Rachel Alexandra in perspective

[gm10]

There is a nice article on drf.com by Alan Shuback that puts the Rachelmania a little bit into perspective. I'll just post the first and last paragraph.

"Have we gone overboard in our praise of a 3-year-old filly beating older horses? Rachel Alexandra certainly deserves a great deal of credit for winning the Woodward Stakes, but she wasn't doing anything that hasn't been done dozens of times around the world in the last 50 years. The rush to create divinity where only excellence exists does neither Rachel nor racing any favors."

...

"So let us praise Rachel Alexandra, but not too highly. Let us also take the opportunity to question why a horse that some people are touting as the greatest filly in history will not be running in the Breeders' Cup. Is a chance at immortality being trumped by fear of a synthetic surface? If so, where is the greatness in that?"

http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=107212

[CincyHorseplayer]

With the European record of BC races on dirt,this critique seems apropos.

[gm10]

With the European record of BC races on dirt,this critique seems apropos.

what does that have anything to do with it

[tucker6]

Let us also take the opportunity to question why a horse that some people are touting as the greatest filly in history will not be running in the Breeders' Cup. Is a chance at immortality being trumped by fear of a synthetic surface? If so, where is the greatness in that?"


Not a bad article, but I'm not sure the writer didn't run into a dark alley here. It's as if he believes RA is running away from a surface. RA can't run away from anything. Only Jackson can. IMHO, not running on synthetics, which is a fairly new surface, is not necessarily a poor decision. It's as if this writer decided to create another hurdle or step to the path of greatness. Where before a horse had to win classic races with power and penache to be considered great, now, a filly must win against males, older males, and on ALL surfaces available.

Under this definition, I could claim that MOST of the horses that were immortal in our minds were not. Very, very few ran out of class and on multiple surfaces. None of the immortals even had synthetics as an option, so why is RA penalized because of it. :confused:

[gm10]

Not a bad article, but I'm not sure the writer didn't run into a dark alley here. It's as if he believes RA is running away from a surface. RA can't run away from anything. Only Jackson can. IMHO, not running on synthetics, which is a fairly new surface, is not necessarily a poor decision. It's as if this writer decided to create another hurdle or step to the path of greatness. Where before a horse had to win classic races with power and penache to be considered great, now, a filly must win against males, older males, and on ALL surfaces available.

Under this definition, I could claim that MOST of the horses that were immortal in our minds were not. Very, very few ran out of class and on multiple surfaces. None of the immortals even had synthetics as an option, so why is RA penalized because of it. :confused:

Funny thing is that I think she would win the Laddies Classic. She has shown that she can rate, which is crucial @ SA, and Zenyatta is there to be shot down. Zenyatta reminds me of Curlin last year, still winning her races but with increasing difficulty and lower speed figures.

The author has a point though. Goldikova for example has beaten up the older boys multiple times this year and last year. I don't think that anybody has anything negative to say about RA, but it's good that somebody offers some international and historical perspective!

[cj]

The article is horrible. Running on turf is not the same as running on dirt. The horses don't run nearly as hard for nearly as long. It is like comparing apples to anvils...two different worlds.

Shuback is probably the worst writer employed by DRF. I have no idea how he has a job.

[lamboguy]

usually when you have a great dirt horse you never see the turf. turf more often than not are for horses that have performed poorly on dirt. JESS JACKSON took a shot last year with CURLIN on the synthetic because he knew that if the horse didn't run good he would be retired after the race. JACKSON has already said he wants to run RACHEL next year. the man is not going to risk a surface change on that filly for any amount of money or prestige invoved just because other's "demand it".

he plans on re-writing history in 2010 with RACHEL. so just give the man a chance and don't second guess him for what he does or does not do.

[gm10]

The article is horrible. Running on turf is not the same as running on dirt. The horses don't run nearly as hard for nearly as long. It is like comparing apples to anvils...two different worlds.

Shuback is probably the worst writer employed by DRF. I have no idea how he has a job.

Turf races are much quicker than dirt races (3 SECONDS OR MORE over a mile), so it is debatable whether they run 'harder' over the dirt. Plus turf races are more tactical, which makes them less easy to win.

[cj]

Turf races are much quicker than dirt races (3 SECONDS OR MORE over a mile), so it is debatable whether they run 'harder' over the dirt. Plus turf races are more tactical, which makes them less easy to win.

They are quicker because it is easier to run on them. It has nothing to do with turf horses being faster, certainly not in this country where, as lamboguy points out, turf is for the second string.

They run harder because the pace is much more taxing than on turf. That is my point about running harder for longer.

[Cratos]

Turf races are much quicker than dirt races (3 SECONDS OR MORE over a mile), so it is debatable whether they run 'harder' over the dirt. Plus turf races are more tactical, which makes them less easy to win.

I believe it was Andy Beyer in one of his books on handicapping pointed out the reason that grass surfaces are typically faster than dirt surfaces is the way the horses’ hooves hit the surfaces.

When the horses’ hooves come in contact with a turf surface there is more of a “sure footing” and this gives the horse a better and faster “spring back” to repeat its action,

On dirt there is a “sliding footing” which slows down the “spring back” action. This clearly can be seen on a hard dirt track versus a softer (not muddy or wet) dirt track surface.

There was a professor at MIT in the 1980s 0r 1990s, don’t remember which, who used a high camera to prove this difference.

[gm10]

They are quicker because it is easier to run on them. It has nothing to do with turf horses being faster, certainly not in this country where, as lamboguy points out, turf is for the second string.

They run harder because the pace is much more taxing than on turf. That is my point about running harder for longer.

I never said they were faster animals. But they don't necessarily run harder on the dirt. It's not even clear what you mean by 'harder'. Maybe you mean that dirt racing is an all-out effort from start to finish whereas turf races are usually decided by a late sprint.

Anyway, on what surface the best American horses run, has nothing to do with the article. It's about fillies beating older males, Goldikova and Ouija Board for example.

[Java Gold@TFT]

I never said they were faster animals. But they don't necessarily run harder on the dirt. It's not even clear what you mean by 'harder'. Maybe you mean that dirt racing is an all-out effort from start to finish whereas turf races are usually decided by a late sprint.

