horse racin has the most insane fans on earth

[toussaud]

if I hear another person say that "well, rachael did this, but if she had ran 6 miles with a chettah lose on the leads she wuld have lost.. jmho of course, she's a good horse but not a great horse"


i've never seen a group of fans who just do not know how to accecpt today for todday and not compare everything to 1 of 2 players/stars. who the fvck really cares if Rahcel is or is not better than ruffian? in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? Does it make todays race any less breathtaking?

i mean get a freaking grip.

[singletax]

not Horse Racing fans. They get mixed up with comparing steroids, lower pitching mounds, juiced baseballs, etc. over the decades trying to figure out who is the best hitter, pitcher. They sometimes spillover into Horse Racing and cannot help themselves. They witness a great horse and think they are historians.

Rachel was great today, again!

PS: Did you think the first quarter was a little fast?

[Tom-Oh]

If you can't accept Rachel Alexandra as being one of the best horses in racing history, you must be missing a chromosome or 2... :jump:

[Imriledup]

Fans always cling to the first great horse they've seen as 'the greatest'.

90 year old boxing fans will always tell you the greatest boxer of all time is someone they saw growing up.

25 year old boxing fans will tell you that the current greatest boxer is the actual greatest boxer ever.

And so it goes.

The thing that i don't like is that people seem to not only cling to the past superstar, but they don't even have an open mind about it. Rachel can beat the boys 5 more times in her career yet there will still be people who tell you that Ruffian is better, even though she never beat boys or raced against them for that matter. She raced against 5 horse fields where she was 1-20 vs nobody and yet those Ruffian lovers will STILL cling to her as the greatest and they dont' want to hear otherwise. So what, Rachel beat the boys 3 times, she won a triple crown race, she's won multiple races vs fillies by 20 and Ruffian only won one race by 13.

Rachel is FORCING people to believe she's the greatest. She had her naysayers after the Oaks, people said she beat nothing. When i told them to look at her scope and stride and how she could have won by 40 they didnt' care to listen. They laughed at me actually, told me i was nuts (people right here at Rachel Advantage)

I feel bad for anyone who doesn't want to embrace Rachel's greatness because you are just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[spongemadman]

She's as impressive as a horse I've seen in my 1-2 years of following the sport. But as long as racing remains a sport and a great vehicle for wagering, there will be debate. From a neutral parties perspective, I find this particular debate interesting and entertaining. I'm not advocating hostilities, but I doubt they'll go away anytime soon.

[statik27]

Fans always cling to the first great horse they've seen as 'the greatest'.

90 year old boxing fans will always tell you the greatest boxer of all time is someone they saw growing up.

25 year old boxing fans will tell you that the current greatest boxer is the actual greatest boxer ever.

And so it goes.

The thing that i don't like is that people seem to not only cling to the past superstar, but they don't even have an open mind about it. Rachel can beat the boys 5 more times in her career yet there will still be people who tell you that Ruffian is better, even though she never beat boys or raced against them for that matter. She raced against 5 horse fields where she was 1-20 vs nobody and yet those Ruffian lovers will STILL cling to her as the greatest and they dont' want to hear otherwise. So what, Rachel beat the boys 3 times, she won a triple crown race, she's won multiple races vs fillies by 20 and Ruffian only won one race by 13.

Rachel is FORCING people to believe she's the greatest. She had her naysayers after the Oaks, people said she beat nothing. When i told them to look at her scope and stride and how she could have won by 40 they didnt' care to listen. They laughed at me actually, told me i was nuts (people right here at Rachel Advantage)

I feel bad for anyone who doesn't want to embrace Rachel's greatness because you are just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

LOL you act like your the only one around here thats ever seen a horse race. Listen I think this filly is great too, she's doing things NO 3yo filly's ever done, but chill out.

Before RA, Ghostzapper was the great one, before that people were split over Cigar and Skip Away, Easy Goer and Sunday Silence. John Henry would have eaten this filly's lunch and made her clean up after him. Where would RA end up in the the Bid's 1:57 and 1 strub? In a duel with Seattle Slew and Affirmed in the 78' JCGC? And yes, I'd even like to see her try and head Ruffian going 12f in the CCA oaks.

Racing is full of great horses, RA among them, but don't get ahead of yourself.

[Valuist]

LOL you act like your the only one around here thats ever seen a horse race. Listen I think this filly is great too, she's doing things NO 3yo filly's ever done, but chill out.

Before RA, Ghostzapper was the great one, before that people were split over Cigar and Skip Away, Easy Goer and Sunday Silence. John Henry would have eaten this filly's lunch and made her clean up after him. Where would RA end up in the the Bid's 1:57 and 1 strub? In a duel with Seattle Slew and Affirmed in the 78' JCGC? And yes, I'd even like to see her try and head Ruffian going 12f in the CCA oaks.

Racing is full of great horses, RA among them, but don't get ahead of yourself.

