For all the "mine that bird will pass rachael in the stretch and blow by her" [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

WinterTriangle

06-06-2009, 08:04 PM

Toussaud,

You could have just as well said "MTB: Finishing ITM in 3 Triple Crown races is quite an accomplishment!"

Instead, you chose the *negative* spin. :bang:

Today is a day for congratulations.....to horses, jockeys, trainers, connections and handicappers.

And thanksgiving. None of the horses or jockeys were hurt, and the horses all gave us a great ride and a great day of entertainment.

At least, that's the way somebody with a positive frame of mind looks at things. :confused:

dartman51

06-06-2009, 08:27 PM

Umm, didn't the winner come from off the pace?

Yes, at the 1 mile pole he was 9th in a field of 10, and MTB was 8th. The trainer, the ESPN crew including, Jerry Bailey, all said that Calvin moved too early. He was already going to the lead at the 1/4 pole, in previous races, that he won, he didn't get the lead til the 1/8. Early in the week, KD was quoted as saying that CB was nieve about how to ride at Belmont. That's why he should have riden in a few races before the BIG race. That's what happens when you get over confident. With a dead LATE closer, like MTB, TIMING is EVERYTHING.:bang:

Tom

06-06-2009, 08:43 PM

i'm actually pretty serious. I dont' know what redboarding means.

redboard

v. to speculate on the outcome of a horse race that has already finished.

It comes from the old bookie days, I believe, something to do with the red used on the results, or something like that. From the days where "chalk" came from.

ghostyapper

06-06-2009, 09:55 PM

Seriously can you get a more clueless thread after a race? MTB finishing 3rd today is supposed to prove that had the distance been longer in the preakness, he wouldn't have won?

Also claiming a horse, whose connections didn't even have the stones to enter, would have "smoked" any horse in the field is just juvenile.

It's expected though coming from a user who just likes to rile people up.

FenceBored

06-06-2009, 11:41 PM

Yes, at the 1 mile pole he was 9th in a field of 10, and MTB was 8th. The trainer, the ESPN crew including, Jerry Bailey, all said that Calvin moved too early. He was already going to the lead at the 1/4 pole, in previous races, that he won, he didn't get the lead til the 1/8. Early in the week, KD was quoted as saying that CB was nieve about how to ride at Belmont. That's why he should have riden in a few races before the BIG race. That's what happens when you get over confident. With a dead LATE closer, like MTB, TIMING is EVERYTHING.:bang:

So? Calvin moved early. I'm on record (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=696853&postcount=64) as worrying about that, as well as his lack of rides at Belmont this week, before the race. What does that have to do with Summer Bird winning as a closer? Toussaud said: you never take a pace depenant horse over a pace creating horse when they have equal ability at a 12F race
I'm saying that using this race as an example of why you shouldn't pick a closer over a "pace creating horse" isn't effective, since it was won by a closer.

Bettowin

06-06-2009, 11:55 PM

I really thought Kent D was out of place by calling Calvin naive but he backed it up. Where are all the second guessers from last year?

todko

06-07-2009, 09:05 AM

theveep

06-07-2009, 09:41 AM

I think connections for Alexandra had everything to lose by racing her in the Belmont. But after seeing yesterday's awful pace, I think Rachel would have greatly changed the pace and result of the race. But we'll never know since she didn't run. What happened to Charitable Man anyway? I thought this horse would have easily led. He wasn't even closely stalking the whole way.

Lou

Rapid Grey

06-07-2009, 09:42 AM

If anyone should know about moving too soon in the Belmont it is Kent D. Probably the only reason he didn't move sooner with Summer Bird is because he was stuck inside the first mile and 1/8th of the race.

The only race that would have helped Borel in riding the Belmont would have been Friday's Brooklyn and surely his agent tried to garner a mount for him, but was unsuccessul.

PaceAdvantage

06-08-2009, 02:21 AM

FlyinLate

06-08-2009, 09:50 AM

MTB made the decision that Rachel wouldn't race in the Belmont. When Asmussen and Jackson saw MTB close and run-out in the Preakness they knew not to race Rachel against MTB. If they felt they had a chance to win Rachel would have been in the race. Pure and simple.

