I just heard it on the Mike Francesca show.
Don\'t get it, her TG numbers say she\'s just as good as last year!
Rachel Alexandra, named the 2009 Horse of the Year after a 3-year-old campaign in which she defeated males in the Preakness, Haskell, and Woodward, has been retired, majority owner Jess Jackson announced in a news release Tuesday.
\"As you know, despite top training and a patient campaign, Rachel Alexandra did not return to her 2009 form,\" Jackson said in the release. \"I believe it's time to retire our champion and reward her with a less stressful life. We are delighted that she will retire healthy and happy to our beautiful farm in Kentucky.\"
Rachel Alexandra will be bred to Curlin, who won the Horse of the Year award for Jackson in 2007 and 2008.
\"Imagine what possibilities those two super horses might produce,\" Jackson said in the release.
She had a bullet at Oklahoma yesterday, fastest of 50 4f in 48.45
( 24:95, 23:50 ) galloped out in 1:01.09.
Miff--
1-- Her figures were almost as good as last year\'s, on her best both years. If she was a sound 4yo they would either be better or the same without bounces. Also took her three starts to get close to her 3yo top, not a good sign.
2-- As I have pointed out a couple of times, she was having a problem with the first turn (we have her 5w,4w,3w,4w,3w in her 5 starts this year, despite racing in small fields). Not good.
I think it\'s great that she can have some babies and start rolling around in the grass. She is such a magnificent animal and deserves this well earned rest! The Woodward will go down in history for sure, as one of the greatest races of all time.
JB,
Those wide first turns enhanced her figs.Correct figs by methodology but not racetrack fast,hence she was getting beat by a few rather common fillys while getting fast figs.
Had Rachel had a ounce of unsoundness,she would have been retired many months ago.
Never developed a step at 4 and maybe those big 3 yr old efforts caught up to her.
Mike
One of these days you\'re going to explain your idea of geometry to me.
They didn\'t listen to me. In July when I said to retire her before she gets embarrassed. .....(Persistently).......funny how the story broke on Francesca\'s show. A horse\'s ass announcing a horse\'s retirement.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
I hope this is a lesson for fans and handicappers that its never a guarantee that they are coming back bigger stronger faster!
She ran like I\'ve never seen before last year with 20 length wins in Grade Ones and a parade of crushed next out winners.
This is probably a good thing since a big buildup for the BC and then probably laying an egg is not good for her legend!
Maybe Jackson can retire Brett Favre too? Please?
I have to have one last \"whine\", if only because Richie B would be disappointed with me if I didn\'t do it...
A special thanks to the connections of BOTH Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta for concocting the campaigns of likely the two best fillies in the last 20 years such that they never met on the race track, despite the fact that they both raced in 2009 and 2010 and despite the clamoring of the racing public and the supporters of both for such a meeting to happen.
A special note to Richie B. THIS is why I didn\'t understand all your posts where you stated that you preferred they hold off and meet in the BC Classic (and the great betting opportunity that this presented). Because it was always a longshot to get both to the classic. So we get NOTHING instead. And we have to like it.
Who was better? Who knows. My bet would be that in 2009 Rachel wins at any distance on any dirt track but that in 2010 Zenyatta likely wins. Rachel was more brilliant but Zenyatta\'s consistency at a very high level, is its own form of brilliance.
Just a shame they never met on the track. A real shame.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One of these days you\'re going to explain your
> idea of geometry to me.
I\'ve asked about this before. Wouldn\'t it be worth finding an empirical solution to the ground loss issue because there could be more to it than a length lost on a bend is (effectively) worth a length at the line.
I\'ve already suggested using pairs of horses who reoppose with differing ground loss profiles to their first meeting. Many such matches would be required to smooth out the variance but hopefully a useful picture may emerge from the data. Or any better idea would suffice, so long as it was empirical.
I think Jimbo has the issues nailed.
On both of their best days, Rachael would have beat her. Her best is better than Z\'s best. However, Zenaytta is alot more consistant and always runs big so she would have won more than lost against Rachael over time.
Also agree that it\'s a real shame they never met.
The racing for the next 2 weeks is going to be insane. Can\'t wait
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A special note to Richie B. THIS is why I didn\'t
> understand all your posts where you stated that
> you preferred they hold off and meet in the BC
> Classic (and the great betting opportunity that
> this presented). Because it was always a longshot
> to get both to the classic. So we get NOTHING
> instead. And we have to like it.
Jim:
I am disinclined to argue with anything you\'ve said and give you credit
for putting the blame on both camps for preventing the great showdown.
I sometimes come off as the curmudgeonly yet irreverent protector of the
traditions of Racing, the preserver of the memories of the great runners
of the past and the great racing venues, but the truth is that the reason
I am still crazy about Racing after all these years is that I was bred on
both sides to gamble.
Simply stated, a race in which Rachel and Zen, each at odds somewhere near
even money, carrying nowhere near enough weight against 5 or 6 tomato cans
handpicked by their connections, just didn\'t tickle my fancy. The only intrigue
in a race which featured these two against a short field of fillies and mares
would be to see Calvin Borel\'s left boot scraping the inside rail on RA and Mike
Smith 12 wide on Zen (just joking P-Dub).
Rachel made her bones defeating males in a 3YO campaign which is a shade below
the two greatest 3YO campaigns I have witnessed, those of Secretariat and
Spectacular Bid, and her 3YO campaign is arguably the best since the Bid\'s 79
year, when he won what? maybe 5 major Triple Crown preps before winning two
thirds of the Triple Crown.
