From the Thoroughbred Daily News - 11/13/09
A year ago this week, I was responsible for the purchase of a half-interest in a then relatively unknown two-year-old filly named Rachel Alexandra, an interest that was sold seven months later for an enormous profit. I say this to admit that what follows comes from a source that is not unbiased, but I will try to back up my opinion with some facts. For this comparison, I won\'t even be discussing ability, which is measurable (by me, for a living), but accomplishment, which is what an award like this should be based upon.
I understand that everyone is basking in the afterglow of seeing a great mare complete an undefeated career by beating males. But with all due respect to Bill Oppenheim and others, the idea that Zenyatta should get Horse Of The Year over Rachel Alexandra is just silly, when you actually compare their campaigns. When the voters sit down and do that in the cold light of day, I don\'t believe the vote should or will be close.
This year, before the Breeders\' Cup, Zenyatta started four times. All four starts were at home in California, on synthetic tracks, against small fields of locally based fillies and mares that contained a grand total of one 2009 Grade I winner, Life Is Sweet. So if you are to vote for Zenyatta for HOTY, it is strictly on the basis of the Classic. Well, that race contained exactly two horses that had won Grade Is over synthetic this year (Einstein and Richard\'s Kid), some grass horses, and some dirt horses, which are demonstrably completely out of their element over Pro-Ride (see the last two years of results of main track Breeders\' Cup races). Zenyatta beat them at her game, a game she is very good at. She\'s good on dirt, too, as she proved last year at Oaklawn--but most dirt horses don\'t handle Pro-Ride, which is basically grass, so she had a big advantage last Saturday.
Meanwhile, earlier this year, while Zenyatta was beating up Anabaas Creation, Lethal Heat, Briecat, Allicansayiswow and Dawn After Dawn, who between them have won two overnight stakes (and no graded ones) this year, this is what Rachel was doing:
• Racing eight times, at seven different tracks, winning them all.
• Beating colts three times in Grade I races, and beating older males AS NOT JUST A FILLY, BUT A THREE-YEAR-OLD.
• Beating the horses that in 2009 won the Kentucky Derby, Belmont, Travers, Jockey Club Gold Cup, Test, Stephen Foster, Whitney, New Orleans Handicap, Riva Ridge, Tom Fool, Acorn, Arkansas Derby, Chilukki and Oaklawn Handicap-- most of thosehorses males-- and doing it in every case over dirt, the surface where those horses won their stakes.
• And oh yeah, winning this country\'s premiere race for three-year-old fillies by 20 lengths. Imagine if a colt won the Derby by 20. Imagine anyone winning a GI by 20. They make HBO movies about that kind of thing.
None of this is to be taken as a knock on Zenyatta; she\'s a great mare. But she just wasn\'t asked to do very much this year, while Rachel had arguably the greatest campaign any filly has ever had, at the end of which Rachel\'s connections had the good sense not to run her on (effectively) turf, against a specialist on that surface.
By the way, since it\'s what I do-- best race vs. best race, on Thoro-Graph figures, Rachel is about six lengths faster than Zenyatta at a mile and an eighth. That\'s at level weights, and aside from Rachel being two years younger.
Jerry Brown
President, Thoro-Graph Inc
As I said before, if I\'m being objective (and not going with my gut emotion), I think it difficult to go against Jerry\'s argument mostly as mentioned above. The only weak aspect to it from my point of view is I would not be so quick to discredit the Breeder\'s Cup Classic. Of course, if you take out the Breeder\'s Cup Classic, Zenyatta gets little or no consideration, and it makes his argument much stronger for Rachel, but I do think you have to weigh that race fairly heavily, and then if you still go for Rachel, I have no problem at all with that decision. It\'s not Zenyatta\'s fault the race was on Pro-ride. If you want to play Devil\'s Advocate, you could argue Rachel needed to go out there and give it a try, too. And I noticed Jerry used my angle of what races did the horses Rachel beat win and that\'s as valid for Rachel as it is for Zenyatta, and Rachel\'s list is fairly impressive, but the logic of saying that most horses don\'t handle pro-ride and Zenyatta does, and turf grade one winners are somehow less classy than dirt grade I winners (which is implied if not stated), so Zen running by Gio Ponti is not as big a deal because he\'s a grass horse - I don\'t buy it. And we\'re still dismissing that Z beat the Big cap and Pacific Classic winners on their best surfaces. If Rachel gets it, it was because of her far more aggressive campaign and her brilliance. I do trust Mike Smith when he says we never got to the bottom of Zenyatta, so we\'ll never really know what she was capable of - had she run in the Woodward, I believe she would have ran by Rachel like Rachel was tied to a post, but conversely one could argue had Rachel run in the Derby instead of the Oaks, she might have won by 10 lengths, so where does that get us? No real fan of racing could honestly complain about Rachel being horse of the year though for me she has not yet come close to doing what Zenyatta has done (in her entire career, not so much this year). I guess we\'ll see where Rachel is at 5, right?