This may be the worst post I've read in weeks. Rachel's owners were not in any way, shape, or form scared of MTB. There was no point to run RA against the boys again in such a quick turnaround. A superstar like RA has had a long campaign this year. She already proved she can beat the boys, what is the point of doing it again 3 weeks later against an arguably less talented bunch. She will rest up for a bit, spank the girls once more, and hopefully go up against either the Boys or Zenyatta before the year is over.

depalma113

06-08-2009, 10:54 AM

This may be the worst post I've read in weeks. Rachel's owners were not in any way, shape, or form scared of MTB. There was no point to run RA against the boys again in such a quick turnaround. A superstar like RA has had a long campaign this year. She already proved she can beat the boys, what is the point of doing it again 3 weeks later against an arguably less talented bunch. She will rest up for a bit, spank the girls once more, and hopefully go up against either the Boys or Zenyatta before the year is over.

Although, I do agree, the post you were responding to was assinine, Jackson does need to step up with this horse.

She should be in the Stephen Foster this weekend (a mile and an eighth on a track she loves against rather suspect older colts) but since she wasn't nominated, I guess they have no desire to try and actually win HOY with her. They say she is doing super, but yet they once again skip an important race that would go a long way to earning her HOY honors. Right now, Jackson is no better than the previous owner.

Beating up 3 year-old fillies is a joke. Facing three year-old colts in any race other than the Travers is irrelevant as she has already proven she is better than them for at least a mile and 3/16th.

46zilzal

06-08-2009, 10:57 AM

I love how these Rachel bashers are still trying to contend that MTB is the better horse....even after Rachel beats MTB and MTB finishes third in the Belmont...

Where was the freight train express at the finish? Are you guys trying to tell me if everything doesn't go just perfectly for MTB, he can't win...even with all those extra furlongs to get his motor going?

Speed (the filly) beats stamina (the bird) most days on most tracks.

Reason I would have never had a match between Curlin and the Brown Out since the running style favored the latter.

ryesteve

06-08-2009, 11:08 AM

They say she is doing super, but yet they once again skip an important race that would go a long way to earning her HOY honors.
I can't see the Stephen Foster having any influence on HOY. If that's their goal, and they go in the BC Classic, a win in the Foster isn't going to help if they lose the Classic. And if they win the Classic, end of story.

depalma113

06-08-2009, 11:13 AM

I can't see the Stephen Foster having any influence on HOY. If that's their goal, and they go in the BC Classic, a win in the Foster isn't going to help if they lose the Classic. And if they win the Classic, end of story.

The leading candidate for HOY, Einstein is probable for the race. A win over him would have a large influence in HOY honors.

And don't believe for a minute she will race in the Classic. They want no part of the artificial stuff ever again.

ryesteve

06-08-2009, 11:27 AM

And don't believe for a minute she will race in the Classic.If you're right, then HOY is not an option.

FenceBored

06-08-2009, 12:12 PM

I can't see the Stephen Foster having any influence on HOY. If that's their goal, and they go in the BC Classic, a win in the Foster isn't going to help if they lose the Classic. And if they win the Classic, end of story.

Last year's Stephen Foster winner won HOY after a loss in the BC Classic, and last year's 3 yr old Filly Eclipse went to someone who didn't even go the the Breeders Cup.

If they were to run her in the Foster and beat Einstein, Asiatic Boy and Arson Squad, then I don't think they'd need to go to the BC to win HOY. Of course, she'd have to beat Einstein, Asiatic Boy and Arson Squad at the same time.

ghostyapper

06-08-2009, 12:19 PM

I love how these Rachel bashers are still trying to contend that MTB is the better horse....even after Rachel beats MTB and MTB finishes third in the Belmont...

Where was the freight train express at the finish? Are you guys trying to tell me if everything doesn't go just perfectly for MTB, he can't win...even with all those extra furlongs to get his motor going?

There are still people with strong arguments that alydar and easy goer were better than their rivals. You expect the debate to end with rachel-mtb after one race and a 3rd place finish by MTB in his 3rd race in 5 weeks while rachel didn't even show?

ghostyapper

06-08-2009, 12:21 PM

Beating up 3 year-old fillies is a joke. Facing three year-old colts in any race other than the Travers is irrelevant as she has already proven she is better than them for at least a mile and 3/16th.