Zenyatta won me over by defeating the best available males in the 09 BC Classic.
In my opinion these two had nothing to prove against their own gender and earned
the right to compete with the World\'s best non- turf horses in the 2010 BC Classic.
I think we all agree that, taking Zen and Rachel at their best, Rachel is
advantaged up to 9 furlongs, Zen might be preferred at distances beyond that.
Rachel has a tactical speed advantage at any distance. Rachel is a faster looking
animal off her TGs with some mind boggling numbers. They both have what some
would call stage presence, though I do not believe that Racing\'s dysfunctional
powers that be would have been capable of creating enough buzz about the match up
of these two Amazons that might draw the non Racing fan in to see what all the
excitement is about.
Jim the only place where we really differ is that you\'ve been a bit tough on Team
Zen. If all goes according to plan on Saturday, Zen will take her place in the
gate at CD in November looking to capture her third straight BC event.
The big loss here is that RA would have been a stone cold bet against for me in
the BC Ladies at 3/5...
One could argue that the only thing empirical in racing is that the horse that stops the clock first ran the fastest.Geometry is an over simplification of the ground loss issue, imo, as is the above statement, the horse that stops the clock first ran the fastest.
As to ground loss alone,I believe that all ground loss is NOT equal.For example, ground loss on the first turn(of a two turn race)which is travelled at a very slow speed is not nearly as relevant as the same ground loss on a first turn travelled at a much faster speed.The ground loss in both cases has the same value in the figure but is not nearly equally relevant when looking at the outcomes.There is no debate that the extra distance travelled is the same, running slow or fast.
To give equal ground loss \'value\' in the figure ignores a critical factor in racing which is that all things slow in a race are not as relevant as all things fast in a race.
You can count on one hand the number or horses that win while travelling very fast and wide into the first turn vs the much greater number of horses that win travelling very slowly and wide into the first turn.It\'s like 10-1 in favor of the slow travellers yet they get the same ground loss value in the figure.
Thats my geometry JB,admittedly not nearly as empirical as yours.
Mike
Covel,
I was shocked last year when you used the term \"gutless\" to describe Zenyatta\'s connections.
Last year, Rachel\'s people could have taken her to the BC and met the big mare on Z\'s surface. They said \"no thanks\" and left Rachel in the barn.
This year, Zenyatta\'s people made no secret they were willing to face her at Oaklawn on dirt. Rachel\'s people again said, \"no thanks\" and left her in the barn again.
Fast forward to now. Zenyatta\'s people fully intended to run in the BC Classic at Churchill Downs in hopes of facing Rachel at Rachel\'s track and Rachel\'s surface, once again Rachel\'s people said, \"no thanks\" and have her in the barn permanently.
At the end of the day, which camp defined \"gutless??\"
This year, both. Last year, if any, not the ones who went all over the country, faced colts three times in G I\'s, and stopped for the year two months before a BC that was going to be run on a surface they had already taken a big position against, well before having RA.
Very unsatisfying ending to this part of the story, that we can all agree on.
Smalltimer,
I don\'t remember posting that but sometimes my memory conveniently forgets things. I apologize if I said that because I don\'t think that\'s right.
I tried to stay out of this whole crusade that went on on this board whenever one of them ran because I think it\'s pretty clear.
Rachael on her best was better but she didn\'t run her best nearly as often as Z runs her best (which is pretty much everytime).
One thing I will say is the timing of this retirement is a very lame move. She was reportedly working well and there was nothing wrong with her last race other than that she doesn\'t want to go that far so why not at least run this weekend and make a decision from there. Lame, Lame, Lame.
Jim,
Honestly, I recall that adjective from you, and I was shocked because in the previous years I had been in this forum, you had always taken the high road, been gracious and courteous to everyone and I couldn\'t remember you ever saying anything remotely negative about horses or people.
Anyway, water under the bridge, could be my way of getting my last word in on a topic (Rachel vs. Zenyatta) which brought out the best and worst in a lot of people, myself included.
I\'m disappointed in how the Rachel saga ended, I really wanted to get into a friendly back and forth with jimbo. He and I had already agreed early in the year that our conversations would be civil back and forth. So, a disappointment on a personal level because I do enjoy jimbo\'s gusto.
TGJB, I agree, we have all been shortchanged in what should have been and could have been a matchup that really meant something in the overall scheme of the sport.
For the multitude of true Rachel lovers. Guys, I\'m sorry these two camps could not get together for what clearly would have been a hell of an event. I wish Rachel well in her retirement, I can\'t wait to have a chance to play one of her offspring. If her offspring are anything like their mama, they will be some running son of a guns!!! Every time over the last 2 years when I thought about Rachel and Zenyatta getting into the same starting game, my heart started to pound. But, when I stood 3 feet away from Zenyatta last year right after she won the BC Classic, I said to myself, \"nobody is gonna beat this horse.\" First time I\'ve ever been in awe of an animal.
Peace out
As Woody Allen said, 80 percent of success is taking big positions against things.
Smalltimer,
I am pretty sure it was me who said that Shirreffs was \"gutless\". (and yes, I guess I am not as gracious and polite as Covelj, that is certainly true!).
