Jerry Brown's letter to TDN on HOY discussion

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Actually, it's just the opposite. I don't think anyone in Zenyatta's camp is advocating that people throw out her three Grade I wins. They are using the fact that she won three other Grade Is to assert that she wasn't the "one-hit wonder" that many of those in the Rachel camp would try to make Zenyatta out to be.

Are you calling her competition in those 3 races grade 1 caliber??? Come on now those races were grade 1 in name only contested against horses that would be 40k claimers in NY.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Are you calling her competition in those 3 races grade 1 caliber??? Come on now those races were grade 1 in name only contested against horses that would be 40k claimers in NY.

This argument can be made both ways. Or haven't you seen how Macho Again and Bullsbay have raced after the Woodward. I'm not looking for a long winded reply because this will turn into a merry go round exchange that has been said many times over this week...month, I'm just saying that argument can be made both ways.

[kgar311]

Originally Posted by CSC

This argument can be made both ways. Or haven't you seen how Macho Again and Bullsbay have raced after the Woodward. I'm not looking for a long winded reply because this will turn into a merry go round exchange that has been said many times over this week...month, I'm just saying that argument can be made both ways.

you are right and its a damn shame that sh*t plastic made a champ like Curlin look like a 40 claimer. Its a travesty. Dirt is the bar not plastic

[Smooth Operator]

Originally Posted by kgar311

you are right and its a damn shame that sh*t plastic made a champ like Curlin look like a 40 claimer. Its a travesty. Dirt is the bar not plastic

You must be joking, kgar311 … the surface had nothing to do with Curlin getting exposed, imo.

He was the Winstrol "champ" … the Barry Bonds of horses, if you will.

Never had that same acceleration after the 'roid influence waned in spring of '08.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by kgar311

Are you calling her competition in those 3 races grade 1 caliber??? Come on now those races were grade 1 in name only contested against horses that would be 40k claimers in NY.

No, but it often happens that a "big horse" scares the opposition away. It's why I've never thought that the idea of post-race grading had any merit. If Zenyatta had been NY-based and she defeated less than stellar fields in races like the Phipps, Go For Wand and Beldame, I don't think she would have been knocked as much.

If you're going to knock the quality of the fillies that Zenyatta beat, it's not like the Kentucky Oaks was a "Grade I" field this year either, and the trip that Rachel got in the Mother Goose while the other two fillies needlessly dueled each other into defeat (with a 44 and change half) could not have been any better. Rachel beat historically weak fields in the Preakness and Woodward. Her Haskell was very impressive.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

If you're going to knock the quality of the fillies that Zenyatta beat, it's not like the Kentucky Oaks was a "Grade I" field this year either, and the trip that Rachel got in the Mother Goose while the other two fillies needlessly dueled each other into defeat (with a 44 and change half) could not have been any better. Rachel beat historically weak fields in the Preakness and Woodward. Her Haskell was very impressive.

You know why she ran in the Ky Oaks and it wasn't her fault that the chief competition was scratched on the morning of the race. It's not like Justwhistledixie was even going to put a scare into her that day. The filly she happened to bury on the lead did come back and win a Grade I the following month too.

It was definitely Rachel's trip that got the job done in the Mother Goose too. She wouldn't have ever caught those two if they went :47 and change.

A historically weak running of the Woodward? Have you looked at who ran behind Curlin and Lawyer Ron in 2008 and 2007 or looked at the 2006 field recently?

NT

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

You know why she ran in the Ky Oaks and it wasn't her fault that the chief competition was scratched on the morning of the race. It's not like Justwhistledixie was even going to put a scare into her that day. The filly she happened to bury on the lead did come back and win a Grade I the following month too.

It was definitely Rachel's trip that got the job done in the Mother Goose too. She wouldn't have ever caught those two if they went :47 and change.

A historically weak running of the Woodward? Have you looked at who ran behind Curlin and Lawyer Ron in 2008 and 2007 or looked at the 2006 field recently?

The issue was the level of her competition. If you want to argue that Rachel beat a "Grade I" field in the Oaks, be my guest. I think you know better than that. (To use the Acorn winner to somehow justify the quality of the Oaks field is not a strong argument, IMO. The Acorn was not a good field this year, and the winner took advantage of a rail bias to beat a very suspect bunch of fillies.)

I didn't say Rachel won because of the trip in the Mother Goose. But those two other fillies collapsing before the top of the stretch due to their duel likely exaggerated the final margin of victory.

Yes, this was a historically weak edition of the Woodward, largely due to a weak older male division. Unfortunately, that's been the case in recent times. But history did not start in 2006.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

The issue was the level of her competition. If you want to argue that Rachel beat a "Grade I" field in the Oaks, be my guest. I think you know better than that. (To use the Acorn winner to somehow justify the quality of the Oaks field is not a strong argument, IMO. The Acorn was not a good field this year, and the winner took advantage of a rail bias to beat a very suspect bunch of fillies.)