Anyway, on what surface the best American horses run, has nothing to do with the article. It's about fillies beating older males, Goldikova and Ouija Board for example.
Just curious GM10, I don't have any idea what the answer is so don't think I'm being contrarian but - How many serious Group I races are available for 3yo fillies or even older mares after the Oaks and 1,000 Guineas races are done? I know that in the States there are numerous G-I races that are sex restricted throughout the year. I follow some Euro racing but really don't know what the big prestige group races would be after May that would be sex restricted. It seems up front that maybe the better females in Europe are almost forced into open company sooner than the American females.

[46zilzal]

"Have we gone overboard in our praise of a 3-year-old filly beating older horses? Rachel Alexandra certainly deserves a great deal of credit for winning the Woodward Stakes, but she wasn't doing anything that hasn't been done dozens of times around the world in the last 50 years. The rush to create divinity where only excellence exists does neither Rachel nor racing any favors."

..
There is a COMPLETE VACUUM, in the vast majority of sport writers and the "Johnny Come Lately fans," in knowing what true greatness in the thoroughbred comes down to and one of the most fundamental aspects is LONG TERM QUALITY, not short term, quasi-brilliance.

Over the years I learned with nauseating repetition, how this and that one was the "second coming of __________," only to find that these supposedly great ones, were flashes in the pan.

What makes a great one? Let's take Forego for example: ADAPTABILITY, constancy of effort, distance and surface mastery (short long wet or fast) REPEATED high quality astounding performances against some of the BEST of the day, accomplishing all of this through the adversity of weak fetlocks almost one step ahead of a breakdown under big weight imposts.

People today set the bar far far too low, in an attempt to quench a thirst for a hero or star. In the long term history of the game, GREATNESS is a very lofty position that should have a very limited membership or the extravagant use of the term cheapens all who have earned that title through the years.

This one COULD enter that esteemed group but not yet. Not yet by a long shot.

[cj]

I never said they were faster animals. But they don't necessarily run harder on the dirt. It's not even clear what you mean by 'harder'. Maybe you mean that dirt racing is an all-out effort from start to finish whereas turf races are usually decided by a late sprint.

Anyway, on what surface the best American horses run, has nothing to do with the article. It's about fillies beating older males, Goldikova and Ouija Board for example.

Of course I meant they go all out for a longer part of the race on the dirt. What did you think I meant? I'll try to be more clear in the future.

I understand the article, I'm just saying it isn't a valid comparison. They are two totally different things. Shuback should know that, but he doesn't, because he is a dolt. Fillies have been beating colts for a long time ON TURF. Who doesn't know that? What is special about Rachel is that they almost NEVER do it on dirt.

It really isn't worth getting into the difference in surfaces. The point is they are vastly different, making Shuback's article pointless to me and probably most other racing fans that understand the differences.

[cj]

There is a COMPLETE VACUUM, in the vast majority of sport writers and the "Johnny Come Lately fans," in knowing what true greatness in the thoroughbred comes down to and one of the most fundamental aspects is LONG TERM QUALITY, not short term, quasi-brilliance...YADA YADA YADA


I agree most people overdo it. However, the game has also changed. If you use the standards of the 50s, 60s and 70s to define a great horse, guess what? There will probably never be another great horse ever.

One thing is certain, Rachel has done things ALREADY that no other fillies of any decade have ever done. That makes her pretty great in my book.

[gm10]

Just curious GM10, I don't have any idea what the answer is so don't think I'm being contrarian but - How many serious Group I races are available for 3yo fillies or even older mares after the Oaks and 1,000 Guineas races are done? I know that in the States there are numerous G-I races that are sex restricted throughout the year. I follow some Euro racing but really don't know what the big prestige group races would be after May that would be sex restricted. It seems up front that maybe the better females in Europe are almost forced into open company sooner than the American females.

Yes I agree that group 1's for fillies/mares are less of a commodity in Europe. So I suppose there is more incentive to race your filly against the boys, but you still have to beat them, of course!!

[gm10]

Of course I meant they go all out for a longer part of the race on the dirt. What did you think I meant? I'll try to be more clear in the future.

I understand the article, I'm just saying it isn't a valid comparison. They are two totally different things. Shuback should know that, but he doesn't, because he is a dolt. Fillies have been beating colts for a long time ON TURF. Who doesn't know that? What is special about Rachel is that they almost NEVER do it on dirt.

It really isn't worth getting into the difference in surfaces. The point is they are vastly different, making Shuback's article pointless to me and probably most other racing fans that understand the differences.

A pointless point. The reason why they don't is that they hardly ever try in North America which is where almost all quality dirt racing is. Of course it's going to be special.

Nobody is taking anything away from RA, anyway.

[cj]

It has been tried many times, and very often with dismal results. There is a reason it isn't tried more often.

[gm10]

It has been tried many times, and very often with dismal results. There is a reason it isn't tried more often.

Sorry, but they don't try nearly as often in America as they do in Europe. Out of necessity, sometimes, but that doesn't make it worth less.

Ghanaati is a perfect example. She won the 1000 Guineas, then the Coronation Stakes (prestigious G1 for fillies at Ascot). She didn't have to face the boys on her next start, especially given her RP rating of 121. But guess what, she did and she got beaten by the formidable Rip Van Winkle and Paco Boy. Full credit for trying, though.

Anyway, I'm not saying anything agst Rachel A, she did very well to beat Summer Bird and Macho Again, two proper G1 colts.

[cj]

She tried because there is a history of success on GRASS. There is not much of that history on dirt, and it is not because of lack of trying as you say. It is because of a lack of success. Most don't try because they know the history of top females trying top males ON DIRT.

Again, two different surfaces, which makes the point of the initial article moot in my opinion. That is all I'm trying to say.

[Tom]

Anyway, on what surface the best American horses run, has nothing to do with the article. It's about fillies beating older males, Goldikova and Ouija Board for example.