I still have Shirreffs, and doubt that will ever change. I believe he was the key driver in ensuring that Zenyatta almost NEVER left the state of California.
The connections of Rachel ran an entrepeneurial campaign last year, followed by a very weak campaign this year. Not wanting to run on carpet is not an unreasonable position. It seems likely that 20 years from now, horseplayers will look back and wonder WTF happened for the 3-4 year period we did run on the carpet. (which should be over in a year or two from now).
As for Zenyatta\'s connections, they chose to take the path of least resistance ALL YEAR LONG, but then step up big time and go for the Classic.
Oh well.
Richie B,
How could I possibly disagree with anybody \"bred on both sides for gambling\".
I hear you on all fronts. I still believe the BC Classic is a betting opportunity as I believe Zenyatta will be the favorite and will be a toss out of the top 2 slots at least. But can\'t blame anybody that believes she will step up her game and run faster against the better competition (I personally don\'t believe she can, but can\'t fault those that do - I can only bet against them)
Now what are we going to argue about on here ?
How about Grape vs Lime Kool Aide !!!
Of course the argument must be limited to Kool Aide drinkers only.
Lost in the Rachel Hoopla and not mentioned here at all was the passing of Real Quiet on the same day. Not a bad investment for 17k, one who missed the Triple Crown by a nose to Victory Gallup.
x
Wait until the Cali\'s read this!!
Zenyatta\'s not queen of the universe just yet
By Andrew Beyer
LOS ANGELES - Californians have always loved their Thoroughbred stars, but no horse in many years has excited them as Zenyatta has. They will roar for her at Hollywood Park on Saturday, when she makes her final appearance in her home state and tries to win her 19th consecutive race.
Zenyatta inspires fierce passions. When she defeated males in the Breeders\' Cup Classic last fall, her fans hailed the performance as one of the best in the history of the event - and maybe in the history of the sport. When the mare subsequently lost the horse of the year title to Rachel Alexandra, her partisans reacted with white-hot anger. The blogosphere is regularly filled with sharp rebukes for anybody who demeans Zenyatta or even suggests that she is not one of the greatest racehorses of all time.
Compiling an 18-for-18 career record is an extraordinary feat. Horse races contain so many potential pitfalls that no high-class U. S. horse has put together such a streak since Hindoo in 1881. Nevertheless (at the risk of inflaming the blogosphere), I could not put Zenyatta on a list of all-time great racehorses.
My judgment is based partly on the fact that she has compiled her record by running mostly against moderate female competition - such as the field in Lady\'s Secret Stakes on Saturday. But the main reason for questioning Zenyatta\'s place in history is that fact that she is a synthetic-track specialist, albeit the best in the brief history of these surfaces. In my view, it is a dubious distinction to be the poster girl for the surfaces that have robbed the sport here of its unique character.
California once had the most exciting and vibrant racing in the nation, and East vs. West rivalries animated the sport for decades. While California never had the quality of bloodstock that populated the New York tracks, it had something else: speed. The dirt racing strips in the West were fast and speed-favoring, and trainers accordingly honed horses\' speed by training them hard and fast. Jockeys rode aggressive from the gate, and the early pace of races was quicker than in any other racing jurisdiction on the planet. The nature of the game was breathtaking, and fans loved it.
When horses toughened by this style of racing came East, they often ran away from their supposedly classier rivals. Fast horses such as Precisionist, Winning Colors, Sunday Silence, Bayakoa, Criminal Type, Silver Charm, and Congaree advertised the virtues of California racing.
When California\'s racing regulators mandated that traditional dirt tracks be replaced by synthetic surfaces as of 2008, they didn\'t anticipate the consequence of their decision, but they essentially legislated speed out of the game. On the new synthetic surfaces, raw speed was not an asset and sometimes was a significant liability.
Jockeys adjusted accordingly. Horses would typically travel at a moderate pace until their acceleration in the stretch decided the race. In the 16 Breeders\' Cups races run over Santa Anita\'s synthetic surface in 2008 and 2009, not a single front-runner wound up in the winner\'s circle, and most races were won by a horse rallying from far behind.
Zenyatta\'s ability to unleash an exceptional late burst of speed makes her so potent on synthetic tracks. In the stretch run of the Breeders\' Cup Classic, she flew past some rivals who had distinguished themselves as powerful finishers. But just twice has she ventured outside of California to run on dirt, beating a good field of fillies at Oaklawn Park in 2008 and a weak group there this year.
There is still no evidence that she is as potent on dirt as she is on synthetics. Probably she isn\'t; dirt and synthetics are so different that few horses are top-class on both. (The 0-for-43 record of horses making the transition from dirt to synthetics in the Santa Anita Breeders Cups laid to rest the cliché that \"a good horse can run on anything.\"
Most racing fans regret that owner Jerry Moss and trainer John Shirreffs have been so conservative in their management of Zenyatta that they didn\'t give her more opportunities to prove herself on dirt. (If the mare had gone East to confront a below-her-prime Rachel Alexandra this summer, she might have won the Zenyatta vs. Rachel debate once and for all.) After Zenyatta\'s final Hollywood appearance, however, Moss and Shirreffs plan to run her against the nation\'s best males over the dirt at Churchill Downs Nov. 6.
This Breeders\' Cup Classic will be the defining race of her life, and if she wins (or even loses a close one), she can silence all of the skeptics. I doubt that she will. If Zenyatta retires without beating top-class competition on dirt, how will history view her?
