RAGS or RACHEL

[ddthetide]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Why does the competition that Eight Belles and Rags To Riches (and by curious extension HOY Curlin) ran against come into play against them, and yet the same standard is not extended to Rachel Alexandra?

i voted for R2R and would vote for Eight Belles. we got to see them have to dig down and find something extra to win. to me they have an extra toughness.
now i think RA is VERY special but until we get to see her dig down and find something extra, i'll hold my greatness vote.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by ddthetide

i voted for R2R and would vote for Eight Belles. we got to see them have to dig down and find something extra to win. to me they have an extra toughness.
now i think RA is VERY special but until we get to see her dig down and find something extra, i'll hold my greatness vote.

so what do you call what happened saturday????? she definately dug down.

[King Glorious]

Rags ran toe to toe with that year's HOY. Rachel, while running an outstanding race, prevailed over a horse that was twice losing at Sunland this year. You don't have to think much of Curlin but he's light years better than Mine that Bird and thus beating him, no matter the pace of the speed figures is the more impressive race for me.

[letswastemoney]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Rags ran toe to toe with that year's HOY. Rachel, while running an outstanding race, prevailed over a horse that was twice losing at Sunland this year. You don't have to think much of Curlin but he's light years better than Mine that Bird and thus beating him, no matter the pace of the speed figures is the more impressive race for me.

We don't know what Mine That Bird will go on to accomplish...I think it's impossible to conclude RA is better or worse at this point.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Rags ran toe to toe with that year's HOY. Rachel, while running an outstanding race, prevailed over a horse that was twice losing at Sunland this year. You don't have to think much of Curlin but he's light years better than Mine that Bird and thus beating him, no matter the pace of the speed figures is the more impressive race for me.

Bit surprised by this.

While she did beat Curlin, it was also in the Belmont Stakes, a race she was bred to win and the race you've typed many a novel about.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Bit surprised by this.

While she did beat Curlin, it was also in the Belmont Stakes, a race she was bred to win and the race you've typed many a novel about.

I don't believe in breeding anymore than I believe in cheese on the moon. What I say about the Belmont is that it's result is irrelevant in the overall scheme of things because it tells us who's the best 12f dirt horse in a country where they don't run anymore 12f dirt races at that level. That doesn't mean that a good horse can't be running in it or that a horse can't put in a good performance. In Rags and Curlin, I thought I saw two horses running a good race.

[NTamm1215]

If you're using the defeat of Curlin as the benchmark then you can't possibly differentiate between the two fillies. We're assuming that the competition Rachel beat on Saturday is inferior to a horse like Curlin. It very well might be, but the bottom line is that right now we don't know.

Granted, there's a difference between Mine That Bird at this point in his career and Curlin, but saying that Rags' win is superior because she beat that year's HOY takes a look at the entire year and not just the first six months.

I think Rachel's win was decidedly more spectacular given the way she ran from start to finish. The "it was a phenomenal performance because of the stumble and wide trip" stuff never really made sense to me considering her running style. She was a horse who preferred being outside and off the pace.

NT

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I think Rachel's win was decidedly more spectacular given the way she ran from start to finish. The "it was a phenomenal performance because of the stumble and wide trip" stuff never really made sense to me considering her running style. She was a horse who preferred being outside and off the pace.

NT

Agreed.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I don't believe in breeding anymore than I believe in cheese on the moon. What I say about the Belmont is that it's result is irrelevant in the overall scheme of things because it tells us who's the best 12f dirt horse in a country where they don't run anymore 12f dirt races at that level. That doesn't mean that a good horse can't be running in it or that a horse can't put in a good performance. In Rags and Curlin, I thought I saw two horses running a good race.

I disagree that is grounds for Rags being better than Rachel, maybe at that distance yes. I think at this point in their careers (I'm willing to excuse Rags' race in the fall) Rachel was/is the faster and better filly.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

I disagree that is grounds for Rags being better than Rachel, maybe at that distance yes. I think at this point in their careers (I'm willing to excuse Rags' race in the fall) Rachel was/is the faster and better filly.

I didn't say I think Rags is the better horse. I'd take Rachel over her quickly.