I need to listen to ATR more often

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You are seriously trying to compare these two situations?

If you notice PE's 2nd season of running after she had a ton of screws placed in her leg, lasted from Sept 6 to Oct 18th in which she managed to squeeze in 4 races.

Her 4 year old season she won 2 grade 1's at Belmont, went to Monmouth then traveled to Saratoga to run in a grade 1 against colts in the slop, knocked out 2 more grade 1's at Belmont in the fall (you might remember when the Belmont fall meeting was important?) and concluded the year and her career in the mud at CD.

I'm just playing the devil's advocate. Out of Personal Ensign's 13 lifetime races, 10 of them were at Belmont and she never travelled out to the west coast.

I didn't hear people complaining that practically all her races were at Belmont.

The truth of the matter is, it is silly to knock either one of them.

In Zenyatta's 5 year old season she won 5 grade 1's including the BC Classic against the boys. This year she went to Oaklawn and won a grade 1 there. She has now won 8 grade 1's in a row.

[ateamstupid]

Davidowitz: "Personal Ensign ran down Winning Colors who was running her eyeballs out, just like Zenyatta ran down St Trinians who was running her eyeballs out."




I obviously respect his opinion, but his lack of perspective in this discussion is incredible.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I don't know if it's relevant to this discussion but here is an article about Zenyatta and Beyer numbers:

http://drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=113943

[ateamstupid]

Also, "I'm not putting a crown on her head." What? Didn't you just say she's better than Personal Ensign and Bayakoa? You also managed to mention her in the same breath as Secretariat, Picasso and Rembrandt before Byk got a word in. If that's not you crowning something, I don't think I want to know your idea of a coronation.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Also, "I'm not putting a crown on her head." What? Didn't you just say she's better than Personal Ensign and Bayakoa? You also managed to mention her in the same breath as Secretariat, Picasso and Rembrandt before Byk got a word in. If that's not you crowning something, I don't think I want to know your idea of a coronation.

Now you're just talking about semantics. If a guy says that he thinks a horse is "one of the all-time greats", is that putting a crown on the horse's head? I don't know the answer to that. The guy is just giving his opinion. I don't know if I would define that as "putting a crown on her head".

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Now you're just talking about semantics. If a guy says that he thinks a horse is "one of the all-time greats", is that putting a crown on the horse's head? I don't know the answer to that. The guy is just giving his opinion. I don't know if I would define that as "putting a crown on her head".

Sounds like you're the one arguing semantics. The point is, he bestowed extreme praise on her and then backed off by saying he's not crowning her. Both ways it can't be.

And yes, he lacks perspective when he aligns the achievements of Personal Ensign and Zenyatta the way he does. What Zenyatta did against St Trinians, while impressive, is absolutely irrelevant to what PE did against Winning Colors, because their competition were in two completely different classes of animal.

See, this is the problem with Zenyatta freaks. They like comparing her to the great racemares of the past, and their justification for doing so is her record and her running style. But record and running style are next to meaningless if you're beating up on ordinary horses 95% of the time. And yes, ST is an ordinary horse, I don't care what the toteboard in the Big Cap said.

It's also a problem with racing fans in general, the constant impulse to compare horses of the present to horses of the past, and it's usually unfair to the horse of the present. Instead of everyone appreciating Zenyatta for what she is, a very good mare with a beautiful and admirable will to win, rational racing fans are inundated with comparisons to Cigar and Citation and Personal Ensign and Secretariat and Picasso and Rembrandt. It's tiresome and unnecessary. Why is there such a rush to measure up the stars of today against the ghosts of the past while horses like Zenyatta are still writing their own stories?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Sounds like you're the one arguing semantics. The point is, he bestowed extreme praise on her and then backed off by saying he's not crowning her. Both ways it can't be.

And yes, he lacks perspective when he aligns the achievements of Personal Ensign and Zenyatta the way he does. What Zenyatta did against St Trinians, while impressive, is absolutely irrelevant to what PE did against Winning Colors, because their competition were in two completely different classes of animal.