Dana,
It may not be her fault that the race was on Pro-Ride, but the only way to compare their races is to assess the competition they ran against. While the BC Classic victory should not be ignored, you can\'t deny that she basically beat a couple of good turf horses and a bunch of dirt horses (which as a group are something like 0 for 100+ in the last 2 BC\'s) and yes I\'ll say what Jerry implied -- the best turf horses are generally slower than the best dirt horses. As a sheet user you also cannot deny that Rachel has consistently run better figures than Zen. Mike Smith says she can run faster, but the fact remains that she hasn\'t and HOY voting does not and should not take into account speculation about a horses ability.
That said, the move Zen made down the stretch is one the greatest and most exciting things I\'ve ever witnessed. But not HOY.
Dana-- if you say that the races Z won before the BC are meaningless in this context (and they are, considering who was in them), and you want to give her HOTY, what you are saying is that WHOEVER won the Classic should get HOTY.
As I said before, you could make a strong case that Goldikova should be HOTY ahead of Z.
I\'m basically agreeing with you (especially after you posted the sheets), but just not to the extent that you are minimizing the import of the BC Classic; I think you\'re right overall. It would be a joke to consider Z on the races preceding the BC classic, but the classic puts everything in a new light and does need to be strongly factored in, though probably not enough to surpass Rachel - she did too much at too many different tracks, distances, ages - all that is hard to ignore. I\'m just saying why not admit Z\'s BC Classic was one for the ages but overall Rachel still deserved HOY - that\'s more my point if I\'m being clear. But let\'s just say Z got HOY - you and I know if we\'re honest enough to admit it they voted on her entire career and not just this year - it wouldn\'t be fair exactly but you know it could happen.
To a certain extent, the HOTY award is a referendum on the management of RA\'s season versus the management of Zenyatta\'s season. In theory, the award is given in recognition of giving us, the fans, the best exhibition of equine talent in a given year.
If you look at the award from this perspective, a vote for Zenyatta will be encouraging future champions to be campaigned the way Zenyatta was campaigned and would discourage campaigns of they type of Rachel Alexandra\'s. Putting aside the whole issue of who accomplished more, to me, there is no question I would much prefer the most highly talented horses to be campaigned the way Rachel Alexandra was campaigned. I feel grateful to Jess Jackson for sharing Rachel with us, the fans, in the way he did. I found Zenyatta\'s season relatively boring and would prefer not to see good horses campaigned that way. I would be very afraid that, if Zenyatta wins over Rachel Alexandra, future owners will be encouraged to take very conservative approaches and not really let the best horses out there in a lot of places to really show what they can do.
Yo -- HP!
THIS is why we don\'t want to stifle debate on this subject, or time-constrain it like it was a mere bag of microwave popcorn.
TGJB\'s comparisons of Zenyatta\'s and RA\'s accomplishments were compelling enough from a factual standpoint (and should be allowed to be printed and taken into the HOY voting booth), but SoCalMan just nailed the spirit of the thing: let\'s not hide the good horses away all year -- let \'em out. Let \'em breathe. Let them run.
Outstanding commentaries, gentlemen. I would have been mighty proud to have written either one.
Jerry,
The fastest horse, the lowest TG number doesn\'t guarantee success, if it were that simple we could all just play the horse with the best patterns and figures and retire tomorrow. Lots of horses ran this past weekend on their preferred surface and got beat.
California Flag was billed as tough and playable. Noble Court and Cannonball were the ones to beat. They ran 3rd and 7th.
Crown of Thorns unsound, more likely to go backwards. Dancing in Silks 2-3 points needed to contend. Cost of Freedom, could be now. ALL the FASTEST horses in that race got beat on their preferred surfaces.
Interactif, fastest turf number ever assigned by TG. A well-beaten 3rd on his preferred surface. Bridgetown and Buzzword both ran well as you suggested they would. Pounced could be used in the exotics.
Lookin at Lucky, no development, should try to beat him. Aikenite, major player (5th), Aspire has the number power (12th)
Gladiatorus, very, very tough (9th), Goldikova, possible play against. Cowboy Cal, tactical speed and very tough (10th)
Furthest Land, may bounce.
Conduit, good pattern, not improved, respect. Monzante, top into exotics, could run a new top (6th in a 7 horse field).
Einstein, serious contender (had trouble, ran 11th). Gio Ponte, could get a piece and did. Twice Over, bottom of exotics at best (correct). Richard\'s Kid, live, on best can win, ran 6th.
My point. The fastest horses in the DRF, Brisnet, and TG get beat. They get beat on their preferred surface.
