One minute you think she is beat and then another think Mike Smith and her toyed with them the whole way......
Toying schmoying. Everything else aside, that was a pretty good horse race.
Weight, weight, weight. Bet they don\'t try that again. I wouldn\'t.
So we\'re back where we were. Who\'s gonna put up the money for the race? Love to see it happen at Saratoga. They\'re on the same schedules now, it could happen.
A great race to watch!
I don\'t want a match race. Can\'t match up two horses with such different running styles.
I got goose bumps...
2nd that emotion
Vic got them on his vocal chords.
Silver,
For a guy who has been on this board for years and years, you still have trouble diagnosing what you see.
Zenyatta ran another excellent race. She ran down a horse who got first jump and got 9 lbs on her and who is a pretty damn good synthetic horse. But Mike Smith was not \"toying\" in the stretch. That might be the most often I have seen him hit Zenyatta, he stopped with the whip about 20 feet from the wire, when he knew it was measured. (far from a \"toying\")
I don\'t know, I give up predicting Zenyatta to lose. I thought the weight and tactical ability of St. Trinian\'s would be too much for her. Zenyatta is just the rare horse that runs her race every single time. She doesn\'t have bad races. All the rumors about how badly she was training were either false or irrelevant.
I still think Rachel is more brilliant than Zenyatta, but perhaps Zenyatta\'s consistent form is its own form of brilliance.
Time to get the big fillies together. I think waiting for the Breeders Cup will be anti-climactic as I don\'t believe either filly can beat Quality Road. One coming 2nd to QR while the other runs 3rd, won\'t mean much. Prefer to see a race where the big girls go at it without QR. There are 2 or 3 big races at Saratoga for mares, I believe.
Let\'s see the matchup while they are both in form.
That was unreal.....holy cow.
WOW!!!
I got beat by a legend!!! No excuses. St. Trinians ran her eyeballs out carrying 9 less pounds and the great one ran her down anyway.
That\'s why this is the greatest sport. How about a million dollar purse for the Go For Wand? Let\'s get it on!!!!.....Zenyatta 130......Rachel 126....
Good Luck,
Joe B.
No doubt! One of the greatest ever, and the best horse I\'ve seen in my life next to Secretariat. She was particularly amazing today. I\'m sure it was the fastest number of her life -- the track was dead today, she was 5 wide, and carried 129 LBS -- a mile and 1/8 in 1:49 flat! No words can describe her. I\'m glad I\'m alive to see such a horse run.
A rare treat. Kudos to TVG for great coverage.
That was fun....and chilling. What a race!
@jimbo...Does QR want 10f? Anything under that he\'s the best IMO. Not sure he wants to go that far.
Jimbo it was Quarter Horse race down the stetch. She away big weight and a 2 length headstart and won wrapped upin the last 50 yds!!
Yeah, wrapped up. What race were you watching?
This was a pretty good ride by Smith, by the way. Didn\'t go wide until the end of the turn, and it made the difference.
Jack,
I know a lot of people, including some of this board\'s best handicappers, think that Quality Road wants no part of 1 1/4. I am not convinced. yes, he lost twice at that distance last year, but both races were on wet tracks where he appeared to not like it and in one of the races was stuck down inside, not the spot for a big long strider like him. He is salty at any distance.
But this weekend is for the girls. Two big performances. Not sure what the numbers will show, but to my eye, I am still not thinking Rachel is all the way back. She blew the first turn to a degree, again. Something i don\'t remember seeing her do at all last year (but she has done it in all three races this year).
Hopefully they schedule it this summer, it would be the highlight of summer racing. Have to believe that it would be the most awaited race in the past 20 years, at least more than any race I can think of.
Jerry he hit her 8 times in less than 400 yds. He needed her to reach out and once he got what he asked for it was OVER!!
The weight is totally wrong in your scenario. The reigning Horse of the Year gets spotted 4 pounds? Make it even weighted at 123 apiece, that way, neither horse is compromised and if I were Z\'s connections and was expected to concede 4# to the reigning HOY, I\'d tell them to stick it. These are two truly great animals, they will put on a great show if they can be matched up in the next few months. Anytime you have a weight concession it leaves the argument open if the race is decided by a half length or so.
How great is it that they both are still running great? Two months ago it looked like Rachel was not going to be able to match or approach her greatness from \'09.
Zenyatta runs her usual disadvantaged style against a nice filly, spotting weight and still finding enough late to get the job done. She\'s a great one, no doubt. I watched the replay several times now, and Z was ALL OUT until a couple strides before the line, so it was not easy today and I knew it wouldn\'t be.
I do think if Z and Rachel get matched up, the lead up to the race in terms of workouts for Zenyatta will be different that leading up to this one.
129#\'s and her advancing age all added up to a real gut-wrencher today. I\'m just glad she was able to pull it out.
i think she earned a negative 4 for this race.. that effort was amazing!
jerry, with all due respect. Racheal doesn\'t want any part of zenyatta. Lets hope the match doesn\'t take place. Numbers schmumbers zenyatta goes as fast as she has to.
nyc1347 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i think she earned a negative 4 for this race..
> that effort was amazing!
haven\'t seen race yet, so maybe my comment is out of line, but if Zenyatta ran a negative 4, does that mean St. Trinian\'s ran a 0 or so?
I did not think that anybody in the race could run a 0 other than Zenyatta. If i had thought St. Trinian\'s could run a 0, I would have pounded her with everything I had and let Zenyatta try to run a lifetime top at age 6.
Again, I haven\'t seen the race, but if you assume that Zardana was baked by her big number and St. Trinian\'s is basically a pretty reliable figure (between 2 or 3), then the 9 pounds and ground probably only add up to around her usual top race, no?
Not trying to be sour here, just trying to figure out figures. If she did run a minus 4, then as a six year old mare, one has to wonder if that will be the knock out of all knock out numbers. I sure wouldn\'t bet on a six year old mare to hold together after making a new 3 point top.
All of this being said, doesn\'t Rachael Alexandra have a huge advantage if they wait to the Breeders Cup to meet? I mean she will be hitting her absolute peak age and Zenyatta will be close to 7.
I want to stress, I am not saying anything about what they have accomplished and who is better than whom, just try to discuss figure forecasting and nothing more. If you do not like it, change the names of the horses to Filly A and Mare B.
Negative 4 seems a stretch. Zenyatta only won by a half length and spotted 2 points of weight to St. Trinian\'s. I don\'t believe Zenyatta lost more ground, but will leave that to TGJB. Looks to me like Smith let St. Trinian\'s fan out to the 4 path early in the turn, while he waited till halfway through the turn to fan Zenyatta one path wider, but only for half the turn. I don\'t think St. Trinian\'s ran a negative 1.5 (which would be Zenyatta\'s negative0.
I would be she ran her usual race, somewhere around negative 1.
Let\'s see though.
Dannyboy,
You must be the only horse racing fan/player on the plan that would say \"let\'s hope they don\'t meet\". Not even sure what your reason for hoping that could be.
The wife walks in and sees a replay and says they needed to feed the horse I bet (St. Trinians) more that\'s probably why I got beat..I looked at the replay and I can only laugh. Z is like 50% bigger than St. Trinians.
Anybody who says Z won wrapped up is crazy..That horse ran hard today to catch St Trinians.
She is great to watch though as she makes every race exciting..and yeah the announcer is going to need some honey and lemon for his throat after that call.
The best part is listening to the crowd after she gets up..It\'s like everyone is cheering for her....Great for the sport..
So the Delaware Handicap @ 10F is in five weeks. Del will probably up that to a million dollar purse to attract those two. (Doubt Rachel wants to go 10Fs with Z)
or the Ruffian at Saratoga in 7 weeks @ 9F, they\'ll probably up that purse also. This one seems more likely.