A few years from now, the distinction of excelling on synthetic tracks may not mean much. Amid growing disillusionment with synthetics, Santa Anita this fall is replacing its track with dirt. Hollywood Park will eventually be turned into a real-estate development. At that point there will be only two racetracks in the U.S., both with short meetings, that offer Grade 1 or Grade 2 stakes on synthetic surfaces: Del Mar and Keeneland.
When racing fans of the future look back at the record of a mare who excelled on long-forgotten substances called Pro-Ride and Cushion Track, they are apt to regard Zenyatta as a historical curiosity rather than an all-time great racehorse.
I think once Andy ends his journalism career, he too may be viewed as an historical curiosity rather than an all-time great handicapper.
He\'s shown the ability to eliminate 5% of the field for the Kentucky Derby simply by making his selection which can automatically be tossed.
I guess you figure that was some kind of on-point, relevant response.
Put yourself out there, under your own name, for 20 years or so, then get back to me.
When you charge for your service or expertise, you\'re gonna be expected to pick an occassional winner.
Andy charges for those Derby picks?
Sometimes life is simple and obvious. The horse - like most - obviously had a \"little something\" that was being managed (and I mean that in a good-for-the-horse way). The work exacerbated it, leaving no choice but some weeks/months off to rest, or retirement.
You guys bet on horses like this daily, even on the triple-crown trail. Ask Jerry, I\'m sure he\'s been in on the results of vetting for promising two-year-olds in the late fall. All athletes have their little issues. Many do NOT mean the horse shouldn\'t be racing.
I respect Andy Beyer immensely. Don\'t always agree with him but like anyone, he\'s certainly entitled to his opinion. Thats all that was, his opinion. It was not the definitive analysis of Zenyatta\'s career.
Steve Davidowitz, another esteemed writer and handicapper, calls Zenyatta one of the all time greats. There was a post here a couple months ago, where it was mentioned that Steve Byk and Davidowitz had a \"discussion\" regarding Zenyatta, where Davidowitz gave the reasons he felt that way. Byk hung up the phone screaming like a little kid. Funny stuff.
Beyer has no idea how people will regard her. If he wants to be someone who can\'t appreciate her talents, then who really cares??
How many times has someone on this board posted that Zenyatta will lose, based on the figures??
I\'m not going to get into another pissing contest regarding Zenyatta. Those that don\'t appreciate what she is, and Beyer is apparently one of those, lose out.
When did someone post that she WILL lose? Maybe Jimbo, once. I can remember people saying they would bet against her at odds-on, which is not the same thing. The beef many people here have is that she HASN\'T run in more than 2-3 races where she had any significant chance of losing, due to the level of the comp.
Andy basically has it right. If Zenyatta beats QR, Blame, LAL and the rest on dirt, she will have to run faster than she ever has. This would promote the case of those who think she just does enough to win, that those close finishes against no-names on synthetic should be disregarded or held in her favor. If she runs no faster than on synth, and gets beat, she will be viewed as a terrific filly who\'s record is somewhat inflated. Which is the view that those who measure things with figures have now.
Those of us who live in NY get used to Met and Yankee fans saying the other team sucks. I\'m a Met fan, and the Yanks are pretty good. The fact that I think based on a data base I\'ve spent a long time building that RA was a superhorse, and that Z\'s record is inflated, doesn\'t mean I don\'t think Z is a very good mare.
Poor choice of words, but a few have labeled her a bet against. Point taken.
Its unfortunate that one race will determine her legacy.
Only the degree of her legacy.
And by the way-- getting weight, it\'s not impossible that Zenyatta can win just by running her top, depending on whether some of the boys run theirs, and how Smith rides her. She didn\'t get the best figure in last year\'s Classic, but won because she cut the corner. Legacy might depend on what \"Wide Mikey\" does-- pretty ironic, huh?
Miff, you get to tell us that if she went around she would have won anyway.
JB,
You\'re getting close E.G. If Rachel had NOT been floated wide on the first turn in her last loss, she\'d have lost anyway.Big league racing stuff, nothing to do with figure making.
Mike
Miff-- I hope to make it to the big leagues someday, where distance travelled changes with rate of speed and location of the turns. Sort of like the hyperspace button on Asteroid machines.
And by the way, don\'t know which RA race you are talking about, but didn\'t you just get done telling us ground loss was MORE important on the first turn?
JB,
Well study splits, racing etc for 40 years and you might. Rachel lost because she was hounded the first 4F by another horse.Had she been the same wide into the first turn without PRESSURE, she would have won.Her defeat had zero to do with ground loss on the first turn.
Mike
Yep, doesn\'t matter how far they travel. I just need to study more so I can come up with those \"facts\".
JB,
Never said that how far they travel did not matter,all the time.It absolutely matters most of the time, and the speed at which horses travel the FIRST TURN is very relevant when extremely slow or fast.
There are many races where a horse travels farther than his opponents but still gets a more favorable overall trip/set up/path,mitigating ground loss somewhat or totally.
I never disputed the shortest way home is best,most of the time.
Mike
P-Dub,
I couldn\'t agree more with your last sentence, which is that it is unfortunate that one race will determine her legacy (at least to a degree).
It isn\'t her fault that she was a 4-5-6 year-old at a time when racing took the idiotic decision to run on carpet.
