19 in a row. 17 for 17 in 2011. Slam Dunk Horse of the Year IMO. As we learned in the past, the caliber of competition should not matter, right?
Just give it a rest.
It\'s a legitimate question. At what point do we cut off a horse to not qualified to be Horse of the Year? The 20th best horse? The 200th best horse? The 500th best horse?
17 for 17 is 17 for 17 anyway you want to cut it. Again, based on the precedent of \"If it\'s so easy, why hasn\'t anyone else done it.\", the level of competition should be irrelevant when making this decision.
If he breaks the all-time record of 19 and gets to 20, it\'s a cinch right?
Sekrah,
I have to side with P-Dub here.
it is a LITTLE unfair.
Zenyatta beat fields that were a wee bit better than Rapid Redux\'s fields.. :)
I\'m not too familiar with RR -- How many Graded Stakes has he won?
When was the last time a runner was named HOY without winning a Graded Stake?
You got your gratuitous shot in against last years HOY. Can we move on to the
important races now?
I agree they were better fields, but since we opened the box, where do we draw the line? One of the crowning arguments from the Z crowd was that it didn\'t matter who she beat, and if it were easy somebody else would have done it.
IMO, Although obviously not the same calibre horse, it is far more difficult (and unlikely) to do what Rapid Redux has done. 17 for 17 in one season (19 for 19 in under 12 months, not 36 months). All on dirt tracks which everyone agrees is a much more taxing surface than synthetics. 7 different tracks (2 bull rings) and 7 different distances (from 5f to 1 1/8)
I can\'t even believe we are doing this again. She is retired. Leave her alone.
That\'s not the point, nor is it whether Z won G I\'s or got HOTY. The man made the point clear-- if you don\'t consider how fast they ran, who they beat or by how much, it doesn\'t mean anything that they won. That\'s his point and I agree.
then by all means keep commenting about it and bringing it up. It is boring.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That\'s not the point, nor is it whether Z won G
> I\'s or got HOTY. The man made the point clear-- if
> you don\'t consider how fast they ran, who they
> beat or by how much, it doesn\'t mean anything that
> they won. That\'s his point and I agree.
Geezus, you really think that\'s the point he\'s making?
As Richie pointed out, its nothing more than a gratuitous cheap shot at another horse.
He mentioned caliber of competition. He never mentioned speed figures, so thats not his point. You agree with him, but you also have a dog in the fight.
We\'re a week from the Breeders\' Cup, and this is the talk of the day. Let me say it Miff........
Brilliant!!
Of COURSE the point applies to Z, that\'s how the subject came up originally a couple of years ago. But it came up again now because that horse just won 19 straight, and the point itself stands on its own merits-- which is why nobody has answered Sekrah\'s questions.
As for having a dog in the fight, I took my position BECAUSE of the reasoning, not the other way around. And you know it.
Astonishing that no other horse has distinguished itself on synthetic surfaces and that some can still pretend that synthetic surfaces don\'t artificially bring the horses closer together.
or in simple english some still can\'t recognize the immense achievement of the horse.
mind bogglingly astonishing in a sport where processing critical information is paramount.
The issue is that she won based on sentiment not because she was the best horse that ran last year..I don\'t think anyone is gong to doubt that she was a hell of a racehorse but Blame beat her fair and square and won better races than her throughout the year and it irks alot of people (myself included ) that she still won HOY.
LC, Blame beat Z fair and square but Haynesfield beat Blame fair and square. Both horses lost one race fair and square. Z had the better career and the better span of 2/3 years. I know its \'horse of the YEAR\' but since there is really no criteria for voting and the voting is done by humans, those same humans are allowed to make the last TWO years a factor, even if they technically should not.
Z won the BCC the year before in stunning fashion and LOST the HOY. She had back to back sensational performances in the BCC while Blame only had 1.
The award is horse of the YEAR, but it could theoretically be \'horse of the period\'. Its the same in pro sports. MVP is most VALUABLE player, but usually, the player who wins this award is the BEST player and not necessarily the most valuable to his team. It SAYS valuable, but really means BEST. Maybe \"Year\" really means \"period\".
Since there is no bylaws for HOY voters that they are not allowed to \'take into consideration\' anything that happened outside of the \'jan 1-dec 31\' calendar year, its open to interpretation, its just a matter of how you want to interpret it.