Any others?
Lost Cause Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
.......
> So the Delaware Handicap @ 10F is in five weeks.
> Del will probably up that to a million dollar
> purse to attract those two. (Doubt Rachel wants to
> go 10Fs with Z)
> or the Ruffian at Saratoga in 7 weeks @ 9F,
> they\'ll probably up that purse also. This one
> seems more likely.
> Any others?
If they run at Delaware, I will be really sad. While the place is beautiful and I used to love it years ago, I have had some bad experiences there involving crookedness in more recent times and that last thing this sport needs is a black eye in its marquee event which could happen there.
I like the idea of a match up occurring in an unrestricted race -- give the boys a shot too.
I agree with you on DE. I really don\'t think it would happen anyway as 10F would cause one to have an advantage and it is only five weeks away. I was just throwing out the only two possible races I saw on the calendar.
Just saw the video -- also tried to watch the head on and i have never seen anything so screwed up. Does anybody know if Hollywood Park plans to fix the official head on? They are missing half of the race -- they splice straight from the end of the first turn to the stretch drive. Whoever makes the video at Hollywood Park should be ashamed of him/her self for that product. Absolutely disgusting and inexcusable. If you tried to time the race off the head on (and you ignore your eyes and believe they got it right), you would have them doing the 9 furlongs in about 5 furlong time.
At least they showed the first turn on the head on -- and if all other things are equal, it looks to me like Garcia blew the race on the first turn (he seemed to go a path wider than Zenyatta) for no apparent reason. Rosario had no problem keeping the filly in the one path in her two prior races (ironically also out of post 2).
Anyway, doesn\'t look to me like Zenyatta ran an effort that should induce a bounce. Looks to me like her usual (prolly, between a 0 and a minus 1).
I received a person to person message yesterday asking why am I so defensive about the \"slow mare\".
I didn\'t bother sending back a reply. Hopefully this person watched the race. I couldn\'t have put it any better than the \"slow mare\" did today.
I know this a Thorograph board, and we center our discussions around TG figures. Its just sad that some people, like the person that sent the message to me yesterday, can\'t take their eyes off of a sheet of paper with a number on it long enough to just cherish and appreciate the greatness of Zenyatta.
We hear how unsporting the connections are, how slow she is compared to others, how she is a synthetic freak that somehow diminishes her accomplishments. All I know is that not only does she \"just win baby\", she does so in a fashion that leaves one breathless and exhilarated. She is truly one of the All Time Greats.
I was at the Oakland Coliseum the day Barry Bonds hit #715. I hate the SF Giants. Can\'t stand them. But I, along with the entire sold-out crowd, stood and applauded the accomplishments of that marvelous ballplayer. I didn\'t care about Balco, PEDs, or any of the other stuff. I witnessed history, saw in person one of the All Time Greats and was glad that I did.
Same with Zenyatta. It shouldn\'t matter what you think of synthetics, scheduling, TG numbers, whatever. Every person watching her, whether she is your favorite or not, should have been applauding and standing as she roared down the stretch and put herself in the history books.
If you can\'t appreciate what this mare has done, if you can\'t enjoy watching her race, if all you can do is diminish her accomplishmnets and point to a number on a sheet, then you are missing out on more than you\'ll ever know.
And someone get Vic a glass of water.
Well said as usual.
Interesting note, if you read the T-G analysis for the race yesterday, they were touting Zardana as having a chance to beat Zenyatta. That\'s a good example of going strictly by the numbers, and look, I\'m not being disingenuous, I get it, this site is (primarily) all about numbers, but if you try to compare Zardana to St. Trinian\'s and, of course, Zenyatta, it would be like comparing a really good college baseball player to a major league superstar. Zardana would be a 50K claimer if not for racing on Polytracks where the competition is often suspect, and she being smallish handles the polytracks well. In stature, physicality and talent she\'s not even close to St. Trainian and, of course, Zenyatta but on numbers she had a shot!? In no universe could she ever have had a shot.
Dana,
Agree that was probably a bad job on the analysis tabbing Zardana to win (sorry TGJB or TGAB). To me, this is the consistent problem when using TG numbers across surfaces. (maybe it exists for Rags too, but I don\'t use Rags, so don\'t know).
Yes, if Zardana could repeat the negative number she ran in the race against Rachel, she could have won yesterday, with a clean trip. And maybe the \"timing\" was OK for her to repeat, off the non-effort last time out. But is it rational to expect Zardana to repeat that dirt number at Hollywood? I would say no, not in this lifetime. I guess whoever did the analysis would say that the Hollywood surface is the closest of the synthetic surfaces to dirt, but I believe Zardana had already run there and not run that fast.
BTW, very hard to believe that TGJB would have put Zardana up in the analysis as this filly could be a posterchild for his \"one and done\" theory where a synthetic horse runs a big number first time dirt, then falls apart completely thereafter and never approaches that number again. (for some reason)
Jimbo-- I not only would have put her up, I bet her myself.
Everything is a function of price. Yes, surface was an issue, though Cushion is enough like dirt that I was okay with it. No, the timing was not good for a return to the big top. But a) If she ran her top at the weights she was gin, period, all voodoo nonsense aside, and b) an awful lot of horses have been following dead rail trips with tops recently (and paying big prices). If she was 25% to run her top she was 25% to win, and a play at the price.
TGJB,
Ok. Next time you want to bet Zardana against decent horses, give me a ping. I will give you 15% over the closing price.
Now, you are calling the \"one and done\" synthetic to dirt thing \"voodoo\"? It wasn\'t my theory, it was yours. What has changed?
Jimbo-- please. That\'s not the voodoo. The voodoo is the idea that if a horse runs a neg 1 getting 2+ points from a horse that has never run a neg 3, the horse spotting weight will somehow win because of \"class\" or some other intangible. That same thinking will say that no matter how much weight Z spotted the second finisher it wouldn\'t have made any difference.
RA is not a decent horse?
Ok TGJB. Got your voodoo reference.
It took me a year to get comfortable with your \"one and done\" theory with the synthetic horses making a big \"jump up\" first time dirt and then fizzling thereafter.
Now, I finally buy in and you are taking me to task for it. Of course, Rachel is a fantastic horse that Zardana beat. Zardana beat her in her big jump up race. I don\'t think Zardana will ever race a big figure again. So, I don\'t expect her to ever beat a good horse (in the future). So, for me, 6-1 against Zenyatta and St. Trinian\'s wasn\'t value. You called it 25% for her to run that figure again. I think it is more like 5%, but I don\'t have the database to prove it. I thought you or somebody did a study on these first time dirt \"move ups\" and posted it somewhere in the forum. I can\'t find it, but my memory, although sometimes faulty, thinks the number is significantly less than 25% that they run the number again.
That\'s all.
Jimbo, I would never take you to task.
The idea that weight \"brings them all together\" has been bogus since its inception. One pound \"too much\" stops any horse. Great champions have been beaten by simply adding one more pound on top of their previous big weighted effort.
We already know Z can \"effectively\" carry 129#, and we now know Rachel can \"effectively\" carry 124#.
We just don\'t know if Z can carry 130# and Rachel can carry 125#\'s.
I don\'t think Rachel has any difficulty or runs any slower carrying 122# than she does carrying 120#. I don\'t think she runs any faster carrying 120# than when she carries 122#. They can only go so far, so fast, given the size of these animals.
When Zardana upset Rachel at 8.5 furlongs, she was getting 2#, then in the rematch and the predictable \"bounce of the year\" she was getting 4#.
Against Zenyatta yesterday, Zardana had a weight concession of 11#\'s. It didn\'t allow her to spring the upset, but it kept her in the hunt for a long time.
