Jerry Brown's letter to TDN on HOY discussion

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

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.

So the horses on the pace were bad, which means she should have set a very fast pace and buried them. Then the horses who were closing are also bad so she should have been able to hold them off easily.

Those are high expectations for a 3YO filly who had been tested on multiple occasions and was facing older horses for the first time.

NT

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

So the horses on the pace were bad, which means she should have set a very fast pace and buried them. Then the horses who were closing are also bad so she should have been able to hold them off easily.

Those are high expectations for a 3YO filly who had been tested on multiple occasions and was facing older horses for the first time.

Just so words aren't put in my mouth, I'll give you my recap of the race: Rachel set a rapid (not suicidal, as has been described) pace. Calvin chose to put her on the pace and out in the 2-3 path rather than taking back and getting boxed (as many people before the race thought Past the Point was likely to be a "dead send" from the outside post, as he was in last year's Woodward, and if Borel rated, Rachel could end up a marked horse like Ginger Punch was in the 2008 Go For Wand). She faced steady pressure to her inside from a weak race horse in Da' Tara for about five furlongs. When Da' Tara gave way, Rachel was hounded by Past the Point, but hard, head-to-head pressure from that rival never materialized. She shook loose on the turn and held off a determined challenge from an in-form closer in Macho Again (no world beater, but a legitimate Grade II type) under steady pressure in a very gutsy effort.

She was clearly the best horse in the Woodward, as she was in all her races this year and is a future Hall of Famer, but the attempts by some to elevate the Woodward performance to some kind of other-worldly performance, IMO, are wrong. Efforts of that caliber in this race belong to horses such as Holy Bull, Formal Gold and Ghostzapper. When trying to compare great performances in an historic race, I don't think "for a filly" is the standard. (And just so no one thinks I'm Rachel-bashing, while Zenyatta's win in the Classic was an outstanding performance by a terrific mare, it pales in comparison to the Breeders' Cup Classic performances of horses like Ghostzapper, Ferdinand, Sunday Silence, Awesome Again and the 3YO Tiznow.)

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Just so words aren't put in my mouth, I'll give you my recap of the race: Rachel set a rapid (not suicidal, as has been described) pace. Calvin chose to put her on the pace and out in the 2-3 path rather than taking back and getting boxed (as many people before the race thought Past the Point was likely to be a "dead send" from the outside post, as he was in last year's Woodward, and if Borel rated, Rachel could end up a marked horse like Ginger Punch was in the 2008 Go For Wand). She faced steady pressure to her inside from a weak race horse in Da' Tara for about five furlongs. When Da' Tara gave way, Rachel was hounded by Past the Point, but hard, head-to-head pressure from that rival never materialized. She shook loose on the turn and held off a determined challenge from an in-form closer in Macho Again (no world beater, but a legitimate Grade II type) under steady pressure in a very gutsy effort.

She was clearly the best horse in the Woodward, as she was in all her races this year and is a future Hall of Famer, but the attempts by some to elevate the Woodward performance to some kind of other-worldly performance, IMO, are wrong. Efforts of that caliber in this race belong to horses such as Holy Bull, Formal Gold and Ghostzapper. When trying to compare great performances in an historic race, I don't think "for a filly" is the standard. (And just so no one thinks I'm Rachel-bashing, while Zenyatta's win in the Classic was an outstanding performance by a terrific mare, it pales in comparison to the Breeders' Cup Classic performances of horses like Ghostzapper, Ferdinand, Sunday Silence, Awesome Again and the 3YO Tiznow.)

Agree with most of these thoughts.. 1 question name any horse that ran this year that could have successfully navigated the Wood described above? Name the horse that was capable of running the Preakness or Haskel she ran? IMO there isn't a horse that could have accomplished what she did. Zenyatta's race is always going to difficult to judge because it was on rubber.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Agree with most of these thoughts.. 1 question name any horse that ran this year that could have successfully navigated the Wood described above? Name the horse that was capable of running the Preakness or Haskel she ran? IMO there isn't a horse that could have accomplished what she did. Zenyatta's race is always going to difficult to judge because it was on rubber.

Probably none, which is reflective of racing in 2009.

I think several of the horses that I previously listed above would have won either the Preakness or Woodward more impressively, had they contested that sort of race with similar pace dynamics and similar quality of opponents. While I think Rachel had several things in her favor in the Haskell, her performance in that race is now pretty hard to knock.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Probably none, which is reflective of racing in 2009.

I think several of the horses that I previously listed above would have won either the Preakness or Woodward more impressively, had they contested that sort of race with similar pace dynamics and similar quality of opponents. While I think Rachel had several things in her favor in the Haskell, her performance in that race is now pretty hard to knock.