See, this is the problem with Zenyatta freaks. They like comparing her to the great racemares of the past, and their justification for doing so is her record and her running style. But record and running style are next to meaningless if you're beating up on ordinary horses 95% of the time. And yes, ST is an ordinary horse, I don't care what the toteboard in the Big Cap said.

It's also a problem with racing fans in general, the constant impulse to compare horses of the present to horses of the past, and it's usually unfair to the horse of the present. Instead of everyone appreciating Zenyatta for what she is, a very good mare with a beautiful and admirable will to win, rational racing fans are inundated with comparisons to Cigar and Citation and Personal Ensign and Secretariat and Picasso and Rembrandt. It's tiresome and unnecessary. Why is there such a rush to measure up the stars of today against the ghosts of the past while horses like Zenyatta are still writing their own stories?

Davidowitz only backed off when he was getting admonished for "anointing" Zenyatta. He was basically saying, "I'm not "anointing" her. I'm just giving my opinion." What's wrong with a guy giving his opinion, even if he is wrong. I think Davidowitz knows enough about the game to be able to give an opinion. His opinion is certainly an educated opinion whether you agree or disagree with him.

I agree with you that it is tough to compare current stars to past stars in any sport but people still like to try to do it. It makes for interesting conversation. Everyone has a different opinion.

There are people who are "positive" that Tiger Woods is better than Jack Nicklaus and there are others that are "sure" that Jack was better.

Any time someone (a person or a horse) keeps winning, the question will always come up as to how this person (or horse) would comapre to stars of the the past.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

It's also a problem with racing fans in general, the constant impulse to compare horses of the present to horses of the past, and it's usually unfair to the horse of the present. Instead of everyone appreciating Zenyatta for what she is, a very good mare with a beautiful and admirable will to win, rational racing fans are inundated with comparisons to Cigar and Citation and Personal Ensign and Secretariat and Picasso and Rembrandt. It's tiresome and unnecessary. Why is there such a rush to measure up the stars of today against the ghosts of the past while horses like Zenyatta are still writing their own stories?

You mean like the people last year (whether accurate or not is irrelevant if I understand your point) who were saying that Rachel was in the midst of the "greatest" campaign ever authored by a 3YO filly.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Davidowitz: "Personal Ensign ran down Winning Colors who was running her eyeballs out, just like Zenyatta ran down St Trinians who was running her eyeballs out."




I obviously respect his opinion, but his lack of perspective in this discussion is incredible.

I don't think he's lacking perspective at all. He's not saying that St Trinians is as good as Winning Colors. You obviously can't compare the two fillies. One of them won the Derby. The other is a grass/synthetic specialist.

When a filly wins the Derby, that obviously speaks for itself. Winning Colors was obviously a great filly. St Trinians can't be mentioned in the same breath as Winning Colors. But St Trinians does have a great turn of foot and she is a very tough filly on a synthetic track on her best day. She ran huge on Sunday. She was sprinting home that final 1/8th of a mile. She won't go down as an all-time great, but on her best day St Trininas can probably beat any filly or mare in the country right now (with the exception of Zenyatta) on a synthetic track. On Sunday, St Trinians was very hard to run down.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm just playing the devil's advocate. Out of Personal Ensign's 13 lifetime races, 10 of them were at Belmont and she never travelled out to the west coast.

I didn't hear people complaining that practically all her races were at Belmont.

The truth of the matter is, it is silly to knock either one of them.

In Zenyatta's 5 year old season she won 5 grade 1's including the BC Classic against the boys. This year she went to Oaklawn and won a grade 1 there. She has now won 8 grade 1's in a row.

Did PE ever run in the same race twice? It isnt silly to knock the schedule that Zenyatta's people have taken.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Did PE ever run in the same race twice? It isnt silly to knock the schedule that Zenyatta's people have taken.

Yes, she did. She ran in the Beldame twice.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, she did. She ran in the Beldame twice.

Shug just has no imagination...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Shug just has no imagination...

He has a great imagination. He just kept running her over and over again at Belmont. 10 out of her 13 lifetime races were at Belmont.