I really enjoy your methodology and your expertise. TG is by far the best site with the best cappers and \"thinkers\" I\'ve ever seen, but, if we don\'t subscribe to \"THE NUMBERS ARE ETICHED IN STONE AND INFALLIBLE\" theory, you\'ll be subjecting yourself to a verbal flogging by some members. (Such as what I\'ll presumably be receiving shortly). With some exceptions, you allow us forum members to really strap it up sometimes and get after each other. There are always elements of nastiness directed towards and from some of us, but we\'re all big boys and shouldn\'t have to resort personal attacks.
I was hopeful there would be all kinds of huge success stories from the TG members after big hits over the BC weekend. Maybe I missed \'em? If so, I apologize.
The lowest number wins....sometimes, not always.
Thanks
Small-- selective examples, distortion (I was negative on Conduit?) and pulling out of context aside, what the hell are you talking about? The point I made in my letter was that BASED ON ACCOMPLISHMENT, NOT FIGURES, Rachel should get HOTY. RIGHT???
I didn\'t claim my BC analysis was any good. But if you looked at what we posted, the figures themselves held up very well.
JB,
Thanks for the reply.
You make the point based on accomplishment not figures.
Since \"you used best race vs. best race, on TG figures, Rachel is about 6 lengths faster than Zenyatta at a mile and an eighth.\" How is that comment based on accomplishment and NOT based on figures?
I didn\'t intentionally use selective examples....I could have used the entire seminar verbage. I was simply saying that the \"fastest\" horse, or the horse with the best \"pattern\", or the horse with the \"best\" numbers get beat a lot. So the mere appearance that this horse or that horse has the superior figures doesn\'t ensure that the faster figure will beat the slower figure. When a horse is 2-3 points away from being a contender for the win, the horse should be a throw out not a winner. (Dancing in Silks). If that\'s the criteria, then how could anyone assume that \"on paper\" Rachel is a couple points faster than Z and thus would be an automatic winner by 6 lengths?
I wasn\'t making light of your BC selections. We all know there are few gimmes on those two days, and s**t happens in a race that get horses beat, even when they have the best pattern or have the best numbers. I purchased the Sheets and the Seminar because I wanted to try to cover all the bases I could, and I would have felt leery about constructing a wager to make a play in a race without knowing you had a strong opinion about a horse I wasn\'t using. Fair enough? That\'s respect for your methodology and not disrespect.
There\'s a level of expectation when you\'re using what is believed to be the best data in the industry. Price is what you pay, value is what you get.
Thanks
95% of the letter was about accomplishment. I made clear the part about figures was separate (hence \"by the way\"). The letter ran in Thorughbred Daily News, and was intended for a general audience that does not already know the figures, as this one does.
And yes, the fastest horse does not always win. Who suggested otherwise?
I just find it really quite funny, that a distinction is made between dirt, turf and synthetic accomplishments in horse racing. Do we make the same distinctions when we crown the Super Bowl Champion? Do we note the difference between natural field teams and turf teams? Who ever shows up to the year end dance, and wins the big prize is crowned the champion. Why should it not be any different for horse racing? I have yet to hear, that the Super Bowl Champion was the best Artificial Turf team this year, and that is why they won.
JB,
Your making a generous assumption that this venue is full of those that can interpret a sheet ?
Sounds more like many should be purchasing the wizard or lawton as they want to be touted as to who is going to win a race. Quite frankly I\'m shocked at many of the opinions voiced here this past week on a \" numbers web-site \"???
General consensus among those that I spoke with and use sheets on a daily basis was the BC Classic was among Colonel John, Zenyatta, Einstein & Richards Kid and a 0 to a negative 1 would win the race. Let\'s remember that Z was a 5/2 favorite in the race and was not Upset beating Man O\' War.
As for the seminar and the interpreting there of:
Cloudy\'s Knight $ 7.40 place, $ 450.00 tri with the 7/5 favorite and the 3rd choice.
Rose Catherine $ 6.80 place
Beautican $ 9.40 place and a $ cold $ 144.00 exacta with She be Wild and a $ 814.00 tri with Blind Luck the favorite.
Pounced, Bridgetown & Interactif a $ 180.00 tri.
Conduit & Precious Passion a $ 25.00 exacta.
Not exactly a cup crushing weekend but a modest profit on the toughest betting card year in and year out.
Too bad a bet like a Sheila on the pro-ride races because 9/1 on Beautican should have been a 3 zero win/place bet and a huge exacta with Catalano. But I don\'t bet like that on plastic !
Dana,
If Zenyatta was ever going to run by Rachel \" like she was tied to a post \" that was the day to do it.
Rachel was making her 8th start of the year on her 7th race track. It was her 5th race in 128 days at 5 different tracks and her 3rd Grade 1 in that time frame against the boy\'s.
Too bad Zenyatta was still in California and had raced 3 times as of September 5th ?
Well written Jerry, but as most of us have done in this debate, we can shape information to sound the way we want them to:
- Your list of stakes races won by horses that Rachel has defeated is no less impressive than the ones used to describe Zenyatta\'s opponents.