That is has been done many times on turf and only once on dirt - Rachael - tells me that she achieved the greater feet. And that more or less puts Alan in perspective.:rolleyes:

[Java Gold@TFT]

46Z, I have asked this in past threads and you have never answered so I will try one more time. By your standards of defining greatness - longevity, carrying weight, overcoming your perception of adversity, winning at various distances, over varying surfaces and beating the best horses available -who are the horses in the last 40 years that fit your criteria for greatness? You've already said Forego. I'll give you Affirmed, Slew and Bid. I'll even give you a head start with John Henry and Cigar. How about Skip Away? I know you can't include Secretariat because he never raced past 3 and only faced his elders on dirt 3 times, losing 2 out of 3 while getting weight in each race and never carrying over the scale 126 in his life. His last race at Woodbine he actually carried less weight than Rachel did in the Woodward while getting 9 pounds from the 2nd place horse.

So, who am I missing from your list since about 1970? Tiznow? Sunday Silence? I know you can't include brilliant horses like Holy Bull or Point Given because of their shortened careers. So, please humor me and tell me who is on your list of all time greats to run in the last 40 years.

Thanks.

[bisket]

its not a given that rachel will come back better next year. its happened many times when a horse is turned out that they don't come back the same

[bisket]

rachel has definately strung enough top level performances to be considered an all time great

[Java Gold@TFT]

Yes I agree that group 1's for fillies/mares are less of a commodity in Europe. So I suppose there is more incentive to race your filly against the boys, but you still have to beat them, of course!!
Is there any kind of history of fillies running in and winning the Classics in Europe? I don't really remember any. In the States we have winners like Rachel Alexandra, Rags To Riches, Winning Colors and Genuine Risk along with several others who have tried but failed (Eight Belles, Althea, etc.). In Canada it is almost an every year occurence that fillies run in and win their Triple Crown races. Is there a recent history of the girls taking on the boys in the designated "Classics"? Again, just trying to understand how the two situations equate when you compare how 3yo fillies face males at different times in the year.

[statik27]

46Z, I have asked this in past threads and you have never answered so I will try one more time. By your standards of defining greatness - longevity, carrying weight, overcoming your perception of adversity, winning at various distances, over varying surfaces and beating the best horses available -who are the horses in the last 40 years that fit your criteria for greatness? You've already said Forego. I'll give you Affirmed, Slew and Bid. I'll even give you a head start with John Henry and Cigar. How about Skip Away? I know you can't include Secretariat because he never raced past 3 and only faced his elders on dirt 3 times, losing 2 out of 3 while getting weight in each race and never carrying over the scale 126 in his life. His last race at Woodbine he actually carried less weight than Rachel did in the Woodward while getting 9 pounds from the 2nd place horse.

So, who am I missing from your list since about 1970? Tiznow? Sunday Silence? I know you can't include brilliant horses like Holy Bull or Point Given because of their shortened careers. So, please humor me and tell me who is on your list of all time greats to run in the last 40 years.

Thanks.

Well I'm not 46, but I think I might answer this.

For me there are different levels of greatness and even different kinds. There is the brillant that are great, like Domino, secretariat, Man O' War ect...Then there are the great Warriors like exterminator, Forego, John Henry ect.

But to get into my list as an All-Time great you have to be a horse that transcends the sport, like Secretariat did or Man O'War. When it comes to North American ALL-TIME greats, you'll only find 3 horses on my list. The two I've mentioned (Sec and MOW) and Citation. They set numerous world and track time records and not only dominated their competition, but also left the people that saw them with memories that lasted life times, generations and will continue to do so.

So no RA isn't an All-Time great, but she is certainly the most accomplished 3yo filly we've seen in many years and I would say that she IS a great one.

[Tom Barrister]

Here's are three trivia questions:

For a winner of the (United States) "Horse of the Year" award, name the last horse to:

1) Win stakes races on both the dirt and turf in the year for which the award was won.

2) Win any kind of race on both the dirt and turf in the year for which the award was won.

3) Race (win or lose) on both the dirt and turf in the year for which the award was won.

[statik27]

1. John Henry

2. Not sure, I was thinking either Mineshaft or Pleasantly Perfect, but its not them.

3. Curlin

[tucker6]

Here's are three trivia questions:

For a winner of the (United States) "Horse of the Year" award, name the last horse to:

1) Win stakes races on both the dirt and turf in the year for which the award was won.

2) Win any kind of race on both the dirt and turf in the year for which the award was won.

3) Race (win or lose) on both the dirt and turf in the year for which the award was won.
don't know about who did it last, but Big Red won G1's on both dirt and turf in the same year against older males and won HOY on both surfaces. All as a three year old.

Does that make him great or an all-time great?? :faint:

[Cratos]

Well I'm not 46, but I think I might answer this.

For me there are different levels of greatness and even different kinds. There is the brillant that are great, like Domino, secretariat, Man O' War ect...Then there are the great Warriors like exterminator, Forego, John Henry ect.

But to get into my list as an All-Time great you have to be a horse that transcends the sport, like Secretariat did or Man O'War. When it comes to North American ALL-TIME greats, you'll only find 3 horses on my list. The two I've mentioned (Sec and MOW) and Citation. They set numerous world and track time records and not only dominated their competition, but also left the people that saw them with memories that lasted life times, generations and will continue to do so.

So no RA isn't an All-Time great, but she is certainly the most accomplished 3yo filly we've seen in many years and I would say that she IS a great one.


Where would you rank Dr. Fager? He won on dirt and grass, he won going short and long, he set two world records, only three horses ever finished in front of him, he was never defeated below the mile distance, he toted winning weights ranging from115 LBS to 139 LBS, ran 5 times (winning 3) at the 1 ¼ mile distance toting weights from 120 to 135 Lbs, and in his 18/22 victories only one horse ever finished less than 1 length to him.

[statik27]

Where would you rank Dr. Fager? He won on dirt and grass, he won going short and long, he set two world records, only three horses ever finished in front of him, he was never defeated below the mile distance, he toted winning weights ranging from115 LBS to 139 LBS, ran 5 times (winning 3) at the 1 ¼ mile distance toting weights from 120 to 135 Lbs, and in his 18/22 victories only one horse ever finished less than 1 length to him.