No male horse in the history of racing has ever won 19 in a row. What Rapid Redux has done is equivalent to beating Dimaggio\'s hitting streak.
Ask yourself this. If Dan Uggla somehow beat Dimaggio\'s streak in the 2011 baseball season and ended up hitting .240 for the year, would he win MVP?
Its an interesting point of discussion, you can make a case for either side.
plasticman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LC, Blame beat Z fair and square but Haynesfield
> beat Blame fair and square.
and then Blame came back to beat Haynesfield in the classic to even them out..so then you look at their record for the rest of the year and that is why Blame was better than him..Z didn\'t split with Blame she lost to him and that was it.. she lost..so how is she better than him?? based on the garbage she was winning in Cali? And if you want to bring in the Classic you can say she won one and Blame won one , so you look at their racing record for the rest of their races and she starts to look like Rapid Redux with the type of horses she was beating while Blame faced and beat Einsteins and Quality Roads,,
Like I said..I have no beef with her as I think she is really good and also got screwed by connections that caused this unsurety about how good she was but in the race she was supposed to prove everyone wrong she got beat..fair and square..
We can go on about this forever so i\'ll leave it here..
Plasticman,
If you\'re speaking about north america then yes.otherwise you may want to check
out Camarero.
flighted iron
FI, thanks for that bit of info. Since the American media has only mentioned Z and PP, i just assumed that they were right.
LC, Blame did Beat Haynes in the classic, my point was that both HOY \'contenders\' lost 1 race on the year. If Z gets up to win by a nose, she wins the HOY in a landslide. Since she lost by a nose (or a neck) she\'s supposed to LOSE the HOY in a \'landslide\'? Is 6 inches really enough of a margin to take hundreds of votes from Z and shift them to B?
I believe that if Z had been up the track in the classic and Blame had won (he would have won by open lengths had Z not been charging) than i think Blame wins HOY. Z\'s big late charge, imo, won her the title. She proved she was \'about equal\' to Blame, and according to the voters, that was good enough.
Personally, i would have no problem seeing Rapid Redux win HOY if he goes the rest of year without a loss. He won\'t win it, but if he did, i wouldnt say it was a travesty.
Z\'s list of wins in Cali Filly & Mare G1s in 2010 did not include one horse that ran in the Breeders Cup Ladies Classic.
Quotemy point was that both HOY \'contenders\' lost 1 race on the year.
QuoteThe problem with that comparison is that one of the contenders (Z) ran only 1 race that year.
plasticman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LC, Blame beat Z fair and square but Haynesfield
> beat Blame fair and square. Both horses lost one
> race fair and square. Z had the better career and
> the better span of 2/3 years. I know its \'horse of
> the YEAR\' but since there is really no criteria
> for voting and the voting is done by humans, those
> same humans are allowed to make the last TWO years
> a factor, even if they technically should not.
>
> Z won the BCC the year before in stunning fashion
> and LOST the HOY. She had back to back sensational
> performances in the BCC while Blame only had 1.
>
> The award is horse of the YEAR, but it could
> theoretically be \'horse of the period\'. Its the
> same in pro sports. MVP is most VALUABLE player,
> but usually, the player who wins this award is the
> BEST player and not necessarily the most valuable
> to his team. It SAYS valuable, but really means
> BEST. Maybe \"Year\" really means \"period\".
>
> Since there is no bylaws for HOY voters that they
> are not allowed to \'take into consideration\'
> anything that happened outside of the \'jan 1-dec
> 31\' calendar year, its open to interpretation, its
> just a matter of how you want to interpret it.
I don\'t disagree with your argument, but I don\'t think you\'re making it as well as you can.
One doesn\'t have to count any races of any prior years to still come up with Zenyatta having the best 2010. It was in 2010 that she recorded the following achievements: Won a record-tying 16 in a row; won record-setting 17, 18, and 19 in a row; won her 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th G1s; and won her 9th G1 in a row.
In addition, she clearly ran the best BC Classic, when she just barely ran out of real estate after climbing early, wearing the wrong shoes for that surface.
