This talk about RA being better than...

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I agree with everything you say, but I think your points are exactly why Byk made the point of comparing the two only up to this point in their careers.

That didn't hold water for me anyways, as I thought GFW was a much more accomplished two year old and probably lost the Oaks due to the awful track condition.

Yeah.. exactly.

But while track conditions are viable as explanations for beats, they aren't a free pass. Round Table is my favorite horse of history, and he was continually vulnerable in wet conditions. If he hadn't been, he'd be one of the Top 8-10 horses of all time instead of one the Top 15-20.

Go for Wand did do more as a two year old than Rachel Alexandra, but Rachel Alexandra has made up the difference with this dominating series of performances.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I believe Go For Wand ran numbers in the summer and fall of her 3yo season that RA will have a very difficult time reaching. At least from a Beyer fig standpoint.

With the way the sheets scales - TG especially - tend to trend faster and faster every year ... I'm sure they have Rachel Alexandra about 12 lengths faster than Go For Wand right now.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Yeah.. exactly.

But while track conditions are viable as explanations for beats, they aren't a free pass. Round Table is my favorite horse of history, and he was continually vulnerable in wet conditions. If he hadn't been, he'd be one of the Top 8-10 horses of all time instead of one the Top 15-20.

Go for Wand did do more as a two year old than Rachel Alexandra, but Rachel Alexandra has made up the difference with this dominating series of performances.

a fave of mine as well, and imo the best u.s. turf horse ever.