Yeah all those things are true and honestly he's won of my favorites. But what I was saying about all-time greats is that they're horses that even people that don't know racing, know they're names. Most people outside of racing wouldn't know Dr. Fager, but yes he is a great and would certainly be on many peoples top 5.

As a side note, I said in my post earlier that this was my NA All-time list. The best horse that ever lived, at least that I believe, was Flying Childers. He was a horse that ran in england in the early 18th century, was never beaten. He was so impressive and so loved people named pubs after him, marketed everything from perfumes to hair pins with his name on it. And for decades the fastest ship in the Royal Navy was always called "The Flying Childers." For me its not only what a horse does on the track, but the impression that they make on the people that saw them. But thats just me.

[Cratos]

Yeah all those things are true and honestly he's won of my favorites. But what I was saying about all-time greats is that they're horses that even people that don't know racing, know they're names. Most people outside of racing wouldn't know Dr. Fager, but yes he is a great and would certainly be on many peoples top 5.

As a side note, I said in my post earlier that this was my NA All-time list. The best horse that ever lived, at least that I believe, was Flying Childers. He was a horse that ran in england in the early 18th century, was never beaten. He was so impressive and so loved people named pubs after him, marketed everything from perfumes to hair pins with his name on it. And for decades the fastest ship in the Royal Navy was always called "The Flying Childers." For me its not only what a horse does on the track, but the impression that they make on the people that saw them. But thats just me.


Thanks and we have something in common, our love for the great Dr. Fager.

However to me the greatest of them all was the original “Big Red,” Phar Lap of the 1920s.

[Imriledup]

As good as some people think Rachel is, she's better. She's one of the most underrated horses we've ever seen.

[statik27]

As good as some people think Rachel is, she's better. She's one of the most underrated horses we've ever seen.

She's been called everything from the best 3yo of all time to the greatest ever and she's underrated? Whats she gonna do next win the iditarod followed by America's got Talent?

Come on Imriledup, tell us why she's the most underrated horse we've ever seen. Don't just announce it and then expect us to believe it.

[PaceAdvantage]

As good as some people think Rachel is, she's better. She's one of the most underrated horses we've ever seen.Comments like this only serve to bolster the rhetoric of folks like ghostyapper and other Rachel detractors.

You're doing her a disservice, whether you know it or not.

[CincyHorseplayer]

what does that have anything to do with it

It has everything to do with it.

We measure champions on dirt.Something European horses fail to do.

Turf racing does not dictate championships here.

Synthetic racing does not dictate champions here.

Euros have failed on dirt is the point.

Run your studs on dirt and we can talk turkey.

Anyway,the plastic spectacle is not a leg to stand on.

[gm10]

Is there any kind of history of fillies running in and winning the Classics in Europe? I don't really remember any. In the States we have winners like Rachel Alexandra, Rags To Riches, Winning Colors and Genuine Risk along with several others who have tried but failed (Eight Belles, Althea, etc.). In Canada it is almost an every year occurence that fillies run in and win their Triple Crown races. Is there a recent history of the girls taking on the boys in the designated "Classics"? Again, just trying to understand how the two situations equate when you compare how 3yo fillies face males at different times in the year.

They don't try all that often in the Guineas and Derby, fair enough. But that situation changes once summer comes.
Zarkava won the Arch, Goldikova won the BC Mile, Ouija Board in the Hong Kong Vase, Goldikova twice in the Prix Jacques Le Marois, Darjina in the Prix Du Moulin. All truly international grade 1's against open company, all in the last 3 years.

[gm10]

It has everything to do with it.

We measure champions on dirt.Something European horses fail to do.

Turf racing does not dictate championships here.

Synthetic racing does not dictate champions here.

Euros have failed on dirt is the point.

Run your studs on dirt and we can talk turkey.

Anyway,the plastic spectacle is not a leg to stand on.

You are missing the point. The feat "beating the older boys" is not so unique, that's the author's point. It doesn't matter that it was done on a minority surface like dirt or synthetic, it's still the same feat. If anything it's harder on the turf, because it's the global number one surface, so the world's best horses run on it.

[Java Gold@TFT]

Well I'm not 46, but I think I might answer this.

For me there are different levels of greatness and even different kinds. There is the brillant that are great, like Domino, secretariat, Man O' War ect...Then there are the great Warriors like exterminator, Forego, John Henry ect.

But to get into my list as an All-Time great you have to be a horse that transcends the sport, like Secretariat did or Man O'War. When it comes to North American ALL-TIME greats, you'll only find 3 horses on my list. The two I've mentioned (Sec and MOW) and Citation. They set numerous world and track time records and not only dominated their competition, but also left the people that saw them with memories that lasted life times, generations and will continue to do so.

So no RA isn't an All-Time great, but she is certainly the most accomplished 3yo filly we've seen in many years and I would say that she IS a great one.
I don't have any qualm with your opinion of greatness. We all have our own. There are a lot of horses in the HOF that had great careers during their times that no one would consider an 'all time great'. My personal definition of all time greatness would also be horses that transcend the sport and if I was to try to list those I would be up in the 20's when you get past the Secretariats, Man O' Wars, Kelsos, Citations and start to add in the Eclipses and Phar Laps. My list is obviously going to be longer.

My original question was to 46Z who has continually stated that a horse has to meet his criteria to be a great horse. He has defined them as stated in my original post in diffferent threads. I just can't figure out who meets HIS criteria over the last 40 years or so. I intentionally left it at that so we didn't go back into debates about Kelso, Citation, Dr. Fager and too many others to list.

To me Rachel is already a great horse in this sport. If you could have seen the buzz around the Saratoga region this summer you would know that she has generated tons of new fans. By the end of next year she could be considered the best filly to race ever. That will depend on her schedule and her continued growth. I just hope that Jackson doesn't pull a Zenyatta schedule - 3 races before October, then one prep and the BC. I don't think he will but her options will be limited by the racing calendar. Her first race next year may very well be the Apple Blossom. She's not going to Dubai and she wouldn't go to the Donn that early in the year without at least one race under her belt so I'm not sure of a race before April that would be suitable for her caliber. Then on to what? Humana Distaff? Met Mile? Whitney? Delaware H.? Arlington Million or Beverly D? Another Woodward? JCGC? BC Classic? Her position on the all time list will be cemented by the races that Jackson/Asmussen choose next year. It's sort of sad that the expectations are set so high that to win a G-I at Saratoga like the Go For Wand or Personal Ensign would be considered a class drop.