It also isn\'t her fault that her campaing has been managed so conservatively such that she really hasn\'t much chance to beat fast horses (with a few exceptions - although ironically last year\'s BC Classic is a bit of a negative key race, for those that believe in such things).
Shirreffs and company would\'t have even have had to do much to enhance her legacy. How about a trip outside California just a couple times in the past few years. Shit, anybody believe she wouldn\'t have won the Personal Ensign at Saratoga as that race turned out? Wouldn\'t that have been good? They wouldn\'t even do that, but instead opted for Clement Hirsch.
If Zenyatta wins the BC Classic she has to be considered an all-time great, no matter how she does it. If she runs off the board, it will be like a book with a bad ending. Was it her \"one off race\" which all horses are entitled to? Or was she well managed and never that fast? Nobody will really know, but almost everybody will have a strong opinion on it. Which brings me back to the point I have bored so many on this board with. If the connections had just tried a little bit to actually race this mare in competitive spots, it would have been a completely different discussion, and much more fulfilling.
Oh well.
JB:
I\'m one of the guilty. I posted back in June that she would lose to St. Trinians.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Thanks Joe B.
I didn\'t think I posted she \"would lose\". Of course I have bet against her 15 times, but at least no posts.... :)
While this is not an easy topic to articulate, there\'s the element of centripetal force. If a horse is making tighter turns there should be more force acting on the horse. One of my peeves is when a jock asks a horse to run (accelerate) while in the turn itself. This greatly adds to the force required to keep turning.
Leamas
The horse\'s name was Real Quiet.
Leamas
I just got around to reading this, you horse\'s patoot...Beyer as a \'figure\' in racing is deserving of criticism for sure, but when I knew him in Washington a long, long time ago, he was the best handicapper I had ever met.
He was ahead of his time and was a breath of fresh air writing about racing when horseracing writers were really a bunch of deadheads.
There\'s no accounting for deadheads...they\'re everywhere. Go prove my point.
jbelfior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JB:
>
> I\'m one of the guilty. I posted back in June that
> she would lose to St. Trinians.
>
> Good Luck,
> Joe B.
Aha!!!! So you\'re the one.
alm,
Sorry, you\'ll have to do better than calling me a horse\'s patoot, been married 34 years, that one just rolls off my back. Try something more original like when Monmouth Guy sends me a Person to Person and calls me an inbred hilbilly, and
manages to mis-spells hillbilly.
Let me ask you guys, including TGJB, Miff and Jimbo this...Will you be betting Zenyatta to win if she goes off at 3-1 in the Classic assuming she goes?
Buck,
Assuming a reasonably representative field (two of Blame, Quality Road, or Lookin at Lucky), I wouldn\'t go near her at 3-1.
But you are talking about somebody who has bet against her quite a few times, so it ain\'t saying much.
I don\'t believe she is fast enough to run with the top colts on dirt. I would be surprised if she got within 2 lengths of Quality Road (on dirt).
What if they are being saddled next to each other in the paddock. Does that count?
I would not under estimate her. She will need a trip as Blame figures to be negotiating about the same one. Quality Roads feet and gate/shipping issues need to stay away. Lookin at Lucky is interesting but the Indiana Derby?? Blame needs to fire again. If so he is also gonna be bet. Rail Trip first time Tricky on Sat. hmmmmm
3-1 on Zenyatta is about right. I\'m not saying the right price just about right in line with what she will go off at. Quality Road will be favored at about 8-5.
This is one year where maybe the Trophy/Legacy/History means more than the Money........
Jim:
I have enjoyed pestering you on this issue, so I will throw one more thought out
there:
You\'ve accused Team Zen of being overly conservative/protective.
If Zen wins Saturday, do you realize she could get a back door HOY by winning
the BC Ladies (Distaff) on Friday night and then hoping for a chaotic BC Classic
where Blame, QR and LAL are all beaten?
Absolutely agree that Zen would have blown by Rachel and held off Persistently in
the Personal Ensign, but still wouldn\'t have gotten respect becuase she beat a
filly who had peaked a year earlier.
Buck,
The odds really dont matter much to me.If I like Zenyatta and 3-1 is the price, I\'ll get creative.Rarely bet win.
The Classic should be great if they all show up in good form. A terrible shame a stone dead toss like Rachel not in there.Subject to the final preps and the Classic draw, I\'m leaning at tossing QR off his pathetic perfect trip loss to Blame and his common Woodward performance(esp last slow 1/8th).QR failed twice at the distance (but in the mud and once down inside, a tough spot for him)).QR\'s spacing coming in for 1 1/4 miles is tough. TAP very good off layoffs but 1 1/4 another story.Two months ago I felt QR was a Classic cinch, now I\'m tossing becaue I believe QR is over the top based on his last 2 races.
If LAL gets a nice soft win tomorrow without too much exertion, I\'ll be leaning to him. Blame, a dangerous forward moving grinder, will have no answer for the best of Zenyatta late. Zenyatta needs a fair pace and must run her best last 3/8ths to win.Z has to run faster(really Mike?), but with the right dynamics, I feel she is very dangerous.
Good Luck Buck, hope you kill them!