The only people split on Sunday Silence and Easy Goer are delusional New Yorkers. The final tally was SS winning 3-1 with Easy Goer's only win over him coming in at the irrelevant dirt distance of 1 1/2 miles. Case closed.

[Imriledup]

The only people split on Sunday Silence and Easy Goer are delusional New Yorkers. The final tally was SS winning 3-1 with Easy Goer's only win over him coming in at the irrelevant dirt distance of 1 1/2 miles. Case closed.

Easy Goer was great, but he just didn't have quick enough speed to keep up with the Silence.

Easy Goer was getting to Sunday Silence in the BC at Gulfstream, but he just got rolling too late. "With one final acceleration" was the call i believe.

Very close to equal horses i believe.

[Tom Barrister]

if I hear another person say that "well, rachael did this, but if she had ran 6 miles with a chettah lose on the leads she wuld have lost.. jmho of course, she's a good horse but not a great horse"


i've never seen a group of fans who just do not know how to accecpt today for todday and not compare everything to 1 of 2 players/stars. who the fvck really cares if Rahcel is or is not better than ruffian? in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? Does it make todays race any less breathtaking?

i mean get a freaking grip.

The horse is an exceptional filly who thus far has competed against (in my opinion) very mediocre male (and female) competition. To give her legend status at this point is ludicrous. She's following in the footsteps of other fillies/mares who did the same thing, i.e. Miesque, All Along, and Dahlia, and I wouldn't place her above any of those.

[Valuist]

Easy Goer was great, but he just didn't have quick enough speed to keep up with the Silence.

Easy Goer was getting to Sunday Silence in the BC at Gulfstream, but he just got rolling too late. "With one final acceleration" was the call i believe.

Very close to equal horses i believe.

SS won the BC Classic by over a length. I believe the Derby margin was about 3 lengths. Yes, the Preakness was close. But running out of ground is never an excuse unless you are trying to close into a very slow pace, and that wasn't the case. EG had his chance. Let it go. Sunday Silence was the better horse.

[Canarsie]

Fans always cling to the first great horse they've seen as 'the greatest'.



The thing that i don't like is that people seem to not only cling to the past superstar, but they don't even have an open mind about it. Rachel can beat the boys 5 more times in her career yet there will still be people who tell you that Ruffian is better, even though she never beat boys or raced against them for that matter. She raced against 5 horse fields where she was 1-20 vs nobody and yet those Ruffian lovers will STILL cling to her as the greatest and they dont' want to hear otherwise. So what, Rachel beat the boys 3 times, she won a triple crown race, she's won multiple races vs fillies by 20 and Ruffian only won one race by 13.


As one who was lucky enough not only to see Ruffian break her maiden ( and cash) you have to understand how many people attended the track back then. The oohs and ahs from the crowd after that performance was utterly amazing. The grandstand was abuzz.

Having said that I don't have a clue who would win in a race between the two it's really a moot point. Not a soul wanted to run against Ruffian could you blame them?

Your point is spot on usually the generation that see's a horse or athlete thinks they are the best. The best shortstop I ever saw was Ozzie Smith but who could argue if someone said Derek Jeter? It brings discussion to a dying sport and just watching all the females at Rachel's last two races brings a little hope for an uptick.

[samyn on the green]

Easy Goer was the better horse. If they would run against each other 30 times Easy Goer would have won 25 of them. It just happened that Sunday Silence happened to win 3 of the first 4, an anomaly like this can happen in small sample sizes. If you take total career records into account Easy Goer is the better horse as he beat older multiple times as a three year old while Sunday Silence had a layoff.

The only race where Sunday Silence really beat him on the square was the derby. On a fair racetrack like Belmont Easy Goers superiority was on full display. Sunday Silence needed a tight bullring one mile track and lots of luck to beat Easy Goer in the other races.

SS won the BC Classic by over a length. I believe the Derby margin was about 3 lengths. Yes, the Preakness was close. But running out of ground is never an excuse unless you are trying to close into a very slow pace, and that wasn't the case. EG had his chance. Let it go. Sunday Silence was the better horse.

[PaceAdvantage]

On a fair racetrack like Belmont Easy Goers superiority was on full display. Sunday Silence needed a tight bullring one mile track and lots of luck to beat Easy Goer in the other races.Fair racetrack? Surely you jest...

First of all, the night before that Belmont, it rained cats and dogs...literally...it was the only time I ever remember water coming into my parent's basement it rained so much that night...and they live 5 minutes from Belmont....

And the track was FAST for the first race...NYRA must have had helicopters hovering over the main track for hours as soon as the rain stopped...after all, Easy Goer was a Phipps homebred and we all know how well Easy Goer did on off tracks (lost the BC Juvenile and the Derby on an off track)....lol

Second, Sunday Silence could not race on Lasix in NY.

Third, 1 1/2 miles isn't exactly a fair distance, especially for a horse used to racing on Lasix...