So the best (fastest, game etc) races were run by the same horse that being Rachel Hence it is crystal clear she is HoY at least in 2009.. Again that doesnt mean she is better then Zenyatta..that is a question that we will never have a definative answer too.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by freddymo

So the best (fastest, game etc) races were run by the same horse that being Rachel Hence it is crystal clear she is HoY at least in 2009.. Again that doesnt mean she is better then Zenyatta..that is a question that we will never have a definative answer too.

Not so fast, my friend. The question was whether any other horse in training in 2009 could have navigated the Woodward or Preakness in the same fashion as Rachel did. That does not mean she should be horse of the year.

Now my turn for one question: in light of the Breeders' Cup Classic result, do you believe that if Zenyatta had been the horse coming after Rachel in the Woodward, as opposed to Macho Again, that Rachel still would have won the race?

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Now my turn for one question: in light of the Breeders' Cup Classic result, do you believe that if Zenyatta had been the horse coming after Rachel in the Woodward, as opposed to Macho Again, that Rachel still would have won the race?

I'll take the bait knowing the what-if game shouldn't factor on a Horse of the Year vote...

It depends if Zenyatta's dirt form is of the 109-110 variety... her only dirt start was not. That said, she would probably be closing late for sure.

But, it wasn't her... she was waiting to beat-up the same ole's in the Lady's Secret. She could have made this whole thread a moot point by running in the Pacific Classic instead.

In a typical year, what she did would be a-okay - a few easy starts before winning the Classic - and she'd have the trophy. But this was not a typical year because of the score Rachel Alexandra posted. Rachel posted 5-under par, and while Zenyatta finished with an eagle, she was a stroke short.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Not so fast, my friend. The question was whether any other horse in training in 2009 could have navigated the Woodward or Preakness in the same fashion as Rachel did. That does not mean she should be horse of the year.

Now my turn for one question: in light of the Breeders' Cup Classic result, do you believe that if Zenyatta had been the horse coming after Rachel in the Woodward, as opposed to Macho Again, that Rachel still would have won the race?

Clearly the best races were Rachel's in 2009. HoY is based on accomplishments not on subjective opinions of who is better.. Shoot, the best horse in 2009 wouldnt have had to race then..Rail Trip might be the most talented horse of 2009..I dont think he is but couldnt I argue with Ron Ellis if he told me Rail trip would kick all there butts?

As for your question I can only speculate..Zenyatta ran once on dirt again i would yield to the subjective Sherriffs as he is probably the only one who thinks he knows with any true reality!

I am not sure if she would have beatin Rachel in the Woodward.. Gun to my head I think Rachel would be lost the Woodward to Zenyatta..Shame Zenyatta wasn't there...

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Just so words aren't put in my mouth, I'll give you my recap of the race: Rachel set a rapid (not suicidal, as has been described) pace. Calvin chose to put her on the pace and out in the 2-3 path rather than taking back and getting boxed (as many people before the race thought Past the Point was likely to be a "dead send" from the outside post, as he was in last year's Woodward, and if Borel rated, Rachel could end up a marked horse like Ginger Punch was in the 2008 Go For Wand). She faced steady pressure to her inside from a weak race horse in Da' Tara for about five furlongs. When Da' Tara gave way, Rachel was hounded by Past the Point, but hard, head-to-head pressure from that rival never materialized. She shook loose on the turn and held off a determined challenge from an in-form closer in Macho Again (no world beater, but a legitimate Grade II type) under steady pressure in a very gutsy effort.

She was clearly the best horse in the Woodward, as she was in all her races this year and is a future Hall of Famer, but the attempts by some to elevate the Woodward performance to some kind of other-worldly performance, IMO, are wrong. Efforts of that caliber in this race belong to horses such as Holy Bull, Formal Gold and Ghostzapper. When trying to compare great performances in an historic race, I don't think "for a filly" is the standard. (And just so no one thinks I'm Rachel-bashing, while Zenyatta's win in the Classic was an outstanding performance by a terrific mare, it pales in comparison to the Breeders' Cup Classic performances of horses like Ghostzapper, Ferdinand, Sunday Silence, Awesome Again and the 3YO Tiznow.)

I appreciate this response because it has a lot of valid statements and is not just throwing a blanket over the debate like so many seem to be doing.

You bring up a lot of fair points... I still disagree a bit on the setup she received in the Wood, I don't think she was really given any breathers... they each took a shot, one-by-one, and failed.

As for the Formal Gold's of the world... well, truthfully, those type horses seem to be long gone. So, it's a tough comparison. Honestly, I think Zenyatta pales in comparison to that group as well. I think that's a reflection on the changing state of the game and not a negative reflection on her win.

The best horses in racing used to run 115-120... now it's 108-113 or so... it's a changing game.

The point of my initial post today was that ultimately, in the end, Rachel did more, the Woodward being one positive notch amongst many.