[Rupert Pupkin]

The truth of the matter is, there really aren't any great filly or mare dirt horses out there right now aside from Zenyatta or Rachel. So if Zenyatta did go back east again and beat up on some mediocre fillies, that wouldn't prove any more than what she's been proving out here. People knock her for beating up on the same mediocre fillies over and over again out here, but she won even easier when she went to Oaklawn.

Is there any filly (aside from Rachel) back east on the dirt that would give Zenyatta a tougher time than St Trinians? I highly doubt it. I think Zenyatta would win even easier back east on the dirt against fillies and she's already proven it twice.

Some of you will probably argue that she should be running against the boys. Why should she? She did it once and she's going to do it again in the BC Classic later this year. That will be twice in her career. How many times did Azeri run aganist the boys? How many times did Personal Ensign run against the boys. If a great mare runs against the boys a couple of times in their career, that is quite reasonable.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Some of you will probably argue that she should be running against the boys. Why should she? She did it once and she's going to do it again in the BC Classic later this year. That will be twice in her career. How many times did Azeri run aganist the boys? How many times did Personal Ensign run against the boys. If a great mare runs against the boys a couple of times in their career, that is quite reasonable.

More invocation of ghosts from the past. Why does it matter what Azeri or Personal Ensign did? It's irrelevant to this conversation. What is relevant is that Zenyatta has already proven, ad nauseum, that she's better than the older girls in California and Arkansas. What she's doing right now is accomplishing nothing new for her legacy other than another stupid notch in the winning streak. Don't trot her out to do the same thing against the same lousy horses over and over again and then complain when people bristle at her being called the greatest racemare in 30 years.

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The truth of the matter is, there really aren't any great filly or mare dirt horses out there right now aside from Zenyatta or Rachel. So if Zenyatta did go back east again and beat up on some mediocre fillies, that wouldn't prove any more than what she's been proving out here. People knock her for beating up on the same mediocre fillies over and over again out here, but she won even easier when she went to Oaklawn.

Is there any filly (aside from Rachel) back east on the dirt that would give Zenyatta a tougher time than St Trinians? I highly doubt it. I think Zenyatta would win even easier back east on the dirt against fillies and she's already proven it twice.

Some of you will probably argue that she should be running against the boys. Why should she? She did it once and she's going to do it again in the BC Classic later this year. That will be twice in her career. How many times did Azeri run aganist the boys? How many times did Personal Ensign run against the boys. If a great mare runs against the boys a couple of times in their career, that is quite reasonable.

you are right. what will they say if she(zenyatta) wins the classic again at churchill? not good enough......thats where those idiots ruined rachel they ran her against the boys over and over. zenyatta showed up ready to race in april...the other horse had to lower to garbage just to get a win and could not even think about racing zenyatta when she was supposed to for 5 million. so whose ducking who here? i 90 % think rachel won't be in the classic this year. as it is right now she has not a prayer of placing in it. she most likely would of lost at belmont saturday if she were entered in the ogden phipps. but , as usual, instead of reality you get the bone heads turning it into an argument about one or the other. they are both good horses, one continues to win and impress....the other has questions about soundness and fitness. who cares about horses in the past and comparing....can i bet crap like that in a race???....i doubt it. why even argue with these clowns. if you can't tell which horse was mismanaged for yourself than you are an idiot and probably lose all the time anyway. theres so many moron comments on here that i read them and gain betting confidence by doing so. waste your time and energy arguing about things that don't mean a thing. if people can't see which horse is better by now they are living in delusion land....let them bet and lose their money like they do most of the time. besides you are arguing over horses that go off 2-5 in every race anyway.

[Cannon Shell]

The problem in a nutshell is that after 17 races we are still dealing with conjecture. If she were to run against so and so on a dry dirt track....If she were to ship east....if, if, if....

[2 Dollar Bill]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The problem in a nutshell is that after 17 races we are still dealing with conjecture. If she were to run against so and so on a dry dirt track....If she were to ship east....if, if, if....

Didnt Bill P. say.... "" You are what your record is "" ?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by 2 Dollar Bill

Didnt Bill P. say.... "" You are what your record is "" ?

I don't think any of Parcells' teams were playing against the NAIA 90% of the time.

[PeteMugg]

Isn't hyperbole the crux of the matter?