Blame was not by any stretch of the imagination the best racehorse of 2010. He was a good racehorse whose biggest claim to fame will be that he is the only one to beat Zenyatta. Run that race 9 more times, with Zenyatta in the right shoes, and she wins the next 9. Not a doubt in my mind, even though I was somewhat critical of her accomplishments, mostly on synthetics.
plasticman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Personally, i would have no problem seeing Rapid
> Redux win HOY if he goes the rest of year without
> a loss. He won\'t win it, but if he did, i wouldnt
> say it was a travesty.
It\'d be a travesty. Really, what do you think his chances would be against Mo or Grace or Flat Out or Game On Dude? Or whatever horse happens to be the highest priced horse in any of the races open to older males on dirt?
I\'m fond of Rapid Redux and hope they don\'t break him down, but you don\'t vote for a horse for HOY who stands no chance whatsoever against the best horses out there.
Excellent points FC. I didnt discuss that because i just assumed that everyone knew Z was the \'better horse\' even in defeat. (yep, the best horse doesnt always win).
I have it the other way..due to Z having no speed she gets beat everytime versus blame..I think blame actually ran the harder race of the two and still beat her..
And I think he was the best horse on 2010.. I guess this is why the sport is so great..we all see the same races and have the same info yet we still come out with different thoughts..
Funny Cide Wrote:
> Run that
> race 9 more times, with Zenyatta in the right
> shoes, and she wins the next 9.
One of the more asinine statements I\'ve read on here in a while. Completely and totally absurd.
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny Cide Wrote:
> > Run that
> > race 9 more times, with Zenyatta in the right
> > shoes, and she wins the next 9.
>
> One of the more asinine statements I\'ve read on
> here in a while. Completely and totally absurd.
It\'s more asinine to say the mare only ran one race in 2010.
sekrah,
he does have a point.you know women and their shoes!
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny Cide Wrote:
> > Run that
> > race 9 more times, with Zenyatta in the right
> > shoes, and she wins the next 9.
>
> One of the more asinine statements I\'ve read on
> here in a while. Completely and totally absurd.
There are quite a few comments around here that qualify.
Aren\'t you happy to have started this thread??
Oh definently happy I started the thread. The more people educated on what a fraud the 2010 HOY Award was, and how overrated the \"great\" Zenyatta was, the better.
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh definently happy I started the thread. The
> more people educated on what a fraud the 2010 HOY
> Award was, and how overrated the \"great\" Zenyatta
> was, the better.
And you call other comments asinine.
You have every right to question the HOY voting.
Calling Zenyatta overrated makes you the clubhouse leader in the asinine dept.
Give it a rest. Breeders\' Cup in less than a week.
Zenyatta doesn\'t amount to a pimple on Skip Away\'s ass, and how much media coverage did he get from the idiotic nightly news programs? Probably 1/200th the media coverage she got. Calling her overrated is asinine? It\'s the 100% truth.
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Zenyatta doesn\'t amount to a pimple on Skip Away\'s
> ass, and how much media coverage did he get from
> the idiotic nightly news programs? Probably
> 1/200th the media coverage she got. Calling her
> overrated is asinine? It\'s the 100% truth.
Ok pal, just take the last word already so we can move on.
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Zenyatta doesn\'t amount to a pimple on Skip Away\'s
> ass, and how much media coverage did he get from
> the idiotic nightly news programs? Probably
> 1/200th the media coverage she got. Calling her
> overrated is asinine? It\'s the 100% truth.
Overrated? Yes, by some. But you\'re as bad as those extremists with your own extremist opinion, just opposite.
Let\'s wrap this up. Given the public perception that Zenyatta was one of the all time greats, there is no question she is wildly overrated-- her record was inflated by synthetics and running against doormats.
Was she very good? Of course. Consitent? Incredibly so. But the issue of overrated or not goes to EXACTLY what we do here-- measure ability. Comparing ability to accomplishment determines whether something is rated properly, overrated, or underrated. Zenyatta isn\'t anywhere near the top of the list in terms of figures by a female (let alone a colt) just since I\'ve been doing this.
Again, that doesn\'t mean she wasn\'t good, even arguably great, when you combine ability with consistency. But that\'s a different question.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let\'s wrap this up. Given the public perception
> that Zenyatta was one of the all time greats,
> there is no question she is wildly overrated-- her
> record was inflated by synthetics and running
> against doormats.