Mike
There\'s not much for me to say that hasn\'t already been said, but I will add (to P-Dub, especially) that if she wins the BC Classic this year, she won\'t be considered an all-time great, she\'ll be the greatest racehorse that ever stepped on a racetrack. Period. (I already think she is one of the all time greats, no issue there). No other horse could ever come close to matching her record of top class efforts year after year -- however you wish to measure it. A six year old still racing in this day and age, where most (even the best) are done by 3 or 4? Never losing? All those grade I\'s? Winning the BC classic on synthetic and dirt, two years in a row? You could go on and on, but no other horse (in ages past or today)comes close to those accomplishments. You want to discuss brilliant horses who ran a few amazing races in their careers (Rachel being a great example), fine, but to win over that many years and surfaces -- it\'s not rare, it\'s impossible. I\'ve been one of her biggest fans, and I didn\'t think she would win last year, and I think this year\'s field will be much better, so I have no clue really what she\'ll do. I almost wish she wouldn\'t even run in it, because she has nothing to prove to me. As far as Beyer, look, he was really cutting edge about 20 years ago, you know? Seriously. Does anybody really care at this point what he says? To say she is a synthetic specialist is complete lunacy. No one who knows anything at all about racehorses could say that with a straight face. Perhaps, the cushion track at Hollywood kept her sound (for whatever reasons) over the years -- you want to say that, fine, makes some sense to me, but to say she\'s a synthetic specialist when she\'s run her best races on dirt?? I mean you can write that crap and get paid for it? What a country we live in! If we\'re still at the point of debating or denigrating Z\'s virtues as Beyer seems to be, we\'ve missed everything. The carnival came to town and went and we haven\'t even gotten out of bed.
I couldn\'t agree more Mike. When they turn for home, anyone who has a pulse and a large bet on anyone other than Z is going to be praying she doesn\'t fire because she is the BOSS universal in my eyes and will be steam rolling in the lane as usual and you know they\'ll get the half in 47 and change.
I totally understand the sheet methodology and where the sheetsters come from when looking at Z,especially those east of the Mississippi. But I\'m a realist. Her daddy\'s runner\'s relish Churchill, she\'s a true 10F horse,she outclasses this year\'s BC Classic Field, is \"fast\" and she DOESN\'T LOSE Grade 1 races on dirt or poly!!!!!!!
I\'m all in on Z. In fact, I\'m going to lay a stack on a Blind Luck/Zenyatta win parlay as well as large one way exacata\'s with Z and 3 or 4 contenders.
Quality Road has NO HEART. His last showed us that. He is a STONE COLD TOSS for me in the classic if he even shows up.
Dana,
You almost wish Zenyatta wouldn\'t run in the BC Classic. I don\'t have to read another sentence in your post to understand your point of view. You would prefer another Clement Hirsch or perhaps another Lady\'s Secret. One more win against the Washington Generals, I mean the West Coast Synthetic horses.
People/Zenyatta fans continuing to say that her \"best races were on dirt\" doesn\'t make it true. Based on what? Figures? Nope. Horses she beat? Nope. BAsed on what?
Sure it is possible that she is not a synthetic runner and could be even better on dirt. But the connections have not allowed that to be factored in by rarely ever leaving California. If she wins at Churchill, that is a whole different ballgame. Even the biggest Zenyatta doubter would have nothing left to hang their doubts on.
She is a consistently fast filly who dominated her competition for 3 years. The problem in that sentence being \"competition\".
Buck,
It is possible that Quality Road = Commentator. To me, Commentator was the best \"bully horse\" of the last 10 years in that when he faced outclassed competition he ran the proverbial hole in the wind. Probably the most negative 5 or fasters than any other horse on TG. But when he got pushed, he didn\'t run as fast (except vs Saint Liam in a classic Whitney). TGJB would and has pointed out that coincidentally (or not), those \"pushed\" races I talk about were 2nd or 3rd off the layoff and as a horse with physical issues, he always ran better fresh.
But I am still not convinced that Quality Road is just a bully and won\'t run well when hooked. What I do know is that at his best Quality Road is much faster than anybody else running right now. And since I don\'t believe he will be favored in the BC, (Zenyatta will be), that makes Quality Road pretty interesting.
Zenyatta\'s top is the same on dirt (first Apple Blossom) as on synth. There is no reason to think she will run faster on dirt in the Classic than she has already unless you believe that she only does enough to win.
That Apple Blossom, by the way, was the best field she has faced, when you take into account ability over the surface they were running on.
By the way, evidently Ragozin has Z faster than either I or Beyer do. I would really love to know if this is a function of the absolutely nutty adjustments Friedman announced they had started making WITHIN the race-- giving extra credit to closers in slow paced races, IN THE FIGURE, as opposed to when handicapping later, as I\'m sure some do. If anyone knows, please let me know-- one way you would be able to tell is that the relationship between her and the fillies she beat would be different than on our figures.
Yes, you are correct. As I said it in my post. SHE HAS NOTHING MORE TO PROVE TO ME. She could retire today and I wouldn\'t think less of her. So, yes winning in the BC classic at Churchill will impress any doubters she has left, but I don\'t need that personally. If you were to examine her dirt races, she wins by open lengths, on synthetic usually the margin is a nose or something similar. As far as the numbers, I don\'t have the sheet in front of me, but I believe she has run as fast or close to her top on dirt, WHILE ALWAYS being geared down (again) by open lengths each time. Seems to me even a novice of sheet reading would conclude, she\'s probably much better on dirt, no? Just looking at her physically, and she\'s the COMPLETE opposite of what you\'d look for if you wanted a synthetic specialist!