[sandpit]

Where would you rank Dr. Fager? He won on dirt and grass, he won going short and long, he set two world records, only three horses ever finished in front of him, he was never defeated below the mile distance, he toted winning weights ranging from115 LBS to 139 LBS, ran 5 times (winning 3) at the 1 ¼ mile distance toting weights from 120 to 135 Lbs, and in his 18/22 victories only one horse ever finished less than 1 length to him.

In addition to all the above feats, the three horses that did manage to finish in front of Dr. Fager were all named champions. His 1968 campaign is probably the greatest in the history of the sport, along with Swaps in 1956, Spectacular Bid in 80, and Tom Fool in 1953.

[Pell Mell]

Not meaning to get off the subject but this discussion reminds me of heros. The word hero is tossed about so loosely today it makes me sick.

When men went to war in WW1 and WW2 they didn't consider themselves heros. I went to Korea and none of us considered ourselves heros. Today, if you get shipped overseas, your a hero.
A HERO is someone who does something "Above and Beyond the Call of DUTY", not someone who is just doing what is expected of them.
The words great and hero have lost much of their meaning today.
Of course, to apply this to horse racing may mean that a horse has done more than might be expected under normal circumstances. If so, Rachel would qualify as great. JMO

[Cratos]

Not meaning to get off the subject but this discussion reminds me of heros. The word hero is tossed about so loosely today it makes me sick.

When men went to war in WW1 and WW2 they didn't consider themselves heros. I went to Korea and none of us considered ourselves heros. Today, if you get shipped overseas, your a hero.
A HERO is someone who does something "Above and Beyond the Call of DUTY", not someone who is just doing what is expected of them.
The words great and hero have lost much of their meaning today.
Of course, to apply this to horse racing may mean that a horse has done more than might be expected under normal circumstances. If so, Rachel would qualify as great. JMO

Admiral William Halsey, commander of the South Pacific Force during WWII made one of the more memorable sayings about greatness when he said “…….there are no great men, just ordinary men who arise to the occasion.:”

Paraphrasing that quote and relating it to horseracing: “there are just good horses who arise to the occasion.”

[46zilzal]

Not meaning to get off the subject but this discussion reminds me of heros. The word hero is tossed about so loosely today it makes me sick.

When men went to war in WW1 and WW2 they didn't consider themselves heros. I went to Korea and none of us considered ourselves heros. Today, if you get shipped overseas, your a hero.
A HERO is someone who does something "Above and Beyond the Call of DUTY", not someone who is just doing what is expected of them.
The words great and hero have lost much of their meaning today.
Of course, to apply this to horse racing may mean that a horse has done more than might be expected under normal circumstances. If so, Rachel would qualify as great. JMO

Well YOU get it with the overuse of the superlative

[FenceBored]

You are missing the point. The feat "beating the older boys" is not so unique, that's the author's point. It doesn't matter that it was done on a minority surface like dirt or synthetic, it's still the same feat. If anything it's harder on the turf, because it's the global number one surface, so the world's best horses run on it.

China is the most populous country on the globe, so the world's best people are Chinese?
:confused:

[gm10]

China is the most populous country on the globe, so the world's best people are Chinese?
:confused:

???
Just in case you genuinely don't understand ... yes, if there are 80 G1 horses running on turf, and 20 on dirt, of course it's going to be tougher to be the best of the 80 than the best of the 20.

Rachel A is not great because she beat Macho Again or Summer Bird, two talented but far from exceptional colts. Zarkava or Goldikova are in a different league of 'greatness' if you measure it this way. RA is a great filly because of how she has captured the hearts and minds of racing fans, showing an usual amount of talent, and showing tremendous courage in difficult situations.

[46zilzal]

???
J
Rachel A is not great because she beat Macho Again or Summer Bird, two talented but far from exceptional colts. Zarkava or Goldikova are in a different league of 'greatness' if you measure it this way. RA is a great filly because of how she has captured the hearts and minds of racing fans, showing an usual amount of talent, and showing tremendous courage in difficult situations.
a news clipping great. They are a dime a dozen

[Java Gold@TFT]

a news clipping great. They are a dime a dozen
OK Zil, you win, I give up. You will never answer my question about who meets your expectations for greatness. You have this definition in your head and seem to know what a superlative is but still will not actually say who the superlative horses in North America have been over the last 40 years by your standards. So, I'll quit, you'll continue to weasel out of justifying anything you have typed with a real opinion on the 'greats' of the last 40 years. I guess some people just attack and belittle but can't step forward and give credit to those they think deserve it.

[FenceBored]

???
Just in case you genuinely don't understand ... yes, if there are 80 G1 horses running on turf, and 20 on dirt, of course it's going to be tougher to be the best of the 80 than the best of the 20.


Oh, I understood you, it's just that your statements don't logically reach the conclusion you claim. You're assuming your conclusion and then stating that this proves you're right.

Let's take the 100 best European horses of the 20th Century. All of these are top notch G1 calibre horses. Now, let's subdivide that hundred at the 20th place, so that the top 20 horses are in one group and the other 80 are in the other group. Now, let's take Zarkava. Which group would she have less trouble with, the group of 20, or the group of 80? Clearly, the group of 80. Reshuffle the groups so that there's a random number of the top 20 in each of the two groups, but keep the 20/80 ratio between the two groups. Which group would she now have the most trouble with? I don't know, because I don't know where the best horses of the 100 now are. It's just not as simple as saying that the larger group is the stiffer competition.

[gm10]

Oh, I understood you, it's just that your statements don't logically reach the conclusion you claim. You're assuming your conclusion and then stating that this proves you're right.