>
> Was she very good? Of course. Consitent?
> Incredibly so. But the issue of overrated or not
> goes to EXACTLY what we do here-- measure ability.
> Comparing ability to accomplishment determines
> whether something is rated properly, overrated, or
> underrated. Zenyatta isn\'t anywhere near the top
> of the list in terms of figures by a female (let
> alone a colt) just since I\'ve been doing this.
>
> Again, that doesn\'t mean she wasn\'t good, even
> arguably great, when you combine ability with
> consistency. But that\'s a different question.
That\'s not a different question -- that goes to the heart of her ability. Name the other horses who put together a string of 19 wins with better overall numbers. Can\'t do it? Give us the horses who put together a string of 12 wins with better numbers.
Numbers don\'t tell everything. How much did you credit her for the queen\'s plates she was wearing and obvious inability to grab the track early on in the Classic at CD?
Ability is a relative term JB.
Last year you said there were 6 horses to use against Zenyatta.
She beat them all except for 1 by a nose.
There is more to the term ability than a speed/performance figure.
If this board wants to discuss performance figures between horses, thats one thing.
To label it the be all end all concerning greatness and legacies, thats different. The guy who started this thread came here to stir up crap, and he succeeded.
According to your figures, people here labeled her a bet against several times. She still won.
She was a marginal contender to hit the board last year. She almost won the damn race, despite what every one saw, which was a horse very uncomfortable with the track early on. Some of your most respected and successful users said this. She put in one of the most exhilarating and courageous stretch runs you can imagine. Thats ability. The ability to handle whatever adversity comes your way and somehow perform.
How many fast horses, like a Quality Road (a horse BTW that was supposed to dust Zenyatta, twice, because he had faster figures. Where did that ability laden horse end up??), can\'t reproduce those same fast figures because things didn\'t go their way??
Greatness isn\'t a performance figure. It can aid the discussion, but it isn\'t the definitive aspect of determining greatness, or if someone is overrated.
Anyone who uses figures as the sole basis to determine that this horse isn\'t great or \"overrated\", is looking at things in an extremely narrow minded way.
And after that race we were able to give her a figure. And able to compare that figure to those run by someone like Havre De Grace. And neither of you guys is listening-- you are having a different conversation.
This goes to the question we discussed about baseball teams, and you could certainly apply it to this year\'s Cards. If you look at where they finished there is no discussion, everything is exactly what their record shows it is, the Cards were the best team by definition. And that is a separate question-- Sekrah made the point early in this string, I made it as clear as it can be made, and you guys simply want to have a different conversation, over and over. We know what her record was, we know what she accomplished. The issue is COMPARING her to that.
The shoe stuff is downright silly. You want to make a shoe correction? How many points?
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And after that race we were able to give her a
> figure. And able to compare that figure to those
> run by someone like Havre De Grace. And neither of
> you guys is listening-- you are having a different
> conversation.
>
> This goes to the question we discussed about
> baseball teams, and you could certainly apply it
> to this year\'s Cards. If you look at where they
> finished there is no discussion, everything is
> exactly what their record shows it is, the Cards
> were the best team by definition. And that is a
> separate question-- Sekrah made the point early in
> this string, I made it as clear as it can be made,
> and you guys simply want to have a different
> conversation, over and over. We know what her
> record was, we know what she accomplished. The
> issue is COMPARING her to that.
>
> The shoe stuff is downright silly. You want to
> make a shoe correction? How many points?
Her being obviously uncomfortable in the early going is a fact, and any reasonable human factors that in when assessing her performance. If your numbers can\'t factor in such facts, then it only illustrates one of the flaws of your numbers, and I wouldn\'t call that silly.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And after that race we were able to give her a
> figure. And able to compare that figure to those
> run by someone like Havre De Grace. And neither of
> you guys is listening-- you are having a different
> conversation.
>
> This goes to the question we discussed about
> baseball teams, and you could certainly apply it
> to this year\'s Cards. If you look at where they
> finished there is no discussion, everything is
> exactly what their record shows it is, the Cards
> were the best team by definition. And that is a
> separate question-- Sekrah made the point early in
> this string, I made it as clear as it can be made,
> and you guys simply want to have a different
> conversation, over and over. We know what her
> record was, we know what she accomplished. The
> issue is COMPARING her to that.