Friedman last year:
The most unusual aspect of the comparison between RA and ZEN is that they both have shown the ability to run top efforts on both dirt and poly. I think that there is some justice in your approach of comparing dirt horses to dirt horses and poly and grass horses similarly, but in this case it\'s not really necessary. Some of Zen\'s numbers may be slower because of slow paces (even after we make our correction) but her top effort is a point faster than RA\'s best and Zen has many efforts within a point or two of RA\'s top. RA\'s efforts are as a 3yo as against Zen\'s top form at 4yo, but there are no guarantees that RA will be able to run faster numbers in the future even if she is campaigned as a 4yo (we can only hope that will be the case). They are head and shoulders the best of any mares in modern times and to me it would be hard to pick the likely winner if they were to match up on dirt or poly.
[Date/Time=08-13-2009 - 11:45 AM] [Msgid=1668057] [LoginName=Robespierre]
I don\'t have it in writing, but I think you are correct, JB -- that is what I heard a while back as well. The adjustments within the race, something like that.
Hard to tell whether \"our correction\" is for the horse or the race. I would love to know which Z race they have faster than anything RA ran as a 3yo, since from what I understand they have RA about the same as we do.
Z ran against Rinterval last time out in an \"S Pace\" race, they\'re back against each other tomorrow. We gave Z 3 1/4 points the better figure last time. If anyone (Miff) sees Ragozin for Hol tomorrow, I would love to know what they had as the difference, as well as which race they have as Z\'s top.
\"Just looking at her physically\"
Just Curious here.What is the ideal physical makeup for a turf horse? 25+ years ago(known as a jocks agent and Jerry mentioned he was a trackman for TG)the
important info gathered by this gentleman prior to a turf race was the \"foot\".In recollection(could be wrong
here)a large,flat foot was ideal.If you\'re able could you take a peak at Z\'s paddles tomorrow?Curious if there\'s any correlation between poly and turf in regard to \"foot\".
thanks,
mjs
TGJB,
What is the closest margin of victory on a horse race(s) where the winner ran a negative 5 or better? Just curious, don\'t expect you to take time to look it up, just looking for a ball park idea.
Seems as if most of the time those big negative numbers come up its because some horse won by multiple lengths and the rest of the field quit running, but I don\'t know if thats true or not.
Thanks
I realize this is not what you want, but I think it says something, and I can take only so much of the \"search engine\" over there.
Re; Re; Rachel vs. Zenyatta - (classhandicapper) 08-13-09 - 4:54 PM
Questions:
Did you adjust Zenyatta\'s last race figure for a slow pace?
When you make pace related adjustments, do you adjust all the horses equally all the time or do you occasionally subjectively adjust some more than others within the same race?
-----------------------------------------------------
Re; Re; Re; Rachel vs. Zenyatta - (Robespierre) 08-13-09 - 5:08 PM
Yes and yes the correction can be different for different horses in the same race (some horses in this race didn\'t get any P~ correction at all) and Zen got the biggest one.
Date=08-13-09 [Msgid=1668166] [LoginName=Robespierre] [IP Addr= 24.213.162.220]
Without looking it up I\'m going to guess the Whitney between Commentator and St. Liam. I think the loser ran neg 5 or 6.
Agree they usually win by open lengths when they run that fast, certainly don\'t agree it\'s because the others \"stop running\". Just not running as fast as a horse running neg 5. If you run really, really fast you figure to win by more than if you don\'t.
I\'ve also heard the phrase \"turf a**\" thrown around a lot in these parts and I\'m kind of curious what that means.
It\'s a lot of what I want. Those guys have truly gone off the deep end.
This is the kind of thing that most non-figure makers can\'t understand (and even some figure makers don\'t, as was made clear in my back and forth with Friedman a few years ago), but the amount of assumptions those guys are making that are based on absolutely nothing is staggering. Complete nonsense. Gibberish.
And it begs the question-- if the figures were quarter point accurate before (as they used to claim for all those years until I shot the s--t out of that), when they were definitely NOT doing this (and not doing several other completely screwy things which Paul told me they started after I left), how can they be accurate now? As lawyers like to say, were you lying then, or are you lying now?
I thought that was what happened when you went with a girl at night to a park...
Flighted-- ah, the great Joe Monahan. Who, when I called once to find out how a horse I was involved with ran that day in Maryland, said \"He got beat a nose, a neck, and 70 f---ing lengths\". He used to say horses with good grass feet had \"snowshoes\", as I\'m sure you remember.
Some synthetics play to grass horses (Keeneland), some don\'t (Hollywood). On your larger question, some here probably have opinions, and some may even be right.
Add the 2004 Woodward between Ghostzapper and St. Liam, where Ghostzapper earned a hard fought half-head victory to go along with a neg-6-like figure.
Right, forgot that one. Two marvels of modern medicine fighting it out.
Then I\'ll do one more:
First is a deleted Rags board post that was saved here. Below it is Friedman\'s response:
Robes,
I usually avoid discussing figure-making in my posts, preferring to leave this subject to the guys in the office, but your response to Classhandicapper about how you adjust the figures of certain horses individually in slow-pace races has created a stir off-line that is filling up my email box. I\'m surprised there has not been more discussion here. So I beg your indulgence.