One race does not prove that she is better than any 3yo running. I can't believe how ridiculous some of you are being claiming she has nothing left to prove against colts because she already beat them.

ryesteve

06-08-2009, 12:22 PM

Last year's Stephen Foster winner won HOY after a loss in the BC ClassicI can't get into the minds of the voters, but I have a hard time believing that when it came time to vote, the argument was, "Ok, I know Curlin lost in the BC, but he DID win the Stephen Foster back in June"

WinterTriangle

06-08-2009, 12:57 PM

Of course, she'd have to beat Einstein, Asiatic Boy and Arson Squad at the same time.

One of the arguments for running fillies against the boys here is "they do it in Europe all the time, what's the problem?"

Fine.

Then look up Zarkava's record, and let me know when a filly does what she did. And yes, that would mean, as you mentioned, beating the older boys. Here, that would mean the ones you mentioned: Einstein, Arson Squad, Asiatic Boy.

Then, I'll be willing to use the term "great". :)

FenceBored

06-08-2009, 02:21 PM

One of the arguments for running fillies against the boys here is "they do it in Europe all the time, what's the problem?"

Fine.

Then look up Zarkava's record, and let me know when a filly does what she did. And yes, that would mean, as you mentioned, beating the older boys. Here, that would mean the ones you mentioned: Einstein, Arson Squad, Asiatic Boy.

Then, I'll be willing to use the term "great". :)

Zarkava had seven starts, ran one race against males (including older males), in mid-October of her 3 yr old year and retired. So, you're saying they should wait till October to have Rachel face olders? :eek:

Don't think I've called Rachel Alexandra great, but maybe I have. She's exciting, has the potential to be great, and if she is placed right and runs to her potential then she may become great. She is one of the best 3 yr olds in training right now. What that means in the greater scheme of things is anybody's guess.

I like the Foster as a spot for her, as I've said elsewhere. However, they aren't going to run her there. And part of me can't blame them. When is it best to start pitting the top 3 yr olds against the top handicap horses? There's a part of me that thinks development wise at mid-June you still might be throwing the 3 yr olds to the wolves. Lower down the class scale it's not as bad, but 3 yr olds are still at a disadvantage.

Jackson is reported to have promised NYRA a start at Belmont (this meet?). Does anyone know if that was a promise for her NEXT start?

46zilzal

06-08-2009, 02:42 PM

Talk about female greats versus the males
Miesque, Personal Ensign, Pebbles, Ta Wee theones that really did it not the ones on paper. Very Subtle, Safely Kept etc etc

FenceBored

06-08-2009, 03:06 PM

I can't get into the minds of the voters, but I have a hard time believing that when it came time to vote, the argument was, "Ok, I know Curlin lost in the BC, but he DID win the Stephen Foster back in June"

Really? Here's the thinking.

'Gosh, Curlin stunk up the Classic. But, he broke the Cigar's earnings record. And he did win the Dubai World Cup, the Stephen Foster, the Woodward, his second Jockey Club Gold Cup, and finished 2nd on the turf in the G1 Man o' War between two BC Turf winners. Yeah, that's good enough to get my vote for a Horse of the Year.'

Now, was that so hard. I never said the Stephen Foster alone should win any horse HOY, but as part of a well structured campaign it certainly doesn't hurt. Curlin proved that a solid enough year can overcome a bad BC. If Lawyer Ron had beat Curlin in the Gold Cup, only to get beaten in the slop at Monmouth, he might have won HOY. Having lost both? No.

In Rachel's case, the Foster would have given her a victory over some of the top male handicap horses early in the year (relatively), including a top male HOY candidate in Einstein. This, combined with her 20 length Oaks win (flattered by Gabby's Golden Gal's win in the Acorn) and her Preakness victory over males her own age, would have catapulted her into the lead as far as HOY contenders are concerned. It also would have locked down the 3 yr old filly championship so tight nobody could have pried it away from her, short of a total collapse in form through the fall. If she had followed up her hypothetical Foster win up with a win in the CCA Oaks, an ITM finish in the Alabama or the Travers, and finally a win in the JC Gold Cup against older males again, who would say that's not a HOY campaign, even without a BC appearance? I'm NOT saying Rachel, or any filly, could necessarily run that gauntlet, but if they did, who beats them for HOY? Maybe, Well Armed if he won the Classic on top of his Dubai World Cup win, with solid performances in other G1s at Del Mar and Oak Tree in between.

ryesteve

06-08-2009, 03:25 PM

who would say that's not a HOY campaign, even without a BC appearance?Probably the voters. I'm not disagreeing that that campaign you laid out would be impressive (except she'd have to win the Saratoga race, not just hit the board), but when was the last time a horse was given HOY while sitting out the BC, other than for injury?