I didn't say Rachel won because of the trip in the Mother Goose. But those two other fillies collapsing before the top of the stretch due to their duel likely exaggerated the final margin of victory.

Yes, this was a historically weak edition of the Woodward, largely due to a weak older male division. Unfortunately, that's been the case in recent times. But history did not start in 2006.

So Rachel gets questioned for being the first filly ever to win the Woodward because of the field quality but Zenyatta is heroic because she was the first filly to win the BC Classic, quality of field be damned?

I don't really like the who did they beat argument because it takes away from the historical significance of both and the thing is they both did tremendous things historically. I think it's safe to say that history is going to treat both of them very, very well.

What seals it in my opinion is the quality of the campaign, the year, etc. That's where the scale starts to get tilted in one direction in my opinion.

NT

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

So Rachel gets questioned for being the first filly ever to win the Woodward because of the field quality but Zenyatta is heroic because she was the first filly to win the BC Classic, quality of field be damned?

Neither the Woodward nor the Classic was a great field, historically speaking. But I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that the quality of the 2009 Classic was significantly better than that of the 2009 Woodward.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I don't really like the who did they beat argument because it takes away from the historical significance of both and the thing is they both did tremendous things historically. I think it's safe to say that history is going to treat both of them very, very well.

I agree with this completely.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

The issue was the level of her competition. If you want to argue that Rachel beat a "Grade I" field in the Oaks, be my guest. I think you know better than that. (To use the Acorn winner to somehow justify the quality of the Oaks field is not a strong argument, IMO. The Acorn was not a good field this year, and the winner took advantage of a rail bias to beat a very suspect bunch of fillies.)

I didn't say Rachel won because of the trip in the Mother Goose. But those two other fillies collapsing before the top of the stretch due to their duel likely exaggerated the final margin of victory.

Yes, this was a historically weak edition of the Woodward, largely due to a weak older male division. Unfortunately, that's been the case in recent times. But history did not start in 2006.

If you are a great horse, you are supposed to beat a weak field by open lengths. the KY Oaks and the Mother Goose were both weak fields? I forget, Rachel only won them by a nose right?

Geez Loise she shattered records in the Mother Goose.. It was her against the timer, and she kicked the timers butt!

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Geez Loise she shattered records in the Mother Goose.. It was her against the timer, and she kicked the timers butt!

What records (plural, your term) did she "shatter" in the Mother Goose? From what I can tell see, she ran 1:46.33, besting Lakeway's prior stakes record of 1:46.2. Hardly shattering. And let's keep in mind that the Belmont surface that afternoon was lightning fast. Pretty weak 7,500 claimers ran 6F in 1:09.2, and an off-the-turf maiden race saw 6F completed in 1:08.3. As Birdrun recently established at the Belmont Fall meeting, the track more often than not establishes records than the horses.

[Travis Stone]

The debate continues, yet everyone refuses to bring dynamics into play when talking about the Woodward. It's making my head hurt. I don't care if she beat Macho Again by a whisker's whisker... the dynamics of the race were piled against her as high as you can pile them, and she still won.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

The debate continues, yet everyone refuses to bring dynamics into play when talking about the Woodward. It's making my head hurt. I don't care if she beat Macho Again by a whisker's whisker... the dynamics of the race were piled against her as high as you can pile them, and she still won.

Yes, but by only a desparate head. One can say the same thing about Zenyatta's Classic, the race was hardly made for a deep closer to win especially with the loss of a pace prescence moments before the start of the race and she did it with more authority and against a much deeper field quality wise than RA did. If HOY was solely based on who is the superior horse, Zenyatta should win, Rachel is a fine filly in her own right but competition does matter and given both had to overcome some sort adversity in both races. How can anyone say Zenyatta wasn't more impressive.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by CSC

Yes, but by only a desparate head. One can say the same thing about Zenyatta's Classic, the race was hardly made for a deep closer to win especially with the loss of a pace prescence moments before the start of the race and she did it with more authority and against a much deeper field quality wise than RA did. If HOY was solely based on who is the superior horse, Zenyatta should win, Rachel is a fine filly in her own right but competition does matter and given both had to overcome some sort adversity in both races. How can anyone say Zenyatta wasn't more impressive.

So the fractions and race flow didn't matter because Quality Road got scratched? Wow.

The fact of the matter is that Zenyatta had a TERRIFIC trip in the Classic. The fact that Smith negotiated those tight spots with that heffer without getting into any trouble is nothing short of amazing. The pace completely collapsed in front of her, but I guess you and Trevor Denman are the only people who thought she needed to be a "superhorse" to win from four lengths out on a track that favored closers in a race that was falling apart.

Zenyatta did some terrific things and ran against the race flow repeatedly in her career, but she did not do so in the Classic. Not in any way, shape or form.

NT

[CSC]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

The fact of the matter is that Zenyatta had a TERRIFIC trip in the Classic. The fact that Smith negotiated those tight spots with that heffer without getting into any trouble is nothing short of amazing. The pace completely collapsed in front of her, but I guess you and Trevor Denman are the only people who thought she needed to be a "superhorse" to win from four lengths out on a track that favored closers in a race that was falling apart.