Tongue only half in cheek, one friend of mine is calling this practice \"a Kronstadt moment\" (whatever that means) and, twinkle in eye, is calling himself \"utterly appalled.\" Here are some of his points, copied by me from his email:
1: How many customers actually knew he was adjusting figures individually in this manner? I\'d bet almost none knew. Hell, Classhandicapper didn\'t know, and he\'s been around a long time, and he\'s completely obsessed with this subject.
2: The ones who didn\'t know? Guess what: If they were adjusting the figures themselves for slow paces, then they were adjusting an already-adjusted number: double counting, in other words.
3: Yes, I know about the \"adjusted\" symbol, but one can adjust a race (cutting it loose of the others) as well as a horse. What\'s happening here is different. In effect the final time/groundloss/weight result is being rewritten in accordance with a pace theory put forward by the same people who spent years denouncing pace theory.
4: The last time I heard a genuine pace theory from the Ragozin Sheets, it was that pace was unimportant. They ignored it. Now they understand pace so well that they can adjust figures individually for its effects? Something seem wrong about this?
5: Are they adjusting by formula? If so, where on earth did they get this formula, which has eluded people who have been studying pace much of their lives?
6: Or are they adjusting by looking at the previous figures of the horses? In other words, how much of these adjustments is rooted in the previous figures of the horses supposedly harmed by today\'s slow pace?
7: Are they adjusting at all tracks and class levels, or is this mainly a major-track, let\'s-smooth-out-the-lines-of-some-Grade-One-closers thing?
8: If someone wants to make his own pace adjustments, how, short of a major project, does he go about de-pacing the adjusted Sheet number?
9: Why are the posters over there collectively imitating corpses on this subject?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friedman\'s response:
I deleted your posts because \"utterly appalled\" and \"really concerned\" have a venue for their blatherings and discussions with them are pointless and annoying. In answer to your query: we make adjustments to the number a horse would have earned based on his finishing time in the race in two different set of circumstances. We give \"quit (~)\" figures to some horses who earned a better figure at an earlier point in the race than at the finish (most often at ~1/16 to 1/8 before the finish line) to better reflect the effort that the horses actually made in the race. These \"quits\" are occasional and while sometimes all the horses in a given race may get quit figures, more often only some of them earned a better figure at the earlier point and some did not. We also make P~ corrections when horses run too slowly early and must attempt to close into fast final fractions--that is when they do not have the opportunity to run a final time that reflects the effort that they made. In most cases all the horses in the P~ races are similarly affected by the slow pace, but sometimes one or more horses are more or less affected and earn a different correction. We make all these corrections on the conservative side and include the approx sign to indicate that the estimates made in these corrections is less precise than the work that goes into figures that are based on the horses\' actual finishing time. We make these corrections to give a number that better reflects the effort the horse gave out on that day so that SHEET users will have a better indication of the horse\'s current form than would be available from putting down a poor number with an explanation to just disregard it (as for example is often done when a horse runs a poor effort with a capital T next to it, where we do not feel that we can make even an estimate as to how much the horse was affected by the \"trouble\"). Making these corrections is a skill based on decades of experience and analysis. My guess is that those who say making these corrections is impossible are probably right with respect to their making them.
None of this has much connection to the traditional arguments of how \"pace\" should affect the numbers horses should get. We don\'t put any stock in the \"lone speed\" or \"contested pace\" or the \"only\" closer affecting what number a horse in the race should earn. Our numbers reflect final time except in the relatively rare circumstances where horses quit badly after running a better effort at an earlier point in the race or horses were so compromised by slow early fractions that they did not have the opportunity to run a final time that reflected the effort that they put out.
[Date/Time=08-21-2009 - 12:21 PM] [Msgid=1671374] [LoginName=Robespierre] [IP Addr= 24.213.162.220]
I have Z\'s Rag sheet amongst the many piles somewhere.I believe JB is correct in that Z is faster on Rags than TG and Beyer. That fits with the lofty figs that RAG\'S gives wide type runners,like Z(mainly wide last turn, 1st turn she usually near the back towards the fence, crawling along)
So that there are no excuses,hopefully there will be an honest pace and all will run close to their best.A very interesting thing for me is will Z fire her big late run if forced to chase faster early instead of galloping along as she has in most of her races. On this occasion she will not have the Little Sisters Of The Poor in front of her.Huge question in my area code!
Those questioning QR\'s \"heart\" did not see him dismiss his rivals with impunity when hooked as a 3yr old.Forget the heart,he will lose if he is fact distance challenged or over the top.
Mike
The questions are right on point. Friedman\'s answer-- remeniscent of the Chilukki thing, where he answered a question about track speed changing with something about par times-- makes me again wonder to what degree he actually understands the subject matter (and the questions, in this case). I don\'t think he\'s consciously ducking, he just doesn\'t get it-- or at least didn\'t when he posted that. If he took it down later he might have figured it out, or someone else did.
A man with a search engine is a dangerous thing. As is a cell phone camera, as a lot of today\'s kids will find out when they try to run for office in 20 years.
thank you.
lol x 2
fair well this weekend.
mjs
Indeed QR he is fastest on his best Jimbo but his best comes over speed biased tracks with inferior competition. Good comparison with Commentator
I don\'t post here often but I had to reply to this. Do you really think Quality Road will be favored over Zenyatta going 10f\'s? Absolutely, positively, no way.
The race that Ragozin has Zenyatta faster than Rachel is the Clement Hirsch \'08 I believe where she set the track record for 8.5 furlongs. It was 1:40 and change.