>
> The shoe stuff is downright silly. You want to
> make a shoe correction? How many points?
I wasn\'t asking for a shoe correction. It was part of the discussion explaining adversity and how it relates to performance and greatness.
As for Sekrah, this thread is more than a HOY discussion for him. He hates Zenyatta, which he is certainly entitled to do. That much is pretty clear. The guy tosses around words like \"asinine\" if someone has the audacity to disagree with him. If he wasn\'t so friggin arrogant, he might be a bit more tolerable.
I know you have better things to do than go back and forth with me, and I do get your point. I\'ll let you get back to your business. Looking forward to the data this Wednesday, appreciate the work you and your staff put in.
Good thinking, because even if we accept your reasoning and that it had an effect, no other horse has ever had anything to deal with. Right?
Pdub-- the shoe thing was for the other guy. Good enough.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good thinking, because even if we accept your
> reasoning and that it had an effect, no other
> horse has ever had anything to deal with. Right?
Oh, so then you only deal with the final time, not anything else like a horse\'s trip. I see.
Funny Cide Wrote:
-------------------------------------
> Numbers don\'t tell everything. How much did you
> credit her for the queen\'s plates she was wearing
> and obvious inability to grab the track early on
> in the Classic at CD?
As was said at the time, it was clear that something wasn\'t right in the early going at CD, and it probably cost her the race. I don\'t recall reading about the shoe issue, but that\'s as good a story as any.
I get the distinct feeling that the trauma of seeing Z barreling down the stretch and barely missing is still being worked out by a few here. It must have been terrible.
I\'ve been reading this string and getting dizzy.....
Speed Figure is based on the Speed of the race + all the other factors stated on the TG How to read the figs.....
And the Shoe thing is part of Handicapping.....so what are we talking about??
Give it a rest already...
NoCarolinaTony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I\'ve been reading this string and getting
> dizzy.....
>
> Speed Figure is based on the Speed of the race +
> all the other factors stated on the TG How to read
> the figs.....
>
> And the Shoe thing is part of Handicapping.....so
> what are we talking about??
>
> Give it a rest already...
What we\'re talking about is the interjection by someone that the TG figures tell the tale, and that because Z\'s figures weren\'t as good as x, y and z, then she\'s overrated.
I pointed out how TG and other figures don\'t tell the tale. Her not handling the track early is one such example. Surely this isn\'t news to everyone around here that there are other things to consider when assessing a horse other than just their speed figures.
Whether she didn\'t handle the track or not it was to her advantage being how fast they went up front.She walked out of the gate just about every other race also so I don\'t see why it was such a big deal.This is what frustrates people about Zenyatta fans.They try to embellish everything to make her look herculean .
I don\'t know. I bet against her at least 15 of the 19 times she won. I came away convinced that she was indeed quite a bit better than her TG figures showed. Not sure how or why, but what I saw with my eyes in that last race was a pretty great performance. Synthetics either helped or hurt her legacy, hard to tell. (did they make her seem better than she was because she ran well on them or did they understate her brilliance with the close finishes that synthetics seem to cause)
That said, she probably shouldn\'t have won HOTY. I don\'t think her best was as good as Rachel\'s best and because she has gotten more press than any horse since Secretariat, by definition she has to \"over-rated\".
Oh, and most importantly, her connections SUCK....... We wouldn\'t have to be having this discussion if somebody else had owned/trained her...
Anybody betting next Friday/Saturday or should we just continue this :)
Let\'s wrap this up.
Until the second best synthetic horse of all time becomes an easy question to answer the claims against Zenyatta are ludicrous.
Last post I promise,
and I go back to the fnn/score days,
because I registered recently hardly means I am not familiar.
Wildly overrated-a horse who beat the track take out in over 20 starts
and her last race clearly ran to her odds.
without the other horse she wins two Classics by daylight,
the problem is not the horse it is the raters.
and it is not merely coincidence that since the advent of fake dirt 90% of the best figures are assigned to dirt races.
intimating that the HOL and DMR she won over were anything even remotely similar-treating all synthetics as one.
I go on for a week and a half here.