Zenyatta did some terrific things and ran against the race flow repeatedly in her career, but she did not do so in the Classic. Not in any way, shape or form.

NT

Yes, she did have a nice trip, by staying on the rail until Smith let her out. but let's not confuse this into a 'Giacomo' random result. The pace was not super fast and she did it with authority. I think alot of people just like to look at that inside - outside move as the only reason she won. It couldn't be further from the case, I never was a fan of hers till this race but one thing I can do is recognize an extraordinary performance as she had that day. She never asked for my respect as a racefan but she earned it that day.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by CSC

Yes, but by only a desparate head. One can say the same thing about Zenyatta's Classic, the race was hardly made for a deep closer to win especially with the loss of a pace prescence moments before the start of the race and she did it with more authority and against a much deeper field quality wise than RA did. If HOY was solely based on who is the superior horse, Zenyatta should win, Rachel is a fine filly in her own right but competition does matter and given both had to overcome some sort adversity in both races. How can anyone say Zenyatta wasn't more impressive.

I can.

Rachel was incredibly impressive time after time after time. Zenyatta was incredibly impressive once.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

The debate continues, yet everyone refuses to bring dynamics into play when talking about the Woodward. It's making my head hurt. I don't care if she beat Macho Again by a whisker's whisker... the dynamics of the race were piled against her as high as you can pile them, and she still won.

I've posted on this before. Speaking in the historical perspective of two turn Grade I races at Saratoga (Whitney and Woodward), the internal fractions of the Woodward were not that fast. They were average, at best, for a Grade I race at 9F.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I've posted on this before. Speaking in the historical perspective of two turn Grade I races at Saratoga (Whitney and Woodward), the internal fractions of the Woodward were not that fast. They were average, at best, for a Grade I race at 9F.

Originally Posted by Cardus

It's making my head hurt that people do not understand the above.

Based upon Moss pace figures, the pace of the Woodward was one of the faster routes of the year. But the kicker is she was a 3-year-old filly facing elders! That's pretty remarkable. Furthermore, in the two of the faster races to the standard route pace call, she was a winner...



Above that, pace dynamics, race shapes and flow aren't just about the fractions. It's about pressure... which was there non-stop. She wilted the competition in the Woodward. Say what you want about Macho Again and his inconsequential future starts, but he was a quality race horse at Saratoga and in good form, yet he still couldn't catch her.



I will certainly give credit where credit is due, and Zenyatta overcame some pretty insane pace scenarios in her wins this year. Many of her races were very slow early. The question there is who you are running down. Running down a weak horse with a slow pace is a lot easier than holding off a quality horse with a fast pace, in my opinion.

For the record, the Classic was very similar to last year... as Per Moss...

And Zenyatta’s mad dash through the stretch in the Classic came after a pace that was not substantially quicker than the 2008 running.

Par: 56-66-81-91/97
Classic ’09 (Zenyatta): 52-63-77-89/97
Classic ’08 (Raven’s Pass): 53-61-73-87/96
Santa Anita Hcp ’09 (Einstein): 46-61-72-86/94

But I'm not about criticizing the abilities of either. I recognize both as pretty special. The arguments people are attempting to make to dispel Rachel Alexandra's year-long domination of horse racing, however, does not trump the big win for Zenyatta, in my opinion.

Using comparative handicapping and conditional results such as "If she beat him, then he should beat her and him while they beat the others" is baseless. Arguments about overall career records "need not apply." Speed figures? They don't count... two different surfaces. The fact Rachel Alexandra skipped the Classic? How is it fair to criticize synthetics in everyday handicapping but when someone uses the surface to dictate a decision, it's suddenly not?

Horse of the Year is not about who would beat whom. Does anyone think Favorite Trick would have beat Skip Away? Of course not. Horse of the Year is about recognizing the body of work for the year. And in my opinion, and it's unfortunate because truthfully, and ultimately, Zenyatta probably wins her fair share of head-to-head match-ups against Rachel, the body of work Rachel Alexandra put out this year was a notch or two better.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Above that, pace dynamics, race shapes and flow aren't just about the fractions. It's about pressure... which was there non-stop. She wilted the competition in the Woodward. Say what you want about Macho Again and his inconsequential future starts, but he was a quality race horse at Saratoga and in good form, yet he still couldn't catch her.

Rachel ran a very gutsy race in the Woodward, and it was an awesome experience to be at Saratoga that afternoon. But let's not make the performance more than it was. To say that she "wilted" the competition is a gross overstatement. Da' Tara was eased in his race prior to the Woodward (was he wilted that afternoon by Le Grand Cru), so to use his result as evidence of the strength of the pace is not compelling. The only other forwardly-placed horse in the race was Past the Point who, as evidenced by his subsequent effort in the Bold Ruler, is clearly not the same horse that took Curlin to the wire in the 2008 Woodward.