In Rachel\'s race Saturday, the really good news is she showed she could carry 124#, but was only spotting an average of 9# per animal. Z\'s race showed she was spotting an average of 14# to each horse. Factor being as they move on, those weight concessions could be the same, but a lot better group of horses to try to beat. Let\'s face it, there were a couple of cupcakes in each race.
If both Rachel and Zenyatta showed up at Saratoga and were high weighted, say 126# each, they could each be giving some real solid weight away to some awfully good animals.
I do think the additional weight plays into the way that Rachel runs. I think it, at least visually, affects her explosiveness and her athleticism. I don\'t think she can take on another 5#\'s and not be compromised. In fact, I think if Rachel and Z were both weighted at 129#\'s, Zenyatta runs past her in the last 1/8th of a mile, because I don\'t think, (could be wrong) that Rachel looks the type to pack that really BIG weight. In my opinion, 124# is only \"decent\" weight for a horse the caliber of Rachel....But, she proved she could effectively carry it, so I think that\'s BIG. 129# is a completely different level of weight. Z is simply the more physical, longer striding animal with the physical size to carry it a long ways and not have it stop her, but it does slow her down, its clear it takes her \"longer\" to get cranked up because of the stage of the race when Mike\'s asking her. As someone on here suggested they run with Z packing 130# and Rachel 126#, I think you\'re talking a real crap shoot. I think its possible they both get beat in that scenario, assuming its a field with a couple of other top notch animals.
I\'m convinced there\'s an assigned weight (within reason) that will stop either of them. My concern lies with them carry big, big weight. They\'re both such great champions, with such huge hearts and desires to win, it sometimes causes an injury, or just knocks them out.
If Rachel continues to move forward, the good news is she would pack 123# if she runs in the Classic, good news, she proved she could carry it at least for 9f.
No offense intended here. We\'re all in agreement these are 2 very special race horses. Z pulling it out late, Rachel beginning to look like her old self. Let\'s hope things work out and they can finally meet.
Lastly, it just doesn\'t look like Rachel\'s having fun out there.
ST lost a shoe in that race, btw...
http://drf.com/news/article/113910.html
Leamas
What race were you watching?!?!
Smalltimer wrote:
\"Great champions have been beaten by simply adding one more pound on top of their previous big weighted effort.\"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
I\'m disappointed that JB didn\'t respond to your post by quoting Francisco d\'Anconia of \"Atlas Shrugged.\"
I\'m not all edumacated, but I\'d wager .10 cents that JB hasn\'t even heard of Francisco d\'Anconia.
Don\'t buy JB\'s NYC streetkid philistine shtick. I\'ll take the bet. After yesterday, I need the dime.
Small-- one of the problems with your posts (like that one) is that you don\'t give people credit for actually KNOWING what they are talking about, as opposed to guessing. Read that book in 3 days when I was 15. The first time. As Curtis knew, hence his post.
There are so many problems with your weight post that I\'m unwilling to take the time to disentangle it, and only someone who is only familiar with handicapping in the US could ever have considered making it. Take a look at the weights at Ascot the next few days.
PDub you and I are finally on the same page.
She probably was open to some criticsm when she had only run say 10 times. Almost never left Calif, stayed primarily on one surface that was not being really accepted by the fans.
But the consistent delivered efforts 17 consecutive times, BC Classic over colts and the 129 yesterday takes her to the stratospheric levels. She HAS EARNED THE RESPECT NOW!!
The problem with \"numbers guys\" is they are properly conditioned to believe their numbers are always the right way to play. However they will also try and tell you Ghostzapper was better than Secretariat, Man O\'War or Dr Fager because the numbers say so. But Ghostzapper ran an almost as protected campaign of Zenyatta with just faster figs. So he is the greatest??
Zenyatta\'s accomplishments can not be quantified other than she did what they asked her to do all 17 times she has run....
GZ ran against horses who were also running as fast as he was! Pleasantly Perfect, St Liam, Roses in May and Azeri as competition is MUCH better than any other horse has run in history and he was able to sustain that level of running through needed timing between races. Zenyatta has been spotted accordingly in a similar way but has spotted weight to others.. shes racing against garbage horses overall compared to what GZ did. Theres def NO comparison whatsoever and overall i would say GZ is the best horse of all time... i mean he beat horses running negative 3s to 6s range!
Agreed. Zenyatta has been racing against complete and total garbage next to GZ. Beat someone good on dirt, I\'ll be impressed. Until then, John Shirreffs carefully orchestrated campaign to keep the horse unbeaten commands zero respect from me.
LOL at these Zenyatta-humping threads everytime she knocks over a new set of tomato cans on a trash surface. As if beating the latest pigs is worth anymore than the last group of pigs she beat.
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agreed. Zenyatta has been racing against
> complete and total garbage next to GZ. Beat
> someone good on dirt, I\'ll be impressed. Until
> then, John Shirreffs carefully orchestrated
> campaign to keep the horse unbeaten commands zero
> respect from me.
>
> LOL at these Zenyatta-humping threads everytime
> she knocks over a new set of tomato cans on a
> trash surface. As if beating the latest pigs is
> worth anymore than the last group of pigs she
> beat.
Were you beat up by an oversized girl when you were a little boy??
Sheesh, talk about one jaded guy.
Anybody referring to these horses as pigs, garbage, and tomato cans doesn\'t deserve to enjoy the accomplishments anyway.
Commands zero respect from you. Guess what?? Nobody cares what you think pal. You clearly have no respect for the horses or the game.
JB, do we really need this kind of disrespectful crap around here?? Its as disrespectful as calling somebody an idiot, which when I used that term almost got me a vacation from the board.
Its one thing to not be a fan or not be impressed. The characterizations this guy throws around really serve no purpose.
nyc1347 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> overall i would say GZ is the best horse of all time...
JB:
I know this guy is buying mucho product, but...
Better get Ro Parra on the phone and tell him to round up some mares.
The best horse of all time is standing for 30K.
He was standing for $250k at one point... He gets the props for being a special horse for his individual accomplishments and abilities beating horses that would crush so many in the present days. Im not including breeding within that statement of him being the best of all time. Thats a whole different ball of wax.
NYC:
So I guess you would say that Zito\'s NY bred gelding, whose name escapes me, who
routinely ran negative 4s and 5s while crushing tomato cans, would also be among
the greatest horses ever?
Suggestion: If you want to seriously take part in these debates, which can be
enlightening, take some time away from handicapping Mountaineer and read
up on some historically fast horses who ran before the age of publicly
disseminated performance figures.
I would start with Secretariat and Spectacular Bid.
No richie.. i would not put that horse as one of the greatest of all times because he did not beat horses like Ghostzapper did.
You just cant compare a horse from decades ago to horses these days and mention them as the greatest of all time. In order to be the GREATEST you would have to be able to put a horse in ANY DECADE and compare his top efforts to those of ANY DECADE. When a man like Michael Jordan gets labled as the best of all time its because in ANY decade at his prime he WOULD be the best because of his basketball abilities. Secretariat and Spectacular Bid did great things at THAT time for horse racing but if you realistically put their top efforts at their prime against top horses at their prime in the last 10 years with these monster negative numbers they just wouldnt be fast enough.
If you put a horse like ghostzapper who has proven to beat some of the fastest horses of all time and raced him at his prime he would be a complete force in ANY decade. And THAT to me is a horse that can be recognized as the best or at worst very close to the best of all time.
I would also like to add that imo it seems as every sport including horse racing has its Peak with TOP athletes. It seems as time passes (with gaps at times)the bar is set higher and higher with accomplishments and abilities. To be labeled as the greatest OF ALL TIME you need to be part of that peak level.
