw, i'm not yet ready to put her right up there with wanda either.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that's non morty consecutive post record there, fella!

LOL, yeah. I don't count Morty.

At all.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

LOL, yeah. I don't count Morty.

At all.

besides, i doubt it's really the record...sheeesh, a bit of posting under the influence for the first time in i don't know how long.....and i'll never hear the end of it.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that's non morty consecutive post record there, fella!


but you say 'and, of course, the preakness' as tho that's almost an afterthought. does that race get her up more in line with the competition go for wand had faced? it might not have been the best field ever, but i thought compared to several recent preakness fields, it was better than most. but then...that may not be saying a lot.
btw, i'm not yet ready to put her right up there with wanda either.

Weird, this second part of your post didn't show up the first time.

Soo, the way I worded her Preakness competition was for two reasons. One, it was far better than what she'd faced, and two, there wasn't a race from GFW's history that was comparable at the same time. After the Oaks, GFW didn't run again till early June where she beat Charon and Stella Madrid (who accounted for GFW's sole loss at 2).

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Weird, this second part of your post didn't show up the first time.

Soo, the way I worded her Preakness competition was for two reasons. One, it was far better than what she'd faced, and two, there wasn't a race from GFW's history that was comparable at the same time. After the Oaks, GFW didn't run again till early June where she beat Charon and Stella Madrid (who accounted for GFW's sole loss at 2).

i probably edited almost immediately after hitting submit. don't want more grief for too many posts-some pay attention to that for some reason.

i'd think all things being considered, steve isn't far off in saying at this point you could compare the two. you gotta give points for taking on the guys, something they chose not to do with wanda. and the way the race unfolded-rachel had quite a task to take on, and she handled it well.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i probably edited almost immediately after hitting submit. don't want more grief for too many posts-some pay attention to that for some reason.

i'd think all things being considered, steve isn't far off in saying at this point you could compare the two. you gotta give points for taking on the guys, something they chose not to do with wanda. and the way the race unfolded-rachel had quite a task to take on, and she handled it well.

Why take on the boys with GFW? It's not like facing Bayakoa in the BC, or some of the nice 3yo fillies in her own crop were a complete mismatch.

Besides, I don't see any Unbridleds or Summer Squalls in this crop of colts.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Why take on the boys with GFW? It's not like facing Bayakoa in the BC, or some of the nice 3yo fillies in her own crop were a complete mismatch.

Besides, I don't see any Unbridleds or Summer Squalls in this crop of colts.

it's the measure most want to take of a top filly. it's always thought, no matter how good a filly is, that she must take on the 'tougher' competition of the colts to really prove herself. i'm not always in complete agreement there...
there was a lot of pressure on christiana stables to take on the classic instead of the distaff at the bc that year. like badgett said after they lost her, thank god they didn't. just think if GFW went down like that vs boys. that would have been bad. real bad.


i read some interesting stuff on rachel:

You just saw the 11th filly to ever win a Triple Crown race and the first favored filly since Regret in 1915 to win a classic. All you gals out there, you just saw a filly take down the boys. You just saw a great day for racing.

that was from bloodhorse. i also know this is the first time ever that the ky oaks winner took down the preakness.