Zenyatta-Outstanding

[Funny Cide]

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.

[P-Dub]

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.

[Boscar Obarra]

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.

[Leamas57]

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

[Rich Curtis]

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.

[smalltimer]

I just wish Rich (and everyone else who does it) would quit using so many big words.  Its terriby maladroit.

[Funny Cide]

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?

[Leamas57]

I am tempted to use the old Norm Crosby routine and say, \"yeah and it\'s not proper either...

Leamas

[Rich Curtis]

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.

[smalltimer]

Norm Crosby was one of my early heroes.  He\'s the reason they invented the Thesaurus.

[Boscar Obarra]

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

[Funny Cide]

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).

[Leamas57]

Touche\'



--Leamas

[P-Dub]

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.