WinterTriangle

06-08-2009, 06:39 PM

Zarkava had seven starts, ran one race against males (including older males

First of all, forgive me for gushing. :blush: And i do agree that Rachel is the top female 3 year old right now.

BUT. Zarkava didn't just beat the boys....she beat them in the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe. She beat Duke of Marmalade, Soldier of Fortune, Red Rock Canyon, and Youzamin....with repeated traffic jams....and having never run a 1-1/2 mile race.......at 3 years old.....and won by 2 lengths.

So, she didn't just beat the older boys.....she beat the "BEST".

World thoroughbred rankings put her 2nd or 3rd? with Curlin and Raven's Pass. That was above Goldikova, Henrythenavigator, Montmartre, Youmzain, and Zenyatta. Aga Khan's trainer says he's never trained a better horse, and may never in his lifetime.

Zenyatta's breeders cup was against fillies. Rachel's Preakness field hardly compares to either the Arc or the BC, IMHO. But I guess it depends how you rate the races in terms of "prestigious" ....as well as how you rate who they ran against.

Right now I give Rachel "remarkable".

October is only 4 months away. :)

bishlap

06-08-2009, 06:49 PM

..rachael would have smoked MTB today.

you never take a pace depenant horse over a pace creating horse when they have equal ability at a 12F race

that is all.
did i miss something? RA ran in the Belmont? Your ASSumption is ASSinine. you never take a pace horse over a horse when THEY DIDN'T RUN IN THE SAME RACE. that is all :)

cj's dad

06-08-2009, 06:53 PM

..rachael would have smoked MTB today.

you never take a pace depenant horse over a pace creating horse when they have equal ability at a 12F race

that is all.

Yeah, and Rocky Marciano would have knocked out Ali within 7 rounds.

See, my statement is as dumb as yours, Uh, not quite :lol:

Dahoss9698

06-08-2009, 07:05 PM

First of all, forgive me for gushing. :blush: And i do agree that Rachel is the top female 3 year old right now.

BUT. Zarkava didn't just beat the boys....she beat them in the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe. She beat Duke of Marmalade, Soldier of Fortune, Red Rock Canyon, and Youzamin....with repeated traffic jams....and having never run a 1-1/2 mile race.......at 3 years old.....and won by 2 lengths.

So, she didn't just beat the older boys.....she beat the "BEST".

World thoroughbred rankings put her 2nd or 3rd? with Curlin and Raven's Pass. That was above Goldikova, Henrythenavigator, Montmartre, Youmzain, and Zenyatta. Aga Khan's trainer says he's never trained a better horse, and may never in his lifetime.

Zenyatta's breeders cup was against fillies. Rachel's Preakness field hardly compares to either the Arc or the BC, IMHO. But I guess it depends how you rate the races in terms of "prestigious" ....as well as how you rate who they ran against.

Right now I give Rachel "remarkable".

October is only 4 months away. :)

I would agree it's a bit premature to call Rachel Alexandra great. She shouldn't even be in a discussion with Zarkava at this point, she has a long way to go.

But, I think I saw you call Well Armed great the other day. Were you serious about that?

FenceBored

06-08-2009, 07:07 PM

First of all, forgive me for gushing. :blush: And i do agree that Rachel is the top female 3 year old right now.

BUT. Zarkava didn't just beat the boys....she beat them in the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe. She beat Duke of Marmalade, Soldier of Fortune, Red Rock Canyon, and Youzamin....with repeated traffic jams....and having never run a 1-1/2 mile race.......at 3 years old.....and won by 2 lengths.

So, she didn't just beat the older boys.....she beat the "BEST".