- Beating colts 3 times and older males. How good were they?? If you want to downgrade Zenyatta\'s opponents, and you certainly have that right, then I wouldn\'t in the next breath talk about the older colts (Macho Again and Bullsbay) without mentioning who they were. Decent older colts, but I wouldn\'t mistake them for Criminal Type. The Preakness, breaking from the outside was outstanding, but fortunately for her that crop of 3 YOs was pretty average. They have come back to do not a whole lot. She held off Mine That Bird who some around here have labeled as a glorified claimer. The Haskell was a good race, helped quite a bit by track and surface bias. She beat a quality horse in Summer Bird, the rest of that field wasn\'t much (Munnings is a sprinter). You can\'t have it both ways, discounting Zenyatta\'s opponents but not a mention of horses RA defeated.
- You say she\'s 6 lengths faster at 1 1/8 on their best. Zenyatta raced exactly 1 time on dirt. Synthetics have slower numbers than dirt. Not exactly a fair sample of races to choose from.
The point is this, if you are going to discuss the races of Zenyatta by downgrading her competition/talking about surfaces/etc.., then you should also discuss the horses Rachel raced against, and I\'m not talking generalities like naming stakes races or using generic terms like older colts and GR 1. She accomplished a lot, but a lot of it was under very favorable circumstances.
If Rachel wins, thats fine. She ran a great campaign, dominant in some races. The Preakness had me out of my chair rooting for her, similar to how I felt watching the Classic. Everytime she ran was must see racing. However,to say it is silly to even debate it ..that is silly. Like it or not, the BC Classic is one of the biggest races of the year, no matter how many people around here want to diminish it. Before the race, its a great field. After the race, people want to make excuse after excuse as to why horses didn\'t fire and I\'m not talking just the dirt horses. Zenyatta didn\'t choose to have it run on Pro-Ride.
Rachel would make a deserving HOY, she is obviously a tremendous racehorse. She won several top races this year. She won more \"top\" races than Zenyatta. However, Zenyatta won the biggest and that has to count for something. I prefer Zenyatta. But its not silly to debate.
Much has been made about Zenyatta\'s light campaign in 2009. Many, many posters suggest that she\'s not DONE ENOUGH to be considered for HOY.
Recent history suggests otherwise:
1950\'s the average starts for the HOY was 12.5 starts;
1960\'s the average starts for the HOY was 11.5 starts;
1970\'s the average starts for the HOY was 10.6 starts;
1980\'s the average starts for the HOY was 9.4 starts;
1990\'s the average starts for the HOY was 9.3 starts;
2000-2004 average starts for the HOY was 7.6 starts.
2004 winner Ghostzapper 4 starts 4 wins including 2 G1, 1 G2, and 1 G3, total of 11 career races;
2005 winner Saint Liam 6 starts 4 wins 1 place and 1 off the board. 4 Grade 1 wins;
2006 winner Invasor 4 starts 4 wins 4 G1 wins;
2007 winner Curlin 9 starts 6 wins 1 place 2 shows;
2008 winner Curlin 7 starts 5 wins 1 place 1 off the board, 4 G1 wins.
Career record 16 starts 11 wins 2 places 2 shows 1 off the board.
Zenyatta in 2009, 5 starts 5 wins, 4 G1 wins 1 G2 win.
Career record 14 starts 14 wins. Seems to be plenty to compare campaigns with previous HOY winners. Zenyatta HAS done enough to win HOY by existing standards. Time to put that stupid argument to bed.
The idea that Zenyatta didn\'t do enough to merit serious HOY consideration flies in the face of the recent winners. There\'s been an obvious trend over the recent years for the older horse(s) to make less starts than in previous decades.
Source for HOY information is Thoroughbred Times, Nov 13, 2004 edition.
I don\'t think we should be downgrading the BC Classic. I\'m fine with anyone who votes for Rachel, but also acknowledges how superior (and rare) Zen\'s effort was in the BC Classic, and that\'s all I\'ve been saying; otherwise you\'re either not being fair or you don\'t know what you\'re really looking at - I just want people to be honest enough to leave the biases behind - that\'s my toughest thing to do sometimes but otherwise it\'s all about our own ego and not a true evaluation of the horses. Perhaps, one race isn\'t enough to sway the voters, and that\'s fine. I just don\'t see how anyone can weaken the impact of the BC Classic. Another thing we should probably keep in mind is I imagine Z\'s connections had no thought of horse of the year when they mapped out her campaign for 2009 - they probably just wanted to protect her unbeaten record and still compete at the Grade I level with an eye toward repeating as Breeder\'s Cup champion again. As I\'ve said many times, Rachel\'s connections also chose spots they knew she\'s have an edge (however aggressive their campaign really was). You go for the Haskell and Woodward instead of the Travers and Jockey Club Gold Cup - that says it all. So you want Summer Bird at a 1 1/8 on a speed favoring surface but you want no part of him (or Quality Road for that matter) on a deeper track at 1 1/4. I\'m not knocking her connections, they\'re really smart, but let\'s not overstate the difficulty of her campaign. The Preakness was the only really unique and interesting move with Rachel (esp. coming after her Oaks win) and that win really does deserve awe.