Let's take the 100 best European horses of the 20th Century. All of these are top notch G1 calibre horses. Now, let's subdivide that hundred at the 20th place, so that the top 20 horses are in one group and the other 80 are in the other group. Now, let's take Zarkava. Which group would she have less trouble with, the group of 20, or the group of 80? Clearly, the group of 80. Reshuffle the groups so that there's a random number of the top 20 in each of the two groups, but keep the 20/80 ratio between the two groups. Which group would she now have the most trouble with? I don't know, because I don't know where the best horses of the 100 now are. It's just not as simple as saying that the larger group is the stiffer competition.

You're overcomplicating things a little, I think. It is easier to be the biggest fish in a small pond than in a big pond. That's all I was saying. And even then, greatness is not decided by that.

[Java Gold@TFT]

GM10, an intersting perspective given today:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/52555/countdown-to-the-cup-pray-for-rain

Part is praying for rain in France this fall and part is looking at the girls vs. the boys question in Europe and the States.

There have been published comments recently stating that Rachel Alexandra’s conquests over males is not as big an accomplishment as one might think, because it is done all the time in Europe.

It’s true that fillies face and defeat colts on a much more regular basis in Europe than they do in America. Of course, most top-class fillies are forced to run against colts in Europe, due to the lack of group I championship caliber races in the fall. It should be noted that a typical European filly, especially a 3-year-old, is given two or three races in the spring, then has the entire summer off, and returns for two races in the fall. That was Zarkava’s campaign last year; three races in the spring and two in the fall.

Europeans as a whole (Sea the Stars and the top Ballydoyle runners are an exception) do not run steadily throughout the year and have much easier campaigns than American horses. You’d be hard-pressed to find any European filly that has ever defeated males in May, August, and September, as Rachel Alexandra has done.

Almost all the European filly conquests over males come in the fall. They do not win classics and they rarely win a midsummer stakes against males.

For example, no filly has won the English Derby since 1916. There is no record of a filly winning the 2,000 Guineas in modern times, or the French Derby. Only one filly has won the Irish Derby in at least the last 60 years. No filly has won the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes in 29 years, and the last one that did was a 4-year-old. Only two fillies have won the Eclipse Stakes in at least the last 39 years and they were both 4-year-olds. It's been 33 years since a 3-year-old filly has won the Grand Prix de Saint-Cloud. When people say fillies defeat colts in Europe all the time, they are referring to the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe, and as stated earlier, those fillies normally are fresher horses at that time of the year, and unlike the French colts, are coming off a competitive group I prep in the Prix Vermeille, while many of the French colts are coming of slowly run, paceless races in short fields in either the Prix Foy for older horses or the Prix Niel for 3-year-olds.

In short, even in Europe, it is extremely rare to see a 3-year-old filly win a classic against males, and almost as rare to see them win a grade I midsummer stakes of championship caliber against males, both of which Rachel Alexandra has done.

It is difficult to compare racing in Europe to racing in America, and what happens across the Atlantic should not serve as a gauge in assessing the accomplishments of a horse in the United States. Rachel Alexandra’s feats this year were unprecedented in modern times — even by European standards

[FenceBored]

You're overcomplicating things a little, I think. It is easier to be the biggest fish in a small pond than in a big pond. That's all I was saying. And even then, greatness is not decided by that.


The small pond of European racing, you mean? In 2008, the European IRPAC (the International Grading and Race Planning Advisory Committee) Part I countries (UK, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy) accounted for 16,129 flat races, 371 of which were graded (i.e. G1, G2, G3). The US alone had 49,951 flat races of which 468 were graded. So, the US had 3 times more races, but only 26% more graded races, thus a lower percentage of graded races. In fact, of the worldwide IRPAC Part I countries only Canada, Italy, and Japan have a lower percentage of graded races. A lower percentage, of course, means there is stiffer competition for a graded placing, as there are fewer opportunities. So, I guess that proves the competition in the US is harder.

[gm10]

GM10, an intersting perspective given today:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/52555/countdown-to-the-cup-pray-for-rain

Part is praying for rain in France this fall and part is looking at the girls vs. the boys question in Europe and the States.

Some good explanations as to why it happens more often in Europe than the US. Although the "fresher filly" doesn't always apply, Ouija Board had raced five times in 5 months for example when she won the Hong Kong Vase. Goldikova's win at Santa Anita was her seventh race in as many months. And those wins here against arguably better horses than Macho Again (in his 6th start of the year). So is Zarkava the exception to a rule that fillies aren't fresher, or does she embody the opposite rule? Hard to say. Interesting article.

[gm10]

The small pond of European racing, you mean? In 2008, the European IRPAC (the International Grading and Race Planning Advisory Committee) Part I countries (UK, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy) accounted for 16,129 flat races, 371 of which were graded (i.e. G1, G2, G3). The US alone had 49,951 flat races of which 468 were graded. So, the US had 3 times more races, but only 26% more graded races, thus a lower percentage of graded races. In fact, of the worldwide IRPAC Part I countries only Canada, Italy, and Japan have a lower percentage of graded races. A lower percentage, of course, means there is stiffer competition for a graded placing, as there are fewer opportunities. So, I guess that proves the competition in the US is harder.

I don't think you understood what I meant. Turf is the nr. 1 surface WORLDWIDE. You need to compare WORLDWIDE TURF (not just European) racing with WORLDWIDE DIRT racing. You will find that there are many more horses running on the turf than on dirt.

Also, whether there are relatively more graded stakes is irrelevant, as Americans don't decide on what the European group races are, the Australians don't decide what the Brasilian group races are. The grading systems are different.

Finally, and for this I am grateful, you point out yourself that Italy has relatively less graded races than the US. Following your own logic, Italian racing would be better than American racing.

[FenceBored]

Finally, and for this I am grateful, you point out yourself that Italy has relatively less graded races than the US. Following your own logic, Italian racing would be better than American racing.

Let's deal with this one first. That's really not my belief. I was just applying gm10 logic to the matter. My belief is that quantity does not equate with quality. You can have greater quality in the larger group, or you can have greater quality in the smaller group. Without other external measures you can't say for sure where the greater quality lies.