World thoroughbred rankings put her 2nd or 3rd? with Curlin and Raven's Pass. That was above Goldikova, Henrythenavigator, Montmartre, Youmzain, and Zenyatta. Aga Khan's trainer says he's never trained a better horse, and may never in his lifetime.

Zenyatta's breeders cup was against fillies. Rachel's Preakness field hardly compares to either the Arc or the BC, IMHO. But I guess it depends how you rate the races in terms of "prestigious" ....as well as how you rate who they ran against.

Right now I give Rachel "remarkable".

October is only 4 months away. :)

:ThmbUp: Agreed. That Prix de l'Arc field was tougher the last years Ladies Classic field which was tougher than the Preakness field.

depalma113

06-08-2009, 08:34 PM

One race does not prove that she is better than any 3yo running. I can't believe how ridiculous some of you are being claiming she has nothing left to prove against colts because she already beat them.

She disposed of a Grade 2 track record holding sprinter and held off the top 4 finishers in the Derby. She doesn't need to prove much else. They are simply not as good as her, no matter how many ways you want to look at it.

At a mile and an eighth they wouldn't stand a chance against her. She would break their hearts every time.

WinterTriangle

06-08-2009, 09:13 PM

I think I saw you call Well Armed great the other day. Were you serious about that?

Among older horses, yes, I was.

He chipped a bone in the UAE Derby---- and then he fractures his pelvis (the vets wanted to put him down!)

2 years later he wins the richest race in the world---wire-to-wire----against 13 rivals, sailing past ones that beat him earlier in life (Albertus Maximus).

So, not because he has won everything, but because he has shown an ability to run on different surfaces, has IMPROVED with experience and age, and has overcome the kind of real adversity that many horses in his situation would only be able to speak about from either an early grave or early retirement.

After his Dubai Cup win, and his upgrade from 119 to 124, World Thoroughbred Rankings gave him top dirt horse in the world ---- and 2nd best horse in the world in general, after Gladatorious.

Sea the Stars, the British horse I posted about in another thread, are rated about 4 points below, as is Rachel Alexandra and Mine that Bird.

If you remember, Curlin tied last year with New Approach.

---- DePalma, please don't compare Rachel with Well Armed or Zarkava, at least not yet. I might agree with you about the Preak field. But would any of THEM (the other horses in the Preak) win the Dubai, or the Arc? Highly doubtful!

Dahoss9698

06-08-2009, 09:28 PM

Among older horses, yes, I was.

He chipped a bone in the UAE Derby---- and then he fractures his pelvis (the vets wanted to put him down!)

2 years later he wins the richest race in the world---wire-to-wire----against 13 rivals, sailing past ones that beat him earlier in life (Albertus Maximus).

So, not because he has won everything, but because he has shown an ability to run on different surfaces, has IMPROVED with experience and age, and has overcome the kind of real adversity that many horses in his situation would only be able to speak about from either an early grave or early retirement.

After his Dubai Cup win, and his upgrade from 119 to 124, World Thoroughbred Rankings gave him top dirt horse in the world ---- and 2nd best horse in the world in general, after Gladatorious.

Sea the Stars, the British horse I posted about in another thread, are rated about 4 points below, as is Rachel Alexandra and Mine that Bird.

If you remember, Curlin tied last year with New Approach.

Well, he's a gelding, which explains why he wasn't prematurely retired like most others would have. I also think many other horses would improve with age, unfortunately we don't get a chance to see it, unless they are geldings. He is a gutsy horse no doubt. To be able to overcome those obstacles are very admirable. But, I'm not sure what World Thoroughbred Rankings have anything to do with a horses greatness, or lack thereof though.

Well Armed has won 4 stakes races in his career I believe (could be 5) and 2 grade 1's in his 23 races. That isn't great by anyone's standards. Not to mention he took advantage of a pretty big bias in the World Cup. A bias that carried front runners home all night. Winning one race while riding the bias doesn't make you great.

There is absolutely no way he is the top dirt horse in the world in my opinion. I don't care what some rankings say. I judge greatness by how horses perform on the track. There are plenty of horses who have overcome obstacles in their careers. And plenty of horses that can transform their ability to different surfaces. They aren't all great.

Dahoss9698

06-08-2009, 09:31 PM

---- DePalma, please don't compare Rachel with Well Armed or Zarkava, at least not yet. I might agree with you about the Preak field. But would any of THEM (the other horses in the Preak) win the Dubai, or the Arc? Highly doubtful!

