9/5 (SAR): Woodward (G1)

[tector]

Originally Posted by tector

You know, you don't win by just showing up.

Secretariat lost races in August and September of his 3YO season (including the Woodward, to 16-1 Prove Out). Screw your picayune analysis of which race is/was "tougher", blah blah blah. If RA wins this race, she should be HOY, conclusively, based upon a series of ambitious achievements throughout the course of the entire year--what part of Horse of the Year don't you guys understand?

There are a cluster of small-minded, self-absorbed, anal-retentive losers here who seemingly can't appreciate the remarkable even when it is dumped right under their noses. Jesus, go play fantasy football or something. Your fantasy horse racing is boring me shitless.

To wit:

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/hor...emy&id=4439621

Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Racing's legendary ladies
By Jeremy Plonk
Special to ESPN.com

It's not easy being great, with all apologies to noted philosopher Kermit the Frog. And on Saturday, another wildly popular animal will put that fact to the test when Rachel Alexandra takes on older males in the Grade 1 Woodward Stakes at Saratoga.

Discredit the field for the Woodward all you wish, and consider that last week's Travers Stakes featuring Belmont winner Summer Bird and Florida Derby demon Quality Road could have been the tougher spot. You won't get an argument here, but the past is the past, and it's time to look forward. The Woodward contenders of 2009 won't be mistaken for any historical measuring stick of greatness. This is not 3-year-old Spectacular Bid stepping up to meet past Triple Crown champ and then 4-year-old Affirmed in the 1979 Jockey Club Gold Cup.

So, while a scant few 3-year-old fillies ever have tried to capture such noteworthy and entrenched handicap races as the Woodward or Jockey Club Gold Cup, a historical trip down memory lane does little to feed or starve the arguments as to just what the accomplishment might really mean. But just in terms of the comparative genre of great fillies and mares vs. great colts and horses, the laundry list of female failures is startling -- so startling that any measured success has to be given the utmost respect, including Rachel Alexandra's existing wins against fellow 3-year-olds in the Preakness and Haskell.

Make not mistake: Rachel Alexandra's place in the pantheon of filly and mare greatness should already be secured, even if she never beats older males, even average ones. When you look at the top distaffers of the past 30 years, you'll see the roadside littered with losses to non-descript males. I set out on a journey to uncover the common nature of great ladies outrunning great gents in the Sport of Kings. But what I found was that the handful of really memorable success stories was monsooned by so many lost memories of lost races.

Case in point: Many racetrackers remember the super mare Lady's Secret and her triumph in the 1986 Whitney Handicap at Saratoga. But most have long forgotten that it was the first and only time she'd beat males, losing all six other attempts, not to mention the never-will-be names that chased her home at the Spa (Ends Well, Fuzzy et al) and the fact that a sloppy track helped carry her tremendous early speed.

Genuine Risk burned her name into the all-time consciousness of horse racing fans with a victory in the 1980 Kentucky Derby, and the timing proved to be everything for her in terms of historical remembrance. While she wore the roses, few recall that Genuine Risk was just 1-for-4 against the boys, losing the Wood, Preakness and Belmont. Turn it around with a win in one of the other races and a Derby loss, and her legacy certainly changes, right or wrong.

The 1980s, indeed, were high times for the distaff set in horse racing. Winning Colors also took down a Derby in that decade, but she was even-steven against the boys in her career at 2-for-4, beaten some 41 lengths in the Belmont when finishing last.

The top fillies and mares of the 1990s also took their tea with a few lumps when facing the boys. Unbeaten champion Meadow Star boasted a 9-for-9 mark heading into the 1990 Wood Memorial and left with a 10-length drubbing; Silverbulletday failed miserably in her attempt to extend herself in the 1999 Belmont Stakes, also beaten more than 10 lengths; the legendary west coast mare Paseana saw her seven-race win streak go up in smoke when beating only two horses in the 1992 Pacific Classic; and her predecessor/stablemate Bayakoa dropped both attempts against the boys in 1990, a last-of-10 effort in the Santa Anita Handicap and a distant runner-up as the odds-on choice in the Grade 3 San Diego Handicap.

More recently, this decade's preeminent mare, Azeri, failed to light the board in two attempts against the boys, finishing out of the money in both the Grade 1 Metropolitan Mile and Breeders' Cup Classic.

And if you want to make the argument that horses just aren't made like they used to be, let us not forget that the golden era of the 1970s saw some of its leading ladies suffer similar outcomes. Susan's Girl won 29 times, 6 of those in Grade 1 stakes, but was a horrific 0-for-6 against the boys; Davona Dale was 0-for-2 against the boys, beaten some 28 lengths in the Travers; and Shuvee may be best remembered as a 2-time Jockey Club Gold Cup winner, but she lost all 6 other tries against the opposite sex and twice failed to hit the board in the 1970-'71 Woodward renewals.

These are not random examples, but rather a strong sampling of the biggest-named fillies and mares to race down any pike in the past four decades. No matter what your take is on Rachel Alexandra or the quality of this year's 3-year-old crop, the filly's two victories over the boys this year already have put her in a rare air. If she goes on to win the Woodward against supposedly weak competition, it won't be any softer than Personal Ensign's scant two challengers in the 1989 Whitney, consisting of a seven-pound weight break against sprinters Gulch and King's Swan.

History doesn't care about weight breaks and who you beat. We remember those horses who do things outside the box. When you accomplish something that Susan's Girl, Davona Dale, Bayakoa, Paseana, Silverbulletday and Azeri couldn't do, that's special. For that, Rachel Alexandra's Preakness and Haskell performances already have her among the game's all-time greatest ladies.

If Rachel Alexandra succeeds in Saturday's Woodward, my research tells me we need to drop the word "ladies" from the previous sentence. Like we stated from the get-go, it's not easy being great. This filly will have earned every ounce of adoration.