If someone wants to give Zenyatta their HOY vote because she won the classic and is undefeated then I guess that is up to them. I don\'t want to take anything away from what she accomplished. But the fact is that Rachel did more on the track this year. She went 8/8 and shipped around to different tracks, raced different fields that were outside her comfort zone of 3 year old fillies 3 times. Zenyatta stayed home in CA, beat up on small fields of the same horses and raced outside of her comfort zone only once. No doubt that she overcame some difficulties along the way. And Zenyatta\'s closing run in the Classic was awesome. But we should not give out HOY based upon that one performance, and what she did before that does not stack up with what Rachel accomplished. I would make a strong case that what Goldikova accomplished this year is almost equally impressive as Zenyatta. She also won a BC race for the second year in row and dominated her competition. I don\'t hear anyone talking about her for HOY. I think there is a small stakes caliber, ex claimer out there who is 16/16 or something like that who has made some devestating late runs and overcome trouble as well and no one is talking about him for HOY either, nor should they.
It\'s just unfortunate for Zenyatta that Rachel happened to be around this year to overhadow the five year old Mare\'s performance. Zen\'s connections could have chosen to do something about that by mapping out a more aggressive campaign, but they didn\'t. So in my opinion they should be happy to win Champion Older Mare and to have the winner\'s share of the Classic\'s five million dollar purse. That\'s compensation enough. There are other examples of horses that went 5/5 and won a Breeders\' Cup race. But what Rachel did is unprecedented for a 3 year old filly. Unprecedented! It\'s never been done before.
Anyone that tried to run with Rachel early was dusted, and no one was ever able to pass her no matter how fast she ran early or what type of 4w trip she had. You can feel as sentimental about Zenyatta as you want, but the facts are the facts. It may be fun to debate, but if Rachel isn\'t horse of the year then god help this already troubled industry. I may have to switch to greyhounds or turtle races at the local pub for a year just to get the sour taste out of my mouth.
Racing on the West Coast of the United States for trainer D. Wayne Lukas, Winning Colors won both of her starts at age two. In the spring of 1988, the large filly put on a powerful performance in the Santa Anita Derby, defeating colts her age by 7½ lengths. Sent to Churchill Downs for the Kentucky Derby, she was up against a stellar field of colts including Risen Star, Seeking the Gold, Forty Niner, Regal Classic, and co-favorite Private Terms. As was her habit, Winning Colors broke fast and raced to the lead. Although Forty Niner made a determined charge in the homestretch, she held him off to win by a neck.
So how many of the colts that RA beat are going to the breeding shed? Winning Colors actually beat better colts, than Rachael will have faced this year. So the quality of her competition was not that great. If you don\'t go to the Big Dance, and lay it all on the line like Zenyatta did, you don\'t deserve the \"Big Prize.\" What does the Derby, Travers, Jockey Gold Cup and the Classic have in common? They are all run at the true distance of Champions. Rachael, when she was running in the Preakness, looked like Mine That Bird would have caught her with another 1/16th of a mile. Who was going to catch Zenyatta on Saturday?
Good post, much of what I agree with. The problem on the forum has been the mere suggestion that Zenyatta has not done enough to merit HOY honors. The earlier post I had referencing Ghostzapper, Invasor, Saint Liam and Curlin suggest without a DOUBT that Zenyatta did do enough to MERIT the honor. Period. I\'ve become disgusted by this repetitive nonsense regarding her not having done enough. If 4-5-6 starts a year and multiple Grade 1 wins were good enough to win HOY honors for those horse mentioned, then its obvious, Zenyatta\'s \'09 season is just as worthy. Based upon those examples of past winning HOY\'s, how could you possibly suggest that Zenyatta didn\'t \"do enough?\" The voters overlooked the publics\'s fascination with Smarty Jones and Bernadini and awarded the older horse who had less outs, but won the one that counted. Its become a point that Rachel did more. Fine, I think we all get that by now. My objection has been this flat out bias, and blatant disregard for a legitimate comparison with Z\'s year compared to recent past winners. Hope I\'m being clear here. It\'s not that Rachel isn\'t deserving of HOY, her campaign was near flawless, had her people opted for the Jockey Club or Marlboro and won it at the classic distance, it would be hard to imagine anyone other than her winning the honor. But, she was guided toward the path of least resistance and at 10 furlongs, you really think she can hold up that last 1/8th against a strong group of older horses? Please.... She was life and death against Macho Again. If and when Rachel gets fully mature physically like Zenyatta she may possess that type of physical strength and staying power. Rachel is a great racehorse. So is Zenyatta. Anyone that doesn\'t think Ghostzapper, Saint Liam and the other recent winners weren\'t picking their spots and trying to get to the BIG ONE are fooling themselves.