A good example is tennis.. we had the days of Pete Sampras breaking records and Andre Agassi on his tail with Marat Safin, Michael Chang etc.. and THAT to me was a new level of tennis when compared to the times of the Rod Lavers, Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors etc. In the present time, I personally feel we are now at a new peak with tennis with Roger Federer and Raphael Nadal. Roger is playing incredible, has multiple wins on all surfaces and is imo the best player of all time.
In basketball as previously posted the Peak of the NBA came when Jordan, Bird Johnson, Barkley, etc were in the league. Since then we have seen a decline imo and I can probably prove that alone with mentioning the original Dream Team. So Jordan being part of that peak and his accomplishments and abilities we can say that he is the best of all time.
Same thing goes for Tiger Woods in Golf at his prime. He set a new peak and new level.
With horse racing I feel its similar.. Within the last 10 years or so horses are running overall a new peak of negative numbers. To be the best of all time a horse would have to be able to beat horses at THIS peak category consistently. Im not saying he has to be the FASTEST of all time just once but be consistent in beating the best at THIS new peak such as Ghostzapper. Labeling a horse as the greatest of all time cause he ran the fastest effort just once would be like labeling Wilt the best of all time for scoring 100 in a game.. just doesnt make sense. Even QR who ran lights out against a mediocre field wouldnt make sense either. To be the best horse of all time you would have to come out of this new level of racing.
Theres that saying in order to be the best you need to beat the best..this goes for the greatest of all time. an athlete being a peak performer at a peak time can be labeled as such cause they could go into any decade and be the best.
NYC:
Please quit babbling. Look at the records:
Secretariat-- multiple track/course records on both dirt and turf. Champion Turf
Horse and Handicap Horse as a 3YO. His stakes/course records for the KY Derby and
Belmont still stand. His track record at 1-1/2 on the Belmont turf stood for 19
or so years. Also had the world record at 1-1/8 miles.
Andrew Beyer once retroactively assigned Secretariat\'s win in the Belmont Stakes
a Beyer number. It was well in excess of any Beyer number ever recorded.
Spec Bid-- set track records at both 7f and 10f as a 4YO. As a 3YO, he won the
Flamingo, Hutcheson, Fountain of Youth, Florida Derby, Blue Grass, KY Derby and
Preakness. As a 4YO the biggest problem was finding anyone to run against him,
and he walked over in the Woodward; in the Haskell (at the time open to all ages),
he faced 3 or 4 competitors, including champion mare Glorious Song, whom he
thoroughly dominated. Carried the weight as a 4YO, in excess of 130 pounds on at
least 2 occasions.
If you want to answer JB\'s hypothetical question \"Are racehorses getting faster?\"
in the affirmative, fine by me. But I think JB meant racehorses in general.
Ghostzapper was as fast as any horse in his generation, but I think if he stepped
on the track with Secretariat or Spectacular Bid, he might have been Ghostbusted.
GZ\'s on track accomplishments just not on a par with these 2 greats from the
Decade of Champions, who were so strong that even you may have ventured a win bet
on them.
\"You just cant compare a horse from decades ago to horses these days and mention them as the greatest of all time. In order to be the GREATEST you would have to be able to put a horse in ANY DECADE and compare his top efforts to those of ANY DECADE. When a man like Michael Jordan gets labled as the best of all time its because in ANY decade at his prime he WOULD be the best because of his basketball abilities. Secretariat and Spectacular Bid did great things at THAT time for horse racing but if you realistically put their top efforts at their prime against top horses at their prime in the last 10 years with these monster negative numbers they just wouldnt be fast enough\"
NYC,
Have another Kool Aid then pull the pp\'s of Dr.Fager who\'s constant figs are faster than any horse of any generation.Said Beyer, Rags and anyone who botherd to research Fager, INCOMPARABLE!
Mike
i would love to see the thorograph figures of any of those horses back then on average to those of today. the dirt was a bit thinner back then too.. closer to a blacktop type hard surface that is.
and i think the zito horse you may be talking about is Najran..?
I think he is referring to Commentator.
well if thats who it is hes clearly not even close to be the best of all time simply cause hes a one turn horse.. u have to run at least 2 turns to even be considered.
I\'m new to thoro-graph figures, but I am confused by a couple of statements. I read earlier that when people suggested a neg number that Zenyatta would get, there was a rebuttal that St Trinians would receive a number that was much faster than she has ever received before. But it seems that Zardana received a number much faster than she ever received before when she ran against Rachel Alexandra. Why can it be true for her but not for St Trinians? Thanks for your patience.
hey foot..
when we are talking about Zenyatta and St trinians thorograph number we are projecting and estimating the number they both ran 2 days ago. St trinians probably ran a new or close to new top effort..Zardana clearly didnt run a new top in sundays race.. the race against rachel was a completely different effort 2 races back.
Richiebee,
I hate to kind of agree with the king of the show wagers, but if had to name the best horse of the last 15 years, I would go with Ghostzapper as well. He was fast at different tracks and at distances from 6 furlongs to 1 1/4.
Comparing horse further back than 15 years doesn\'t make a lot of sense to me. The same way that comparing human athletes across multiple generations doesn\'t work. Had that conversation with my son just this weekend about Babe Ruth. He asked me if Babe Ruth was better than today\'s baseball players. Now, I am 43, so obviously I didn\'t see Babe Ruth play, so I am going with secondhand information. But my answer was that if Babe Ruth played today, and was the same exact physical specimen he was then, he would not dominate this generation. However, if he was born in the 70\'s, with the talent he had, and was exposed to the nutrition, conditioning, training and quality of competition that today\'s players face, he would probably be the best player today.
Both horses and humans are getting faster/stronger with each generation. A human \"generation\" is what, about 25 years? A horse\'s \"generation\" is maybe 5 or 6 years? Today\'s horses get better training, nutrition and \"supplements\". Secretariat and Specatacular Bid were more talented than Ghostzapper. But I don\'t think they were faster on an absolute basis. (faster versus their competition than GZ was versus his, yes).
Richiebee, last point is that I would lay 6-5 that your \"appeal\" early in this thread to TGJB would not generate the response you are looking for. As a board historian, you must remember all the times we have had this \"are horses getting faster\" discussion. Michael D. refers to a 1\"58 and change 1 1/4 clocking and TGJB counters with his points. TGJB has the speed of horses accelerating faster than his counterparts in the industry (Beyer and Rags). And I would be willing to lay another 6-5 that if you asked him who the \"fastest 5 horses of all time were\", that Ghostzapper and Commentator would both appear in that list, much to your chagrin.
I just wish Secretariat was still running so NYC1347 and I could get rich making $5,000 show bets and getting back $2.10.......
NYC, Ghostzapper went TWO TURNS I believe twice. Once at Mth on a wet track and the other time in the BC Classic at Lone Star. Where BTW the testing was non-existance and the other speed had been negotiated pre-race to \"lay-off\".
My bigger point is if we just take the \"Pure Numbers\" angle. Then a similar Preakness effort for First Dude or Lookin at Lucky and they beat or almost beat Zenyatta!!!!
If people believe that then they are really foolish.
Thanks for replying. Sorry about the SJP. My two didn\'t run well either I guess and they were much more fancied. French horses are sort of in and out sometimes. My question wasn\'t about Zardana\'s number in the Vanity. It was more about the comment that if Zenyatta ran say a -3 or -4, then St Trinians would have had to run a much faster number than she ever did, so somebody said that St Trinians probably ran her top and Zenyatta ran her usual number. I do understand that because Zenyatta\'s numbers don\'t seem to vary that much. Is that the reason Zardana\'s number was so fast in the NO Ladies, because they projected it off what they thought Rachel would have run? Or am I just way off base. If I\'m being annoying just tell me I\'m analyzing it too much. Thanks again!
Jimbo see my post below. I dont doubt the Figs or how fast GZ was. There was just a lot of measured spots or circumstances to his career.