I think Rachel Alexandra would have beat that World Cup field. Why not?

ghostyapper

06-08-2009, 09:40 PM

She disposed of a Grade 2 track record holding sprinter and held off the top 4 finishers in the Derby. She doesn't need to prove much else. They are simply not as good as her, no matter how many ways you want to look at it.

At a mile and an eighth they wouldn't stand a chance against her. She would break their hearts every time.

You know what you're right Onion has nothing else to prove against big red because he already beat him http://paceadvantage.com/forum/images/smilies/47.gif

rastajenk

06-08-2009, 09:44 PM

Rachel couldn't carry Onion's jockstrap.

:eek:

todko

06-08-2009, 09:48 PM

This may be the worst post I've read in weeks. Rachel's owners were not in any way, shape, or form scared of MTB. There was no point to run RA against the boys again in such a quick turnaround. A superstar like RA has had a long campaign this year. She already proved she can beat the boys, what is the point of doing it again 3 weeks later against an arguably less talented bunch. She will rest up for a bit, spank the girls once more, and hopefully go up against either the Boys or Zenyatta before the year is over.

They will never race Rachel against Zenyatta. Asmussen and Jackson are not that foolish. And if she's really that good -- what's the deal with the quick turnaround? If MTB can turn around that quickly as a May foal why can't Rachel do it? The Preakness was Rachel's 5th start. Hardly a long campaign. Asmussen and Jackson would not have passed on the Belmont if they honestly felt Rachel had a chance to win. Winning the Belmont was the point -- and they felt she couldn't get it done.

Dahoss9698

06-08-2009, 10:01 PM

They will never race Rachel against Zenyatta. Asmussen and Jackson are not that foolish. And if she's really that good -- what's the deal with the quick turnaround? If MTB can turn around that quickly as a May foal why can't Rachel do it? The Preakness was Rachel's 5th start. Hardly a long campaign. Asmussen and Jackson would not have passed on the Belmont if they honestly felt Rachel had a chance to win. Winning the Belmont was the point -- and they felt she couldn't get it done.

All horses react to things different. Just because one horse is able to turn around quickly doesn't mean they all can. The month they were foaled in has nothing to do with anything. She turned around in 2 weeks and beat Mine That Bird. She ran hard every step of the way. She needed more time following the race and they gave it to her.

I think she proved she is better, but I hope they give her a chance to prove it again by running in the Jim Dandy, Haskell or Travers. I don't think you can really draw the conclusion they thought she couldn't win the Belmont. What's the point of running in a race, at a disatnce most will never run again if they felt she wasn't up to it?

WinterTriangle

06-08-2009, 11:12 PM

I judge greatness by how horses perform on the track.

I would have to add-----over time.

Otherwise, it's like comparing child-actors who perform briefly to "the greats".

Maybe we all toss around the term too much, myself included.:blush:

Really, if you tied me down, I would say a great RACE horse is a durable horse. Brave, determined, and able to overcome obstacles, i.e, life threatening injuries and illnesses, bad connections, mismanagement....horses who despite all that still withstand the rigors of racing.

Not cripples who are on the table at Rood and Riddle more time than they're on the track. Or babied debutantes, going to the breeding shed early.

(Unfortunately, we will have less and less of those, don't get me started on the reasons.)

I dunno how racing is going to survive when even people like me who follow it dilligently has to change gears every 6 months because all the horses are flash-in-the-pans or out by the time I get to know their name and what they're capable of.

Really, I have a hard time keeping up. ;)

depalma113

06-09-2009, 06:58 AM

---- DePalma, please don't compare Rachel with Well Armed or Zarkava, at least not yet. I might agree with you about the Preak field. But would any of THEM (the other horses in the Preak) win the Dubai, or the Arc? Highly doubtful!

What are you talking about? I said she has nothing to prove against 3 year-old colts. I never said a thing about Zarkava or Well Armed. Where does this stuff come from?

depalma113

06-09-2009, 07:07 AM

You know what you're right Onion has nothing else to prove against big red because he already beat him http://paceadvantage.com/forum/images/smilies/47.gif

Let's see. I said she had nothing else to prove because she has already beat the colts of her generation.