[Sightseek]

Azeri could have beaten Graded Stakes males - she just was either put on the wrong track to attempt to do so or went up against the likes of Ghostzapper.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Azeri could have beaten Graded Stakes males - she just was either put on the wrong track to attempt to do so or went up against the likes of Ghostzapper.

Azeri would be odds on in this edition of the Woodward.
Not taking anything away from RA. If she wins it will be a feather in her cap. But i still maintain that running any horse in any race where you are 1/2 on the morning line isnt a real stretch.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Azeri would be odds on in this edition of the Woodward.
Not taking anything away from RA. If she wins it will be a feather in her cap. But i still maintain that running any horse in any race where you are 1/2 on the morning line isnt a real stretch.

Exactly. That article is ok but it's misleading. Winning this race and winning the two that she won against the boys don't make her great. They make her memorable. Winning Colors might have been only 2-4 against the boys but I'd take her third in the Preakness and stack it up with Rachel's winning the Preakness any day. Her nose loss to Personal Ensign means more to me than beating average older males. The competition you face matters.

[Gander]

I dont see what the morning line odds matter one bit. First thing is that its only one person's opinion and second thing is the amount of money that will be bet on Rachel purely because of her notoriety is insane. If you were to analyze this race strictly on numbers and data, and assigned letters to each horse instead of names and "reputations", she would be a lot higher than the probable 2/5 she will be sent off at. She would probably be in the neighborhood of even money or 6/5 if you took the names away.

Why would a horse be great or not great based on the morning line odds? Or even the actual odds for that matter? Is it her fault she has this huge following and this race just happens to occur at Saratoga, a place where the pools are already huge and filled with money from people who only bet a couple times per year?

I mean would she be great if she was the more appropriate 6/5 in this spot, beating these same horses?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Gander

I dont see what the morning line odds matter one bit. First thing is that its only one person's opinion and second thing is the amount of money that will be bet on Rachel purely because of her notoriety is insane. If you were to analyze this race strictly on numbers and data, and assigned letters to each horse instead of names and "reputations", she would be a lot higher than the probable 2/5 she will be sent off at. She would probably be in the neighborhood of even money or 6/5 if you took the names away.

Why would a horse be great or not great based on the morning line odds? Or even the actual odds for that matter? Is it her fault she has this huge following and this race just happens to occur at Saratoga, a place where the pools are already huge and filled with money from people who only bet a couple times per year?

I mean would she be great if she was the more appropriate 6/5 in this spot, beating these same horses?

It has nothing to do with her "greatness" or any measure of it. It has to do with the fact that she is an overwhelming fav over the field she is facing. Running a overwhelming fav doesnt make you bold in my opinion. It makes you smart. This is a pretty logical spot for her as was the Haskell. The fact that it is against males is interesting and a bit historic but come on, this isnt like taking on Mike Tyson his his prime.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It has nothing to do with her "greatness" or any measure of it. It has to do with the fact that she is an overwhelming fav over the field she is facing. Running a overwhelming fav doesnt make you bold in my opinion. It makes you smart. This is a pretty logical spot for her as was the Haskell. The fact that it is against males is interesting and a bit historic but come on, this isnt like taking on Mike Tyson his his prime.

Here's an example of taking a risk: In 1990, Bayakoa, having already won a BC Distaff and Eclipse award and already assured of another Eclipse, was supplemented to the race again and shipped all the way across country to face 3/5 favorite Go for Wand on that one's home track. That's bold. Running a horse that's an overwhelming favorite, whether it's 1/2 or 6/5, is not bold.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It has nothing to do with her "greatness" or any measure of it. It has to do with the fact that she is an overwhelming fav over the field she is facing. Running a overwhelming fav doesnt make you bold in my opinion. It makes you smart. This is a pretty logical spot for her as was the Haskell. The fact that it is against males is interesting and a bit historic but come on, this isnt like taking on Mike Tyson his his prime.

Chuck nothing has been logical in her campaign. They bought a filly for a pile of money. Instead of keeping her in company that brought her to a race that she whipped the KY Derby winner, Santa Deby winner running by far the toughest race. Then they go back to the girls were she is suppose to race and she crushes albeit zero but she crushes. Then off to the HASKELL and when has this been the logical next step for the Oak's and Goose winner? She beats the Belmont winner who comes back to validate his Grade 1 abilty with a strong winning run in the Travers. So back to her logical campaign after the Haskell they prep a 3 year old filly to race against older handicapped horse. UHM how the F is that logical? You are confussing logic from giving your superstar every opportunity to do what very few of her breed have ever attempted nevermind succeeded at. You want to suggest that you feel that as a horseman and given your take on Rachel's abilty that you feel she will have no problem handling older handicap horses and that while this is rare it speaks to both her immense abilty and the subpar nature of the current handicap division fine , but logical NO that simply is a very poor characterization.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It has nothing to do with her "greatness" or any measure of it. It has to do with the fact that she is an overwhelming fav over the field she is facing. Running a overwhelming fav doesnt make you bold in my opinion. It makes you smart. This is a pretty logical spot for her as was the Haskell. The fact that it is against males is interesting and a bit historic but come on, this isnt like taking on Mike Tyson his his prime.

Aside from running on the turf or Synthetic, what dirt race is out there right now that RA wouldn't be an overwhelming favorite?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Azeri would be odds on in this edition of the Woodward.
Not taking anything away from RA. If she wins it will be a feather in her cap. But i still maintain that running any horse in any race where you are 1/2 on the morning line isnt a real stretch.

This is so bizzarre what do the odds have to do with anything. In what race on dirt would Rachel be more then 4/5??? Name the field at 9's?