And when he closed his career with a win in the Met Mile he was assigned I believe 123.
That chuckle you just heard was Dr Fager and Forego not me......
he ran 2 turns 3 times and 2 of those were a negative 6.5 and then a negative 4.5 on bc day.. one of those was on at monmouth where he came 2/5s from setting a track record in the SLOP. the thirs your missing was at Belmont. how much did he need to prove? he could go 2 turns.. he started a late campaign and wasnt involved with the derby and such.. Frankel stretched him out as time went on and it was perfect training leading up to every race. in those races he ran against horses ranging from neg 2 to neg 6s.. thats amazing!
Zardana had a forward moving pattern and ran dirt the first time. theres a theory out there that horses who run dirt first time pop really good ones then tail off completely. this seems to be the case with zardana as the huge bounce to to an 8 suggests it. zardana probably came back to an effort in between the top and the bouce race.. maybe a 3-4? Zardanas number is what that horse ran as an individual that day and has nothing to do with Rachel.. if i were u i would check out the introduction section on here and read about the thorographs and what the numbers represent.. if u have any questions after that feel free to message me anytime.
Thanks NYC. I\'ll do that.
Again, do the research.No question about todays nutrition BUT Dr.Fager was as large as almost any animal of today. Unlike the smaller humans of many years past compared to today,some past great horses had every bit of the same physicality of todays horse .Horses have not grown in size, proportionately, anywhere near what humans have in the last 20-30 years.
In Pro football for example, some of the all time greats of 20-30 years past would not make any pro team today(too slow, too small)
If I knew how to attach a document to the TG site,I would post the lifetime pp\'s of Dr.Fager(let me know if there is a way) and then lets discuss Ghostzapper or whoever.
Mike
Hey NYC, do the letters mean that you\'re from New York? If so, I can\'t believe your complete lack of perspective. Meaning, you should be viewing facts from a higher level than you are.
If everything is not relative, everything is nothing.
Secretariat demolished a generation of 2 and 3yos in track record times. Dr. Fager carried weight and demolished a couple of generations in world record time (occasionally) until they started rabbits against him and usually ONLY then did they beat him.
Ghostzapper was a nice horse and beat a lot of his generation. He never left me breathless, however, nor many others. Apparently you need an inhaler.
I\'ve never read any real literature, so in your opinion, should I be more impressed that you read it the first time in 3 days when you were 15, or that
you\'ve read it more than once? Is it a book I should read?
If it will advance my intellect, I\'m all for it.
If Curtis will send me his address, sounds like the horses haven\'t been kind to him. I got plenty of dimes to spare.
I think it was 138
Without jumping at the \"literature\" bait, yes, if you\'ve never read Atlas Shrugged you should. And Curtis is a semi (at least) pro horseplayer.
The three days thing was because it\'s over 1,000 pages (by memory). Liked it so much that I went out and bought the Fountainhead (700+ pages) and read it in one sitting, 13 hours, got up once to eat and once to use the john. Oh, to be young again. And/or have free time.
not taking anything at all away from those horses. all i am saying is that its hard to project how they would do in this type of racing era with so many factors and so many faster animals. I KNOW how GZ would do in ANY era.. hed be amazing in his prime. Your mentioning Secretariat but BUT name others that he ran against that were AS GREAT and at that level. When i mention ghostzapper i can name other great champions he has beat from the sprint to a distance levels. Who has Secretariat beaten that is worth mentioning and how many grade 1 victories does he hold?
Secretariat and GZ both won 4 Grade 1\'s.
ok now tell me who Secretariat beat that was of any relevance back then.
Take a look at the field for the first Marlboro Cup. As good as any BC Classic field (relative to that year), much better than the BC field GZ beat.
You shoulda told me this was a two-part question........lol
TGJB,
I don\'t kow about that. Riva Ridge and who else in that field?
The BC Classic field that GZ beat had Birdstone (Travers and Belmont winner), Pleasantly Perfect (BC Classic winner), Azeri (a HOTY, I believe), Perfect Drift (a G1 winner), Roses in May was also a G1 winner. Funny Cide (derby winner) That was a pretty good field.
Cougar 2 had won 3 Grade 1\'s.
Ok he ran a great race in the Marlboro Cup but then he reacted off that effort next out and failed at that time losing 2 out of 3 dirt races (lost the whitney prior to Marlboro Cup and woodward right after the marlboro) so they switched him to turf to compromise. Thats not the consistency I would look for when labeling a horse the best of all time.
Ghostzapper went undefeated from the Vosbourgh in 2003 all the way on to the end of his career in 2005 stretching out in distance AND got faster as he went longer beating some very fast horses.
Fun fact: Frankel was actually talking about throwing GZ on turf in 2005 but after the injury they just retired him.
Food for thought.
IF Rachel and Zenyatta make it to the starting gate for the Classic, between them, without either winning another race (unlikely), they have 16 SIXTEEN Grade 1 wins between them. Pretty strong stuff there.
Riva Ridge, Onion, Key To The Mint, Cougar II, Kennedy Road.
JB
Taking your mention of the Marlboro Cup as a great win and him beating really good horses.. and me countering that by stating his losses prior and after that specific race.. wouldnt this most likely prove a little more inconsistency and vulnerability for him at this racing time against his competition at that age? (not being able to always run tops that were good enough to win, etc) Just because he popped a very nice race against nice horses he wasnt consistent enough to follow that up against the same competition.
Assuming you agreed that he was more vulnerable and inconsistent when he got older then the REAL question i have would be.. who exactly did he beat that was relevant during those triple crown races and the ones he ran at a younger age when he was proven to be MORE consistant and less vulnerable against his given competition?
I mean we are comparing him to GZ who got better and better in time and remained undefeated through ALL the varibles, races and distances he encountered.
NYC:
This doesn\'t mean anything, just food for thought.
In a few months, 37 years after he last raced, a movie will be released featuring
Secretariat. The winsome Diane Lane will be playing Penny Chenery.
Who are they getting to play the late Bobby Frankel in the Ghostzapper movie?
By the way, your statement about the dirt somehow being thinner (?) in the past is
mildly hillarious and wildly unscientific.
What it comes down to my friend is that I think you have been following the sport
for maybe what 10 years? The horses that you saw race-- very fast. The horses
that raced before you arrived on the scene-- not so fast. Mildly hillarious,
wildly unscientific and also a bit sad.
Why I am talking about greatness in the equine with someone who makes show wagers
at Mountaineer I do not know.
NYC:
You keep arguing but you refuse to look at the record.
1) Look at Secretariat\'s race record as a 2YO.
2) Secretariat was syndicated early in his 3YO campaign. There was never any
thought of running him as a 4YO. Secretariat would have had the same problems
that Spectacular Bid had as a 4YO: not much competition willing to try him and a
lot of lead in the saddlepad.
(Speaking of lead, karma to you guys/gals in the Fantasy Lane Stable-- if Linda
White had saddled UTCB, you might be 30K richer).
3) Sham ran second to Secretariat in the Ky Derby. Do you know how many DERBY
WINNERS have run faster than Sham did that day in the 37 or so Derbys that
followed?
4) One of the horses in Secretariat\'s Derby was a not yet developed Forego. Ever
heard of him? And let me tell you something-- Forego 132 pounds, GZ 126 pounds
(not a match race though) Forego regularly beats GZ at distances from 7f to 10f.
I saw Forego and GZ. Whats your favorite Forego memory?
Comparing a great 2-3yo horse in the 70s to a great 4-5 year old in the 2000s is just bananas. If you think a horse had the capability to run negative 6.5 back then at 3 years old then fine but il take GZ all day and label him as the best of all time beating horses who have proved to run those negative 3s to 6s at multiple distances. I just dont think any of those horse mentioned beat THAT kind of negative running competition at such an early age.
