RAGS or RACHEL

[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.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Put Rags to Riches in this year's Belmont Stakes as currently constituted (probables, anyway).

I think that she would win.

I imagine (well hope anyway), the pace will be a little faster this year than when Rags won.

A Rachel / Rags race (not a match race but a race where both horses are entered) would have been the race of the decade...

Not too sure who would win but Rachel's been awfully impressive.