As I posted earlier, I\'m gonna have no trouble if Rachel wins HOY. She\'s deserving. But, she had a chance to PROVE she could beat the big mare and her people kept her wrapped up so others like those in this forum could carry the water for her and talk non-stop about her season.
The expert writers and handicappers in this industry gave Zenyatta a chance in only about 5 of 29 selections. As it turned out, they weren\'t such experts because they were hauling around that lamebrain baggage regarding synthetics. Z ran on dirt, cushion, poly and pro-ride...by my count thats 4 different surfaces and she won on every single one. Even the \"experts\" didn\'t know what they were talking about.
I\'m done on the subject of Zenyatta not having had a year WORTHY of HOY. She doesn\'t take a back seat to any of the recent winners. She took on the boys and she whipped their butts, and she made it look EASY. Once Mike let traffic clear in the stretch and moved out, the race was decided. She ran past the leaders without even taking a deep breath. She wanted more. If the race had been 12 furlongs, how far does she win by? I\'m not talking about a mare who\'s gasping for air in the final 1/8th of a mile, Z\'s a machine that\'s finished every race with plenty left. Watch the replay, anybody else running at the line? I apologize if I offended anyone, we\'ll just have to agree to disagree.
Peace out.
Come on, guys.
1-- PDub-- I expressely made the point that Rachel beat those horses on the surface they won stakes on, and Z did not. That was the WHOLE point.
2-- Midnight Lute ran a neg 5 on Pro-Ride last year. Twice Over ran a neg 2 IN THIS RACE.
3-- You seriously want to compare the horses Rachel was beating with Aanabals Creation, Lethal Heat et al? Really? Where do you think those mares would fit in the national FM picture, forget about with colts?
4-- I don\'t know anybody with even a reasonably informed opinion who thought the Classic was a great race this year, specifically because of surface. Or last year, for that matter.
5-- Zenyatta did race on dirt. Many think it was her best race. She was a 4yo. Her figure was 6 lengths slower than Rachel ran as a 3YO. That\'s no knock on Zenyatta. Rachel is a superhorse.
6-- Small-- you\'re exactly right, St Liam and Ghostzapper\'s campaigns were no different than Zenyatta\'s-- if you only look at the number ofstarts (Clement J. Hirsch, Jockey Club Gold Cup, same thing). Also, SJ didn\'t beat older horses, Bernardini did it once, neither was a filly. Here\'s what you do-- make a list of the 3yo fillies that have ever won a GI against males going long twice in one year, and another of the 3yo fillies that have won a GI against older males. Post them here, I\'ll be interested in seeing them.
Look-- Zenyatta had a good year. In another year it might even be a HOTY campaign. But it\'s not remotely close to what Rachel did-- she made history. It\'s not even close to what Curlin did the last two years, for that matter. She won one race on a quirky surface against a few good horses (ON THAT SURFACE). Before that she beat up on the Little Sisters Of The Poor.
JB,
Very good points, as always.
Life is Sweet is a decent mare, I think she won a race last Friday. The surface was fake, but the result wasn\'t.
The Classic wasn\'t a great race this year, it was merely historic.
My point being, to dismiss Z as not being worthy of HOY honors, simply denies that others won the award with similar outs and similar Graded wins.
Admittedly, Rachel did make history. As did Zenyatta. No other filly will ever be the FIRST 3 year old to beat older horses in a Grade 1 race as Rachel did. No other filly or mare will ever be the FIRST female winner of the Breeder\'s Cup Classic at 10 furlongs. Can we agree on that? A hundred years from now Zenyatta will still be the first filly ever to win the Classic. That\'s historical.
Thanks, I\'ve had my say.
The performance on BC day was a very impressive one of course, but I don\'t read a lot of posts where anyone mentions that the race set up perfectly for her: a deep closing move on a track that killed speed (and dirt specialists) at 10 panels.
Giacomo, Street Smart, MTB all looked like monsters in Derby races where they stayed back on the (faster?) rail and saved ground and horse for a late move.
But they all needed the right conditions because none turned out to be monsters. The posts about the center being slow made sense, though.
She won by a length and a half over GP, a turf-specialist closer who stayed five or six lengths closer to the front throughout.
Bill
Wait to see how Z\'s competition does in their next race. You\'ll see JB was correct. If you can\'t see what JB is saying about the ladies,your racing education is not complete. I believe dirt is Z\'s best surface,check her explosion at Oaklawn. In 50 years,I\'ve only seen that type of surge twice. The first time was Demon\'s Begone,the next time was Z. I still want the match race.