As far as the amount of dirt on the tracks back then compared to today ask JB about it.. you may be surprised.
These sorts of sports debates between generations are
a) a fun past time that often gets people all worked up
b) almost never resolved because there isn\'t a way to compare apples to apples over time
The lone exception seems to be horse racing. This is exactly what the figs are supposed to be able to do. Talk of who carried what weight is factored in.
So, why isn\'t this resolved by going to the figs? And, I believe today\'s horses come out faster, on the whole. Monarchos got a bet Rag number than Secretariat for the Derby. MONARCHOS!
Either a serious rethink is in order concerning how great those older horses were, or we should toss fig analysis altogether.
As to the surface issue, are you saying that there was more \"souping up\" of dirt
surfaces in the 70s than there was in the 80s and 90s? If you are saying that
there is more cushion on today\'s tracks than there was in olden days, I will
contend that track supers were quick to shave that cushion away on big race days
in recent years.
You seem to say that the quality of racing in the first decade of the 21st Century
is better than it was in the 1970s. You are one of the only ones who is saying so.
quality is down and I think the biggest factor to quality being garbage these days is the Polytrack surface. Think about it.. the peak was really the time when GZ was racing.. every horse was running dirt or turf.. we even have Gorella run a negative turf effort! AMAZING racing at the very top level and NY, kENTUCKY AND cALI WERE was AMAZING CARDS! once the addition of Polytrack came in EVERYTHING in racing started to level off and then go WAAAAY down.
Bee,
Once Barbaro and Eight Belles broke down,the outcry from the fringe loons kinda forced tracks to add cushion which slowed raw.Up until 4-5 years ago you could bet that on Saturday in NY and other venues,the track was scraped. Like harness racing,flat tracks were looking for the \'wow\' factor, you know blazing splits with super fast final raw times.
Several years ago,I\'d guess 3 or 4, the computer geeks noticed a major difference in raw times from the prior years at the Spa and other NYRA tracks.I asked about it and was told that it was decided to add cushion for safety\'s sake.Seems they feel that harder surfaces lead to more injuries. There is evidence to the contrary that slow, dull, cuppy surfaces bring the onset of exhaustion much faster which alters a horses stride and promotes injury. Who knows!
If you follow NYRA tracks lately, you will see that most of the time, they keep the surface more to the slow side.
Mike
P.S. I\'d take Fager against any horse,equal weights,no rabbits!
Please God please someone send NYC a program from Saratoga or the Fall Belmont
meet or Gulfstream or Santa Anita from the late 1970s...
Man, you guys need to let it go!!!
So.. who\'s better Rachel or Z? (lol, of course).
smalltimer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So.. who\'s better Rachel or Z? (lol, of course).
Personal Ensign?
Good One Ritchie.
Those were the days weren\'t they. $75-$100k Claimers was about as cheap as it got. A Handicap might dot the undercard. 2YO Champs were eyeballing Stakes races by now. God have they run a 2YO race in NY yet?
A wise man once said \" it\'s not smart to argue with a fool \" because after awhile listeners can\'t tell which is the fool ???
ajkreider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These sorts of sports debates between generations
> are
>
> a) a fun past time that often gets people all
> worked up
>
> b) almost never resolved because there isn\'t a way
> to compare apples to apples over time
>
> The lone exception seems to be horse racing. This
> is exactly what the figs are supposed to be able
> to do. Talk of who carried what weight is factored
> in.
>
> So, why isn\'t this resolved by going to the figs?
> And, I believe today\'s horses come out faster, on
> the whole. Monarchos got a bet Rag number than
> Secretariat for the Derby. MONARCHOS!
>
> Either a serious rethink is in order concerning
> how great those older horses were, or we should
> toss fig analysis altogether.
ajkreider...aka nyc1348
Hah!
I wish I had 5k for a show bet at Mountaineer.
I perfectly happy to admit that Dr. Fager was the best horse ever to set foot on track. Just wish the arguments for that didn\'t reduce to \"I saw him run\". Don\'t know how to argue with an incredulous stare.
ajkreider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Just wish
> the arguments for that didn\'t reduce to \"I saw him
> run\". Don\'t know how to argue with an incredulous
> stare.
Can I assume, then, you\'re not married?
Those of us old enough to have been there are often accused of revisiting such events through the grainy lens of a Ken Burns production. Yes, we romanticize it and glorify it, perhaps disproportionately so. MJ or LeBron? Or Kobe? Borg or Sampras or Federer? When I was in college, we had a defensive tackle who, at the time, appeared to me to be the size of a small building, easily the largest player on the team, and a high 1st round pick. He was 6\'5\" and 270, barely larger than some tight ends on that same college team, today. You can\'t level the playing field. Genetics and technology, both legal and illegal, have changed the landscape to render most comparisons fruitless. Can TG account for all these variables to give us a time-transcendent perspective? Frankly, I don\'t care if they can. If I can\'t bet on the outcome, then I am indifferent to any information which attempts to contravene what I know to be true in the replay booth of my mind\'s eye.
Jimbo,
I was probably one of the guys floating the rumor that Z\'s workouts were not on her regular scale. I see someone sent in the report from the expert on the workouts and he had them rated as A. Turns out, the workout pattern was barely sufficient.
I was concerned leading up to the race, and it was not widely reported, but I knew Zenyatta had dropped noticeable weight since returning from the Apple Blossom, and that was not typical of her, add to the fact her age, carrying 129#\'s and a real nice filly like St. T along with the weight concession, I honestly could envision an upset. But, I\'ll give Shireffs credit for knowing how much gas to put in the tank and still squeak out a win.
I totally agree that the matchup between RA and Z, if it occurs, should be with those 2 great horses and a field of fillies. Quality Road is a great horse, running great, but really, the entire racing industry has been waiting for these 2 superstars to be in the same race. This scenario has nothing to do with the idea that either Rachel or Z fear running against QR. That issue can be settled in the Breeders Cup for all the marbles. It doesn\'t seem right these 2 stars should have to share the spotlight with anyone until they\'ve had a go at each other.
I\'d say the ball is in Shireffs court...that may not help us much. His concern about Z returning from another road trip and dropping weight could be a deal breaker.
Mike
I agree...how about for fun the equal weights have to be 132 pounds...that should make for an interesting challenge.
We are allowed to have different opinions. :-D. Cheers.
ajkreider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hah!
>
> I wish I had 5k for a show bet at Mountaineer.
hey now.. EVERY race present a new wagering opportunity.. i would rather wager on a situation where there are cheap horses and somethiing stick out and take the %20 ROI then to wager on a $300k stakes where horses are forging left and right and lose %100 of the wager. A profit is a profit no matter where it comes from. And i dont normally wager Mountaineer but THAT was just an easy race to hit.
nyc1347 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A profit is a profit no
> matter where it comes from.
This is the motto I live by...I\'ve seen a lot of you guys tearing into NYC for his show betting and I understand you guys are not necessarily telling him he\'s wrong but trying to tell him there is a better way. In the end if the guy (i\'m guessing as we don\'t seem to have much women here) wants to bet show because that\'s what he feels comfortable with why are we telling him what to do with his money. Let him post and hopefully let him win. He made 50% on his cash layout yesterday and i\'ve seen a couple others where he made a nice couple of scores. So what if it\'s a tough way to make a living, it\'s his way..
i guess you can say my style is to look all over the place sometimes... everyone here will wager the duke vs. maryland basketball game (saratoga) and il look for an edge everywhere including 2nd half lines of the cal poly vs long beach state game (mountaineer).. whatever gets the job done!
smalltimer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The weight is totally wrong in your scenario. The
> reigning Horse of the Year gets spotted 4 pounds?