I don't think you understood what I meant. Turf is the nr. 1 surface WORLDWIDE. You need to compare WORLDWIDE TURF (not just European) racing with WORLDWIDE DIRT racing. You will find that there are many more horses running on the turf than on dirt.

I don't have to compare anything, because, and we'll take this slowly -- even - if - true - it - does - not - mean - what - you - think - it - does.

Furthermore, the question of how many horses run on which surfaces is completely irrelevant to the discussion you started, i.e. the Woodward in perspective. The issue there is, as CJ stated, the relative difficulty of a 3yo filly defeating stakes calibre older males on a given surface. You contend, without proof (as is typical), that turf is more difficult. Prove it. Don't just cite imagined preferences of horse racing jurisdictions around the world, prove it. We know your hypothesis, now support it with real evidence.

[classhandicapper]

Personally, I think there are many issues involved. There may be stamina, physical development, and race development issues at work when it comes to the success of females against males around the world at various distances, surfaces and times of year.

In the US, fillies have long done well against the best males sprinting. Just look at history of the BC Sprint vs. the BC Classic for evidence. When they have done well against males at routes, it has typically been a 3YO filly against 3YO colts in the spring (the Triple Crown preps or Triple Crown races themselves).

It seems to me that fillies (like female humans) tend to mature physically sooner. So in the spring of their 3YO year, it's almost like a fairly mature woman running against a teenage guy. At that stage they have a very good shot. In the fall the colts narrow the gap until they fully mature at 4 and usually pass the best fillies at classic distances. For evidence of that, just look at the speed figures of the best 2YO fillies vs. the best 2YO colts long term. It's practically common for the best 2YO fillies to be faster or at least damn close. But by the end of the careers, it's a different story.

In Europe, fillies have been pretty successful at routes also. But I think it has something to do with the nature of turf racing and its less demanding pace and race development. We have already seen that the best fillies can compete with the best colts sprinting in the US even on dirt. So to me it's not a shock they can compete in grass routes that are typically a jog for a mile and then a 1/4 mile sprint.

What made Rachel's feat so unique was that it came against older fully matured colts, at a route of ground, and on the dirt. That just does not happen very often anywhere on the planet. And one of the reasons it doesn't happen is because the trainers and owners of the best fillies size them up against the best colts and know they usually have little or no chance. So they don't even bother - like they often do in the BC Sprint or in the spring 3YO Classics where they know they do. On the occasions they have tried, it has typically been a disaster which in turn has simply reinforced the reality about their chances.

Some may argue that this was just an example of a great filly catching a mediocre group of older colts. I would tend to agree with that. But given the race development I think she demonstrated that she was vastly superior to them. IMHO, that made it spectacular and very unique in racing anywhere in the world.

[gm10]

Let's deal with this one first. That's really not my belief. I was just applying gm10 logic to the matter. My belief is that quantity does not equate with quality. You can have greater quality in the larger group, or you can have greater quality in the smaller group. Without other external measures you can't say for sure where the greater quality lies.



I don't have to compare anything, because, and we'll take this slowly -- even - if - true - it - does - not - mean - what - you - think - it - does.

Furthermore, the question of how many horses run on which surfaces is completely irrelevant to the discussion you started, i.e. the Woodward in perspective. The issue there is, as CJ stated, the relative difficulty of a 3yo filly defeating stakes calibre older males on a given surface. You contend, without proof (as is typical), that turf is more difficult. Prove it. Don't just cite imagined preferences of horse racing jurisdictions around the world, prove it. We know your hypothesis, now support it with real evidence.

OK - what will you accept as evidence then?

I tried common sense - more contenders = better quality at the top. Not good enough. What is ?

And I was applying your logic, not mine. And don't start applying double standards when your arguments goes against you, that's just lame.

[46zilzal]

OK Zil, you win, I give up. You will never answer my question about who meets your expectations for greatness. You have this definition in your head and seem to know what a superlative is but still will not actually say who the superlative horses in North America have been over the last 40 years by your standards. So, I'll quit, you'll continue to weasel out of justifying anything you have typed with a real opinion on the 'greats' of the last 40 years. I guess some people just attack and belittle but can't step forward and give credit to those they think deserve it.

CONSISTENCY over time - not a 5 to 6 month period ONE year, ADAPTABILITY to differing surfaces and distances, weight carrier, running against the best and never ducking a challenge....exactly the requirements that I quoted for the quintessential great one: Forego. Miesque qualifies, as does Affirmed or Spectacular Bid. AS of yet this one does NOT.

If this single season mania were the extent of the definition then ones like Mineshaft, Ghostzapper, Easy Goer, Talkin' Man, Vigors and many others would qualify and they don't

[Java Gold@TFT]

CONSISTENCY over time - not a 5 to 6 month period ONE year, ADAPTABILITY to differing surfaces and distances, weight carrier, running against the best and never ducking a challenge....exactly the requirements that I quoted for the quintessential great one: Forego. Miesque qualifies, as does Affirmed or Spectacular Bid. AS of yet this one does NOT.

If this single season mania were the extent of the definition then ones like Mineshaft, Ghostzapper, Easy Goer, Talkin' Man, Vigors and many others would qualify and they don't
As of yet, you still haven't said who does qualify for your rarified air. You like to list the ones that don't but never the ones who have in the last 40 years. Now you are up to Affirmed, Bid, Forego and Miesque. There must be others. Just buck up and offer the ones who do meet your criteria. That's all I've ever asked. Not who doesn't but who does. It's really a very simple request.

[Steve R]

CONSISTENCY over time - not a 5 to 6 month period ONE year, ADAPTABILITY to differing surfaces and distances, weight carrier, running against the best and never ducking a challenge....exactly the requirements that I quoted for the quintessential great one: Forego. Miesque qualifies, as does Affirmed or Spectacular Bid. AS of yet this one does NOT.