Yep, Yep, Yep, Yep, Yep, Yep & Yep. Also, to give credit where credit is due, TGJB was the first to post on this board that Goldikova merited just as much consideration for HOY as Zenyatta. I should have pointed that out in my post.
I will be the first to admit that I have not made a dime off Rachel this year. In fact, she cost me money. I looked at her as being an strong bet against as the heavy favorite in the Preakness, a 3yr old filly coming off a -4 with two weeks rest and facing colts from the 13 post at Pimlico at a longer distance than she had ever run. Any reasonable handicapper should and would have looked at that race that way and made their bet(s) accordingly. But she won it anyway, and what she went on to do afterward was unprecedented.
That being said, let me also say that I plan to pay very close attention to her works leading up to her comeback to the track as a 4yr old. I may even catch a work or two myself in person or find and pay someone who can and knows what to look for. Depending upon the spot her connections pick and how she trains leading up to it, she may be a great bet against. Rachel usually works like the monster she is. I remember my clocker told me before the Derby that no colt looked anywhere near as good as Rachel during Derby week, and that if she would have been going in the Derby she would have been the one to bet. I believe I posted that here on this board several days before the Oaks. So if she isn\'t working like a monster that may make her vulnerable in her first race on the comeback. After preaching her accolades I just wanted to be the first to say that here as well. I am a horse lover, but a gambler first, after all. And I think that is what this board should really be about.
I just looked at the Woodward again..and I\'m shaking my head..Rachel had no business winning that race..none..but she did..pressure from beginning to end and still holding on to win..
I love Z and I love watching her races but those of you looking for a match race should take heed and be careful of what you ask for..This is not Anabaaas creation in front of her nor Gio Ponti..because in the words of Tom Durkin..she is indeed Rachel Alexandra ..the great..
Sorry to the Z backers but... she can\'t beat her on dirt...I can\'t see any way from a gambling perspective that I can play Z against Rachel unless Z gets a rabbit in the race..regardless of odds...I would rather skip the race than play against Rachel..I think you all need to cover the names and look at the PPs and the sheets and then say if both horses were the same odds who would I play..
Last post on this
Rachel did more AND is better
HOY in a romp..and I don\'t even care about this HOY stuff...
Good points JB, I\'ll give it a rest......finally =).
But if I hear 1 more Mike Smith comment.......(not from you obviously).
Off topic, just watched the Pacquiao fight. Geez, is this guy good.
beat to death. Now that all the strong willed people have given there thoughts 56 times each ,can we get back to handicapping and winning money. Isn\'t that the idea ?
It\'s not that she didn\'t due enough, she didn\'t do AS MUCH as RA, pretty obvious from JB\'s and MJ\'s posts
Please don\'t take this personally. I don\'t mean to be argumentative or critical.
Even though I agree with your conclusion, I don\'t think you are presenting a balanced case. You are presenting the case of someone whose views are totally based on the perceptions gained by making speed figures for dirt races for decades in a country where dirt racing dominates.
\"1-- PDub-- I expressely made the point that Rachel beat those horses on the surface they won stakes on, and Z did not. That was the WHOLE point.\"
You also said that Pro Ride plays like turf and ignored the fact that Gio Ponti, Twice Over (who both ran very well), and Rip Van Winkle were Multiple Grade 1 winners on turf and that great European turfers dominated the race last year.
\"2-- Midnight Lute ran a neg 5 on Pro-Ride last year. Twice Over ran a neg 2 IN THIS RACE.\"
Midnight Lute is a sprinter. Paces in sprint races on both turf and synthetic are often fast enough to produce fast final times. The routes rarely are and certainly weren\'t in any of Zenyatta\'s races. Anyone that thinks Twice Over was the best horse in this race either is biased, didn\'t watch the race, or does not understand turf/synth racing.
\"3-- You seriously want to compare the horses Rachel was beating with Aanabals Creation, Lethal Heat et al? Really? Where do you think those mares would fit in the national FM picture, forget about with colts?\"
No, but I definitely want to compare the horses Rachel beat with all the legitimate Grade 1 animals in the Classic. Rachel beat very weak 3YOs fillies, weak 3YO colts, and Grade 2 and Grade 3 older horses.
\"4-- I don\'t know anybody with even a reasonably informed opinion who thought the Classic was a great race this year, specifically because of surface. Or last year, for that matter.\"
Then you don\'t know anyone that understands how to measure performance and ability for synthetic or turf races where final time figures are often depressed because of pace, but quality is easily recognized. Just because a race is more turf-like and the horses don\'t have fast final time figures does not mean the quality was not very high.
\"5-- Zenyatta did race on dirt. Many think it was her best race. She was a 4yo. Her figure was 6 lengths slower than Rachel ran as a 3YO. That\'s no knock on Zenyatta. Rachel is a superhorse.\"
At the time, Zenyatta was even less experienced than Rachel was as a 3YO. She hadn\'t hit her best stride on synthetic yet either. She also came home in about 23 and had plenty of horse in reserve.