> Make it even weighted at 123 apiece, that way,
> neither horse is compromised and if I were Z\'s
> connections and was expected to concede 4# to the
> reigning HOY, I\'d tell them to stick it. These
> are two truly great animals, they will put on a
> great show if they can be matched up in the next
> few months. Anytime you have a weight concession
> it leaves the argument open if the race is decided
> by a half length or so.
> How great is it that they both are still running
> great? Two months ago it looked like Rachel was
> not going to be able to match or approach her
> greatness from \'09.
> Zenyatta runs her usual disadvantaged style
> against a nice filly, spotting weight and still
> finding enough late to get the job done. She\'s a
> great one, no doubt. I watched the replay several
> times now, and Z was ALL OUT until a couple
> strides before the line, so it was not easy today
> and I knew it wouldn\'t be.
> I do think if Z and Rachel get matched up, the
> lead up to the race in terms of workouts for
> Zenyatta will be different that leading up to this
> one.
> 129#\'s and her advancing age all added up to a
> real gut-wrencher today. I\'m just glad she was
> able to pull it out.
I can\'t help but laugh. Did you all see the photo of the Amazon queen at the wire? Her competitor\'s hind end looked a foot lower then Zenyatta\'s.
What\'s Zenyatta weigh? She\'s at least a couple hundred heavier than her opponents. That means 129 pounds is less as a percentage of body weight than 120 is for the smaller competitor.
Zenyatta should probably give 10 pounds to her nearest competitor just to be carrying the same weight as a percentage of body weight.
That\'s a great concept. The idea that a horse(s) should be weighted according to their body weight is likewise worth a chuckle, no offense taken Funny Cide.
FYI, Zenyatta weighs 1,300 pounds. So, she carried 10% of her body weight.
Strength does not precipitate speed.
If you give me your personal email address in a private message, I\'ll send you a picture I took of her last year from about 5\' away.
Physically she is a monster.
Peace out...
smalltimer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That\'s a great concept. The idea that a horse(s)
> should be weighted according to their body weight
> is likewise worth a chuckle, no offense taken
> Funny Cide.
>
> FYI, Zenyatta weighs 1,300 pounds. So, she
> carried 10% of her body weight.
>
> Strength does not precipitate speed.
>
> If you give me your personal email address in a
> private message, I\'ll send you a picture I took of
> her last year from about 5\' away.
> Physically she is a monster.
>
> Peace out...
It\'s a logical concept. Size has nothing to do with talent or speed, but it obviously affects the ability to carry weight. If Zenyatta is 1300 pounds (that would\'ve been my guess as well), then she carried 9.9% of her body weight when carrying 129 pounds. Her competitor who weighs 1100 and carries 120 is carrying 10.9% of its body weight. If the competitor weighs 1000 pounds, it\'s carrying 12% of its body weight.
There are few studies on weight-carrying ability, but not surprisingly, all talk about weight as a percentage of the horse\'s weight - not random weights with no care for the horse\'s own weight:
-------
While most healthy horses can easily carry a rider and saddle, they do have their limits. Now researchers have identified a threshold for when a rider is too heavy for a horse to comfortably carry.
The scientists base their findings on detailed measurements taken of eight horses that were ridden while packing anywhere from 15 to 30% of their body weight. The horses ranged in size from 400 to 625 kilograms (885 to 1375 pounds).
When carrying 15 and 20% of their body weight, the horses showed relatively little indication of stress. It's when they were packing weights of 25% that physical signs changed markedly, and these became accentuated under 30% loads.
The horses had noticeably faster breathing and higher heart rates when carrying tack and rider amounting to 25% or more of their body weight. A day after trotting and cantering with the heftier weights, the horses' muscles showed substantially greater soreness and tightness. Those horses that were least sore from the exercise had wider loins, the part of a horse's back located between their last rib and croup.
Based on these results, the study's authors recommend that horses not be loaded with greater than 20% of their body weight. A 545-kilogram (1200 pound) horse, then would be best off carrying no more than 109 kg (240 lbs) of tack and rider.
Interestingly, this research from the Ohio State University Agricultural Technical Institute has concluded with the same weight guideline that the US Calvary Manuals of Horse Management published in 1920.
Funny Cide Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> smalltimer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That\'s a great concept. The idea that a
> horse(s)
> > should be weighted according to their body
> weight
> > is likewise worth a chuckle, no offense taken
> > Funny Cide.
> >
> > FYI, Zenyatta weighs 1,300 pounds. So, she
> > carried 10% of her body weight.
> >
> > Strength does not precipitate speed.
> >
> > If you give me your personal email address in a
> > private message, I\'ll send you a picture I took
> of
> > her last year from about 5\' away.
> > Physically she is a monster.
> >
> > Peace out...
>
> It\'s a logical concept. Size has nothing to do
> with talent or speed, but it obviously affects the
> ability to carry weight. If Zenyatta is 1300
> pounds (that would\'ve been my guess as well), then
> she carried 9.9% of her body weight when carrying
> 129 pounds. Her competitor who weighs 1100 and
> carries 120 is carrying 10.9% of its body weight.
> If the competitor weighs 1000 pounds, it\'s
> carrying 12% of its body weight.
>
> There are few studies on weight-carrying ability,
> but not surprisingly, all talk about weight as a
> percentage of the horse\'s weight - not random
> weights with no care for the horse\'s own weight:
> -------
>
>
> While most healthy horses can easily carry a rider
> and saddle, they do have their limits. Now
> researchers have identified a threshold for when a
> rider is too heavy for a horse to comfortably
> carry.
>
> The scientists base their findings on detailed
> measurements taken of eight horses that were
> ridden while packing anywhere from 15 to 30% of
> their body weight. The horses ranged in size from
> 400 to 625 kilograms (885 to 1375 pounds).
>
> When carrying 15 and 20% of their body weight, the
> horses showed relatively little indication of
> stress. It's when they were packing weights of 25%
> that physical signs changed markedly, and these
> became accentuated under 30% loads.
>
> The horses had noticeably faster breathing and
> higher heart rates when carrying tack and rider
> amounting to 25% or more of their body weight. A
> day after trotting and cantering with the heftier
> weights, the horses' muscles showed substantially
> greater soreness and tightness. Those horses that
> were least sore from the exercise had wider loins,
> the part of a horse's back located between their
> last rib and croup.
>
> Based on these results, the study's authors
> recommend that horses not be loaded with greater
> than 20% of their body weight. A 545-kilogram
> (1200 pound) horse, then would be best off
> carrying no more than 109 kg (240 lbs) of tack and
> rider.
>
> Interestingly, this research from the Ohio State
> University Agricultural Technical Institute has
> concluded with the same weight guideline that the
> US Calvary Manuals of Horse Management published
> in 1920.
This is all well and good.
But weight assigned has to do with performance, not size. So a big, slow horse should carry more weight than a small, fast horse??
Unless you have a big fast horse, they would carry more than a small slow horse.
A big fast horse should carry more than a fast small horse??
And finally if we have a big slow horse going against a small slow horse......nobody would care.
P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny Cide Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > smalltimer Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > That\'s a great concept. The idea that a
> > horse(s)
> > > should be weighted according to their body
> > weight
> > > is likewise worth a chuckle, no offense taken
> > > Funny Cide.
> > >
> > > FYI, Zenyatta weighs 1,300 pounds. So, she
> > > carried 10% of her body weight.
> > >
> > > Strength does not precipitate speed.
> > >
> > > If you give me your personal email address in
> a
> > > private message, I\'ll send you a picture I
> took
> > of
> > > her last year from about 5\' away.
> > > Physically she is a monster.
> > >
> > > Peace out...
> >
> > It\'s a logical concept. Size has nothing to do
> > with talent or speed, but it obviously affects
> the
> > ability to carry weight. If Zenyatta is 1300
> > pounds (that would\'ve been my guess as well),
> then
> > she carried 9.9% of her body weight when
> carrying
> > 129 pounds. Her competitor who weighs 1100 and
> > carries 120 is carrying 10.9% of its body
> weight.
> > If the competitor weighs 1000 pounds, it\'s
> > carrying 12% of its body weight.
> >
> > There are few studies on weight-carrying
> ability,
> > but not surprisingly, all talk about weight as
> a
> > percentage of the horse\'s weight - not random
> > weights with no care for the horse\'s own
> weight:
> > -------
> >
> >
> > While most healthy horses can easily carry a
> rider
> > and saddle, they do have their limits. Now
> > researchers have identified a threshold for when
> a
> > rider is too heavy for a horse to comfortably
> > carry.
> >
> > The scientists base their findings on detailed
> > measurements taken of eight horses that were
> > ridden while packing anywhere from 15 to 30% of
> > their body weight. The horses ranged in size
> from
> > 400 to 625 kilograms (885 to 1375 pounds).
> >
> > When carrying 15 and 20% of their body weight,
> the
> > horses showed relatively little indication of
> > stress. It's when they were packing weights of
> 25%
> > that physical signs changed markedly, and these
> > became accentuated under 30% loads.
> >
> > The horses had noticeably faster breathing and
> > higher heart rates when carrying tack and rider
> > amounting to 25% or more of their body weight.
> A
> > day after trotting and cantering with the
> heftier
> > weights, the horses' muscles showed
> substantially
> > greater soreness and tightness. Those horses
> that
> > were least sore from the exercise had wider
> loins,
> > the part of a horse's back located between
> their
> > last rib and croup.
> >
> > Based on these results, the study's authors
> > recommend that horses not be loaded with
> greater
> > than 20% of their body weight. A 545-kilogram
> > (1200 pound) horse, then would be best off
> > carrying no more than 109 kg (240 lbs) of tack
> and
> > rider.
> >
> > Interestingly, this research from the Ohio
> State
> > University Agricultural Technical Institute has
> > concluded with the same weight guideline that
> the
> > US Calvary Manuals of Horse Management
> published
> > in 1920.
>
> This is all well and good.
>
> But weight assigned has to do with performance,
> not size. So a big, slow horse should carry more
> weight than a small, fast horse??
>
> Unless you have a big fast horse, they would carry
> more than a small slow horse.
>
> A big fast horse should carry more than a fast
> small horse??
>
> And finally if we have a big slow horse going
> against a small slow horse......nobody would care.
And Zenyatta\'s a fast big horse, so we\'re not concerning ourselves with burdening her with bigger imposts than her talent deserves, are we?
The point is that she went against a horse who was inferior to her while carrying less as a percentage of body weight then her competitor. So making a big deal of the weight she carried or gave makes no sense, not given that fact.
Funny Cide Wrote:
> And Zenyatta\'s a fast big horse, so we\'re not
> concerning ourselves with burdening her with
> bigger imposts than her talent deserves, are we?
She carried 129, thats plenty.
> The point is that she went against a horse who was
> inferior to her while carrying less as a
> percentage of body weight then her competitor. So
> making a big deal of the weight she carried or
> gave makes no sense, not given that fact.
This is comical. There were some here that predicted she would get \"dusted\", not to mention that ST went off at 2-1. Seems like there were quite a few that thought the weights were fair enough, otherwise they wouldn\'t have bet on ST. Exactly how inferior was ST?? Not much according to the tote.
This is the first time I\'ve read about assigning weight according to their size.
This isn\'t the first time a large horse has faced smaller ones. Yet, this is the horse that is supposed to set new standards for weight carried??
Why hasn\'t this been mentioned in the past?? Don\'t tell me its because this hasn\'t happened before, large horse facing smaller ones.
The size advantage is old news, and clearly has a lot to do with this great mares success.
That she handles her size so well is the talent. Weight vs Size would fall into the same category as stride length. It\'s not an \'unfair\' advantage or reason for minimizing the performance.
I agree, LC. I think NYC does the work and has the cojones and deserves more credit. He would probably come back from the track with as much or more than some of his detractors.
Leamas
Leamas57 wrote:
\"I think NYC does the work and has the cojones and deserves more credit. He would probably come back from the track with as much or more than some of his detractors.\"
I agree with this, and I think it is possible to justify both his breeding views and his show betting. I just wish he (and everyone else who does it) would stop posting bet sizes. It is terribly gauche.
I just wish Rich (and everyone else who does it) would quit using so many big words. Its terriby maladroit.
P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny Cide Wrote:
>
> > And Zenyatta\'s a fast big horse, so we\'re not
> > concerning ourselves with burdening her with
> > bigger imposts than her talent deserves, are we?
>
>
>
> She carried 129, thats plenty.
>
>
> > The point is that she went against a horse who
> was
> > inferior to her while carrying less as a
> > percentage of body weight then her competitor.
> So
> > making a big deal of the weight she carried or
> > gave makes no sense, not given that fact.
>
> This is comical. There were some here that
> predicted she would get \"dusted\", not to mention
> that ST went off at 2-1. Seems like there were
> quite a few that thought the weights were fair
> enough, otherwise they wouldn\'t have bet on ST.
> Exactly how inferior was ST?? Not much according
> to the tote.
You really think that was solely a reflection of the weight? I\'d say it had more to do with betting against her to finally lose in addition to her works since her last race not being up to norm along with reports that something may be amiss with her.
> This is the first time I\'ve read about assigning
> weight according to their size.
>
> This isn\'t the first time a large horse has faced
> smaller ones. Yet, this is the horse that is
> supposed to set new standards for weight carried??
>
>
> Why hasn\'t this been mentioned in the past??
> Don\'t tell me its because this hasn\'t happened
> before, large horse facing smaller ones.
It\'s certainly the first time in decades that a horse at the top level has had this large of a size advantage on her competitors. Do I expect that racing secretaries will do something new and assign weights based on the animals\' own weight? No. It\'d be a pain in the rear on an inexact science.
Weight has always been an inexact science. The weight rules we live by a simply a loose standard that is easy enough to employ (as compared to having the horses weigh in prior to each race and assign weight accordingly due to both physical weight and race record). That doesn\'t mean we can\'t use our brains and make educated guesses as to when the weight is going to be of consequence and when it won\'t be of consequence.
You readily accept the physiological difference between males and females and younger horses and older horses regarding weight, so why would you reject the physiological difference between the much larger animal over normal-sized ones?
I am tempted to use the old Norm Crosby routine and say, \"yeah and it\'s not proper either...
Leamas
Smalltimer wrote:
\"I just wish Rich (and everyone else who does it) would quit using so many big words. Its terriby maladroit.\"
You need to look at this in terms of percentage of the reader\'s weight.
Norm Crosby was one of my early heroes. He\'s the reason they invented the Thesaurus.
Steve Davidowitz and Byk got into it pretty good on the Zenyatta as Goddess thing,
http://www.thoroughbredracingradionetwork.com/index.php?option=com_events&task=view_detail&agid=773&year=2010&month=06&day=16&Itemid=35
NYC -- look up Fager. The only horses who finished ahead of him were ALL Hall of Famers. Damascus, Buckpasser, and Successor.
What Fager did and who he did it against is why I rank him as the best horse ever. Those with comparable records to his can\'t claim the level of competition that Fager met (and met routinely).
Touche\'
--Leamas
Just listened to this exchange today in the car. Its basically the audio version of myself and others on this board exchanging views on Zenyatta. Very entertaining \"conversation\".
Funny how Byk gets hysterical, while Davidowitz remains calm and collected.
I don\'t want to start another Zenyatta thread. Whether you are on one side or the other, this was fun to listen to. Had me cracking up at the end.