If this single season mania were the extent of the definition then ones like Mineshaft, Ghostzapper, Easy Goer, Talkin' Man, Vigors and many others would qualify and they don't
By your definition, one could argue that Sea-Bird wasn't really great even though he is the highest rated horse by Timeform over the last 50 or 60 years. He had an excellent, but not extraordinary three-race juvenile campaign and lost to a good (but not great) Grey Dawn II. His reputation was earned entirely from five races as a three-year-old. Yes, he beat the best available in the Epsom Derby and the Arc but he never had to carry weight, never raced on other than turf and pretty much did not have the opportunity to display "CONSISTENCY over time". You would definitely have to exclude Tudor Minstrel, second only to Sea-Bird on Timeform's ratings, who had just ten starts, was awesome at a mile on turf but couldn't stay the 12f of the Derby and ran out of the money in that one. And, of course, your definition probably leaves out Ruffian as well. To each his own, although I must say your definition of greatness is arbitrary and overly restrictive. Greatness comes in all shapes and sizes but never fits a "formula".

[46zilzal]

As of yet, you still haven't said who does qualify for your rarefied air. You like to list the ones that don't but never the ones who have in the last 40 years. Now you are up to Affirmed, Bid, Forego and Miesque. There must be others. Just buck up and offer the ones who do meet your criteria. That's all I've ever asked. Not who doesn't but who does. It's really a very simple request.
That would take all day and I will pass on that assignment

If you go to the American Racing Manual, Saratoga's National Racing Hall of Fame they are all there for you to read about. A scant few might be missing but I agree with, generally, the ones who/that were admitted. Quality performances over time versus the best and overcoming adversity.

Having a UNIVERSAL yardstick helps to understand true greatness and it would include those like Kingston Rule, the filly that won the Melbourne Cup, Deep Impact, Ribot, Phar Lap, Nashwan, Nijinsky II, Dancing Brave (whom I do not care for but has the credentials), Mill Reef, Brigadier Gerrard, Sea Bird II, Tudor Minstrel, Eclipse, Shergar, Vaguely Noble, Red Rum, Arkle, Flatterer, Bayakoa, Kentucky (foal of 1861), Grey Lag, Gallorette, Hickory Ox, Herod, Fkying Childers, Bay Middleton, Crucifix, The Tetrarch, Tremont, El Rio Roy, Barcaldine, Bahram, St. SImon, Ormonde, Selinta, Nearco, Pharis, Ajax, Prestige, Isinglass, Galopin, Native Dancer,(in a class by herself was Catherina who won 79 races from 176 starts),Colin, Sysonby,Forli (who could almost be a flash in the pan with only ten starts but he won 9 of them),Black Helen, Bewitch (who defeated Citation), Beldame, Bayakoa, Armed, Allez France, Ack Ack (both brilliant and consistent), Dark Mirage, Cicada, Coaltown,


There are others that qualify for flash in the pan
Even at out Canadian Racing Hall of Fame, within the confines of Canadian racing, it takes a bit of consistency and ability over adversity to enter those doors or the LONG TERM brilliance of a Some Beach Somewhere to get in.

[gm10]

I've read interesting stuff here ... I certainly paid attention to the Korean war veteran's comments.

Although I don't think RA's achievements come close to Zarkava, Ouija Board or Goldikova's yet, and nobody will ever call Macho Again a special horse ... I still think she is great. Weird.

[FenceBored]

OK - what will you accept as evidence then?

I tried common sense - more contenders = better quality at the top. Not good enough. What is ?

And I was applying your logic, not mine. And don't start applying double standards when your arguments goes against you, that's just lame.

It's not common sense, that's the point. How does the existence of the Cena Ministerstva pôdohospodárstva Slovenskej republiky G1 (Slovakia) influence the quality of the field in the Irish Champion Stakes or the Breeders Cup Classic? How does the Jockey Club del Peru G1 improve the quality of the Jockey Club Gold Cup at Belmont, or detract from the quality of the Arc de Triomphe? No single country in the world runs half as many races, or has half as many starters as the United States does, but I wouldn't say that 'proves' that American racing is necessarily better than another country's. Why do you think adding up the Slovakias and the Czech Republics and the Malaysias makes turf racing superior?

[gm10]

It's not common sense, that's the point. How does the existence of the Cena Ministerstva pôdohospodárstva Slovenskej republiky G1 (Slovakia) influence the quality of the field in the Irish Champion Stakes or the Breeders Cup Classic? How does the Jockey Club del Peru G1 improve the quality of the Jockey Club Gold Cup at Belmont, or detract from the quality of the Arc de Triomphe? No single country in the world runs half as many races, or has half as many starters as the United States does, but I wouldn't say that 'proves' that American racing is necessarily better than another country's. Why do you think adding up the Slovakias and the Czech Republics and the Malaysias makes turf racing superior?

I was adding up Britain, France, Ireland, Germany, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore, 30% of American and Canada, half of Japan and Dubai. Gee, guess that doesn't add up to much. Surely you'll find much more quality at Saratoga, Belmont Park and Churchill Downs, the only world class dirt tracks, than you will find at Newmarket, Ascot, Longchamps, Goodwood, Deauville, Chantilly, Curragh, Flemington, Epsom, Leopardstown or Nad Al Sheba.

[FenceBored]

I was adding up Britain, France, Ireland, Germany, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore, 30% of American and Canada, half of Japan and Dubai. Gee, guess that doesn't add up to much. Surely you'll find much more quality at Saratoga, Belmont Park and Churchill Downs, the only world class dirt tracks, than you will find at Newmarket, Ascot, Longchamps, Goodwood, Deauville, Chantilly, Curragh, Flemington, Epsom, Leopardstown or Nad Al Sheba.

Probably not as much as you think. But, regardless, it doesn't PROVE anything. The state of Indiana had 1028 races in 2008 compared to Ireland's 1020 flat races. Whoopie doo.

[gm10]

Probably not as much as you think. But, regardless, it doesn't PROVE anything. The state of Indiana had 1028 races in 2008 compared to Ireland's 1020 flat races. Whoopie doo.
Sure. Remind me, what would you accept as evidence?

[FenceBored]

Sure. Remind me, what would you accept as evidence?

I don't know. What real evidence do you have? :)

[gm10]

I don't know. What real evidence do you have? :)

This is silly :cool: