ruffian and rachel

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by Linny

The reply that horse X beat the winners of... is pointless. Everyone likes to say, Big Brown beat the winners of the Travers and more etc. Well yeah, someone has to win in the absence of the "big horse." Someone had to win the big races after Ruffian was gone. Who knows or cares who won the Alabama run 66 weeks after Ruffian's death?

But it isn't pointless if the horses who finished behind Ruffian didn't go on to win the big races in the absence of Ruffian.

Winning Colors is rightfully appreciated for her win in the Derby. But who she beat in her other races, as well as the battles she gave to Personal Ensign in their two meetings, only enhance her reputation.

[King Glorious]

I just want to add that I'm not saying that Rachel isn't possibly the best one of them all. I personally don't rank her higher than fifth but wouldn't argue with anyone that wanted to rank her higher. She's in the convo at least. My main issue is with how the group of horses she's been facing have been called a group of goats and rats over and over but then all of a sudden, when she beats them, it's some great accomplishment. And after watching years and years of European racing and racing in every other part of the world where fillies beating males is not seen as a huge deal, I don't get excited about seeing it happen. I'm not a believer like some people are that older means better than younger or male means better than female. I've watched a 2yo win a grade one sprint in Europe against older horses. A fast horse is a fast horse is a fast horse, no matter the age or sex. I have mentioned Winning Colors and Personal Ensign a few times. People downgrade Winning Colors because she didn't win another race that year after the Derby. All wins, just like all losses, aren't equal. Her nose loss to Personal Ensign was at least the equal of Rachel's head win over Macho Again.