\"6-- Small-- you\'re exactly right, St Liam and Ghostzapper\'s campaigns were no different than Zenyatta\'s-- if you only look at the number ofstarts (Clement J. Hirsch, Jockey Club Gold Cup, same thing). Also, SJ didn\'t beat older horses, Bernardini did it once, neither was a filly. Here\'s what you do-- make a list of the 3yo fillies that have ever won a GI against males going long twice in one year, and another of the 3yo fillies that have won a GI against older males. Post them here, I\'ll be interested in seeing them. \"
I agree with this. It\'s not biased.
I have to ask everyone a very simply question.
Why in making the case for Rachel Alexander to be horse of the year does everyone feel compelled to attack Zenyatta with biased interpretations of her ability and performance in the Classic?
TURF, SYNTHETIC and DIRT racing are all different. This fact is too obvious to debate.
IMO, the horses need to be evaluated using different metrics if you want to compare them. If you insist on comparing them using final time figures, then at least compare Zenyatta\'s best synthetic figures with the types of figures world class European turf horses run on turf when they come to the US.
I think you\'ll find that on a relative basis she rates reasonably close to any of them without even considering her superior closing ability and how several of her race times were badly impacted by slow paces.
That would at least keep some perspective on her relative ability.
Zenyatta has the ability to close during the final furlongs and overcome almost any pace throw at her. That\'s one of the key componenents of great turfers and great synthetic runners and she does it as well as any horse I have ever seen.
I agree. Zenyatta is a great turf mare. I said in the seminar it\'s too bad we never got to see her on grass.
In this country we have best older (horse, filly), and best turf (horse, filly), not dirt (horse, filly) because we recognize that turf is a specialized area HERE, and dirt is the primary (and default, in case of honors) surface.
I would be curious to know if someone can find a case of a horse getting HOTY without winning on dirt. Pretty sure there are not too many. In fact, until we got involved in this synthetic business, I doubt anyone won a division without winning on dirt.
I could go point by point with the rest but I\'m done. Anyone who wants to bet me who will win HOTY knows where to find me.
Did Kotashaan ever race on dirt?
Same with All Along. Of course, looking at Kotashaan and All Along, you also need to consider who the primary challenger was for horse of the year. I doubt there was a dominant dirt horse in either of those years. I recall in Kotashaan\'s year he sort of got it out of default.
I agree that it\'s highly likely that Rachel will get HOTY and agree that she deserves to get it, but not based on relative ability.
I think it\'s silly to assume that turf or synthetic horses are inferior to dirt horses just because the final times of the races tend to be slower. More than a few highly disadvantaged European turfers that handled dirt have either won or been very impressive in Breeder\'s Cup dirt races despite vastly slower speed figures and the huge disadvantage. If anything, the racing in Europe is superior.
As instructed ...
Yes, SoCal. I remember Kotashaan was 100% turf, but there was no standout that year. Bertrando was favored to win the Classic, I think a different horse won each TC race (including the ill-fated Prairie Bayou, if memory serves), and, Arcangues won the Classic.
At this point our Euro figures are extremely accurate (take a look at the BC final figures). Please give me the option of booking any Europeans who run here. I won\'t be booking slow grass horses trying dirt or those with extreme dirt pedigress, who are definitely not disadvantaged, and won\'t be booking those running on Pro-Ride against dirt horses.
At this point we know exactly how good those horses are on turf, we don\'t have to guess. Off the top of my head, out of about 20, I can only think of two Euros we gave a new top in the BC, one a 2yo, one first Lasix (Twice Over).
Actually 3 2yos ran new tops, but only one older horse, out of about 15.
You have to be able to take your game on the road, in any sport, to be deemed champion ... Home field just might be the most important advantageous factor ever considered ... Especially true of the equine athlete, the ultimate creature of habit ... What is Sherrif\'s shipping %? A true beast but I am squarely in the Rachel for HOTY camp ...
I am not disputing the accuracy of the figures when horses stay on the same surface. I am disputing whether you can accurately measure the \"relative\" ability of horses running on different surfaces using final time. I believe the European turf horses are intrinsically superior to the American dirt horses even though they run slower final time figures. So an American horse that beats top Europeans on either turf of synthetic is a monster.
As handicappers, we should all strive to resolve these issues because with Dubai going synthetic and several other synthetic tracks being installed in Europe, the trend is not going away.
It has been a pleasure, but I have to go.
CH-- you believe a lot of things, and you want to talk about them no matter what the conversation is about. Go the f--k away and stay away this time.
Cart,
Well written, no offense from my end.
Thanks
The guy in question has been barred from here twice before. He\'s an I-don\'t-bet-enough-to-pay-for-sheets, I-mostly-bet-favorites-to-place (seriously), naval-gazing pain in the butt.