So your response is about a 4 year-old, Onion, who upset a 3 year-old Secretariat at 16-1. Seems rather logical. Give it up.

rastajenk

06-09-2009, 07:46 AM

Or lighten up. :rolleyes:

tucker6

06-09-2009, 08:39 AM

Rachel couldn't carry Onion's jockstrap.

:eek:
I don't know, if Onion bought her a dinner consisting of quality oats, she might. :eek:

joanied

06-09-2009, 02:51 PM

Speculation gets everyone stressed...and it's a futile endeavor...at any rate, this thread seems to be boiling down to what a 'great' horse is, because we tend to call a horse like RA 'great', or Curlin 'great', or Z 'great...when maybe we should be saying a certain horse RAN a GREAT race...because 'greatness' is long lived and not to be taken lightly.
Fact is, IMHO, we have a hard time calling any of our modern era horses great because they don't stay around long enough to show it....Curlin did, but IMHO, I cannot call him great...he was an exceptional horse, one of our best, but not great.

I could start tossing out names of horses that were truly great....but, we all know who they are, and not many are from recent years...because in recent years, as mentioned, they don't stay racing long enough...the reason's for that are for another thread, I would think...and we all pretty much know what the reason's are anyway.

As for Rachel and her legacy in the sport...she will provide the answer to that as the year goes on...and her connections practice what they preach...and IMO, her winning one ot two big races the rest of the year, unless she absolutley kicks ass on the best we can throw at her...2 or 3 more wins will not, for me, be the mark of a great horse...an outstanding horse, and exceptional horse, an incredible horse...but maybe not a 'great' horse.

cj's dad

06-09-2009, 04:28 PM

Well stated Joanie !

joanied

06-09-2009, 06:32 PM

Well stated Joanie !

Thank you, cj's dad :)

WinterTriangle

06-09-2009, 08:43 PM

:jump: way to go Joanie. You're a gem. :)

Cratos

06-09-2009, 08:54 PM

I would have to add-----over time.

Otherwise, it's like comparing child-actors who perform briefly to "the greats".

Maybe we all toss around the term too much, myself included.:blush:

Really, if you tied me down, I would say a great RACE horse is a durable horse. Brave, determined, and able to overcome obstacles, i.e, life threatening injuries and illnesses, bad connections, mismanagement....horses who despite all that still withstand the rigors of racing.

Not cripples who are on the table at Rood and Riddle more time than they're on the track. Or babied debutantes, going to the breeding shed early.

(Unfortunately, we will have less and less of those, don't get me started on the reasons.)

I dunno how racing is going to survive when even people like me who follow it dilligently has to change gears every 6 months because all the horses are flash-in-the-pans or out by the time I get to know their name and what they're capable of.

Really, I have a hard time keeping up. ;)

Eric Servaried the former CBS commentator once said (and I am paraphrasing) is that “the media makes celebrity and time makes greatness.”

Rachel Alexandra in my opinion is a good horse bordering on becoming an exceptional horse. Yes she did beat a group of 3yo colts in one of the TC races, but that achievement alone hardly ever qualifies any horse for “greatness.”

Things like versatility (winning long and short), track records or very fast times, winning consistently against the top horses of its generation, carrying top weight, or running over different surfaces (e.g. turf, dirt and muddy) are just some of the ingredients that typically come together to determine “greatness” in a horse because “greatness” should be a body of work that stands the test of time.

joanied

06-10-2009, 07:37 PM

:jump: way to go Joanie. You're a gem. :)

:blush: :)

joanied

06-10-2009, 07:38 PM

Eric Servaried the former CBS commentator once said (and I am paraphrasing) is that “the media makes celebrity and time makes greatness.”

Rachel Alexandra in my opinion is a good horse bordering on becoming an exceptional horse. Yes she did beat a group of 3yo colts in one of the TC races, but that achievement alone hardly ever qualifies any horse for “greatness.”

Things like versatility (winning long and short), track records or very fast times, winning consistently against the top horses of its generation, carrying top weight, or running over different surfaces (e.g. turf, dirt and muddy) are just some of the ingredients that typically come together to determine “greatness” in a horse because “greatness” should be a body of work that stands the test of time.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: