one year doesnt make a great horse

[SoCalCircuit]

look RA is HOY unless summer bird or gio ponti make some drastic moves, thats unquestionable. however, those who are saying shes a great horse are mistaken. yes, shes a great 3 yo, but to say shes a great HORSE?? thats jumping to conclusions. big brown was an incredible 3 yo, one of the best ive seen, but was he a top horse of all time? no way. so is anyone with me that we should just let RA relax for a few months, enjoy the BC preps and whatnot, and worry about if RA is truly a great horse or not after her 4 yo campaign?

[miller17]

Do actually believe what you just wrote? Take off the So Cal glasses, and I love Zenyata, but what a waste off time trying to make a case for anyone but RA for HOY is simply crazy.

[PaceAdvantage]

Some of the horses considered among the greatest of the great never ran beyond their 3yo year...I don't really get what you're saying in this regard.

When a horse does things not many other horses have ever done, and does them AT THE TOP LEVELS OF THE GAME, whether it be breaking track records, or winning the Triple Crown, or winning 16 in a row, or a 3yo filly winning the Preakness, the Haskell, and the Woodward in the same year...those are feats of undeniable greatness.

[tucker6]

big brown was an incredible 3 yo, one of the best ive seen
Are you serious?? He was good horse. Not great, but good by historical standards. I really have a hard time believing you have seen so little racing that he's at the top of your list of 3 year olds. I have him as slightly above average. He didn't sniff any track records the very few times he actually raced.

[PaceAdvantage]

He didn't sniff any track records the very few times he actually raced.Fla Derby? That doesn't count as a sniff? Maybe my memory is faulty.

[tucker6]

Fla Derby? That doesn't count as a sniff? Maybe my memory is faulty.
Good catch. I forgot about that one. I guess I was thinking KD and Preakness, where he was well off track record pace, and I believe SoCal was thinking of those races when he mentions BB and greatness. The fact is that BB looked great running those races, but in a field of good horses, like Curlin, may not have looked so great.

[Imriledup]

look RA is HOY unless summer bird or gio ponti make some drastic moves, thats unquestionable. however, those who are saying shes a great horse are mistaken. yes, shes a great 3 yo, but to say shes a great HORSE?? thats jumping to conclusions. big brown was an incredible 3 yo, one of the best ive seen, but was he a top horse of all time? no way. so is anyone with me that we should just let RA relax for a few months, enjoy the BC preps and whatnot, and worry about if RA is truly a great horse or not after her 4 yo campaign?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_t6rV3U9ZEHM/SCu5-28KVrI/AAAAAAAAGSw/3HxNw7k5l6w/s400/Dumbfounded.jpg

[plainolebill]

Some of the horses considered among the greatest of the great never ran beyond their 3yo year...I don't really get what you're saying in this regard....

Sea Bird, Secretariat: Nothing left to prove.

[MNslappy]

look RA is HOY unless summer bird or gio ponti make some drastic moves, thats unquestionable. however, those who are saying shes a great horse are mistaken. yes, shes a great 3 yo, but to say shes a great HORSE?? thats jumping to conclusions. big brown was an incredible 3 yo, one of the best ive seen, but was he a top horse of all time? no way. so is anyone with me that we should just let RA relax for a few months, enjoy the BC preps and whatnot, and worry about if RA is truly a great horse or not after her 4 yo campaign?

http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/4291/small/bert.jpg

[rokitman]

look RA is HOY unless summer bird or gio ponti make some drastic moves, thats unquestionable. however, those who are saying shes a great horse are mistaken. yes, shes a great 3 yo, but to say shes a great HORSE?? thats jumping to conclusions. big brown was an incredible 3 yo, one of the best ive seen, but was he a top horse of all time? no way. so is anyone with me that we should just let RA relax for a few months, enjoy the BC preps and whatnot, and worry about if RA is truly a great horse or not after her 4 yo campaign?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y211/magickalfaerie/large-marge-animated.gif

[classhandicapper]

To me, Rachel is obviously a great horse. I don't even see a need to discuss it.

But you know what, even though I don't consider Big Brown a great horse, I think he has gone from over hyped to underrated awfully quickly. His Florida Derby and Preakness were both outstanding races when adjusted for his trip. His Preakness was always hard to gauge because he only ran for somewhere between about 1/8th and 1/4 mile, but I think it at least reaffirmed the prior form. So to me, he was terrific for 3 races after showing exceptional promise in his first 2 starts.

I don't hold the Belmont against him because everything that could possibly go wrong went wrong. His hoof went bad, he missed training before the race, he got a joke of a ride, was taken outside when the track was better inside, his shoe came loose etc...

When he came back after that debacle he didn't look like anything special, but I'm not 100% sure he was showing his best. He didn't look as sharp. They were really pushing the horse when he probably needed a long break to freshen and heal after his Triple Crown campaign and hoof problems etc... because they were trying to make the Breeder's Cup. Plus, even though he didn't run fast or impressively, he didn't lose either (and proved his versatility by winning on turf again).

I can't call him great because it was only a 3 race sequence surrounded by good but not exceptional performances. However, he was no bum. A healthy Big Brown might have been a terror.

[cj]

To me, Rachel is obviously a great horse. I don't even see a need to discuss it.

But you know what, even though I don't consider Big Brown a great horse, I think he has gone from over hyped to underrated awfully quickly. His Florida Derby and Preakness were both outstanding races when adjusted for his trip. His Preakness was always hard to gauge because he only ran for somewhere between about 1/8th and 1/4 mile, but I think it at least reaffirmed the prior form. So to me, he was terrific for 3 races after showing exceptional promise in his first 2 starts.

I don't hold the Belmont against him because everything that could possibly go wrong went wrong. His hoof went bad, he missed training before the race, he got a joke of a ride, was taken outside when the track was better inside, his shoe came loose etc...

When he came back after that debacle he didn't look like anything special, but I'm not 100% sure he was showing his best. He didn't look as sharp. They were really pushing the horse when he probably needed a long break to freshen and heal after his Triple Crown campaign and hoof problems etc... because they were trying to make the Breeder's Cup. Plus, even though he didn't run fast or impressively, he didn't lose either (and proved his versatility by winning on turf again).

I can't call him great because it was only a 3 race sequence surrounded by good but not exceptional performances. However, he was no bum. A healthy Big Brown might have been a terror.

Personally, I think his Derby was better than his Preakness. He just toyed with the field while very wide the whole way.

[Judge Gallivan]

I think class meant that as well, just wrote Preakness instead of Derby.

[Bochall]

Rachel has won 5 straight Gr 1 races and the list of horses to do that aint very long. She may not be the same at 4yrs old as fillies tend to be less durable than colts, but IMO there is no denying the greatness of this year.

[46zilzal]

Serena's Song won 18 graded stakes
Bayakoa 15
Paseana 14
Flawlessly 13
Silverbulletday 13

Endurance over time and, as in the case of Bayakoa, AGAINST all comers as in TWO Breeder's Cup wins. That is quality

Brilliance is not greatness.

[statik27]

look RA is HOY unless summer bird or gio ponti make some drastic moves, thats unquestionable. however, those who are saying shes a great horse are mistaken. yes, shes a great 3 yo, but to say shes a great HORSE?? thats jumping to conclusions. big brown was an incredible 3 yo, one of the best ive seen, but was he a top horse of all time? no way. so is anyone with me that we should just let RA relax for a few months, enjoy the BC preps and whatnot, and worry about if RA is truly a great horse or not after her 4 yo campaign?

I don't agree with this either. I think RA has certainly proven she's a great filly and deserves to be mention in the same breathe as Ruffian and Winning Colors, Shuvee, other tremendous 3yo fillies.

But I get what SoCal is saying I think its all in perspective. As in RA is maybe the top 3YO filly of all time, thats certainly a possiblility. But to say shes the greatest distaffer or to say she's one of the best we've ever seen period regardless of sex, might be stretching it a bit.

IMHO, RA has a long way to go to match the record of a mare like Gallorette. Who defeated future KY derby winner Hoop Jr as a 2yo. Belmont winner Pavot as a 3yo. And then won the Met, Brooklyn, and Whitney as a 4yo against horses like Stymie, Armed, and Assualt, in one of the deepest handicap divisions in history. Now that Mare was a monster lol.

[46zilzal]

IMHO, RA has a long way to go to match the record of a mare like Gallorette. Who defeated future KY derby winner Hoop Jr as a 2yo. Belmont winner Pavot as a 3yo. And then won the Met, Brooklyn, and Whitney as a 4yo against horses like Stymie, Armed, and Assualt, in one of the deepest handicap divisions in history. Now that Mare was a monster
You point out what the Johnny Come Lately's never get: THE YARDSTICK OF RACING HISTORY is what the term greatness is measured against NOT one season

[11cashcall]

But I get what SoCal is saying I think its all in perspective. As in RA is maybe the top 3YO filly of all time, thats certainly a possiblility. But to say shes the greatest distaffer or to say she's one of the best we've ever seen period regardless of sex, might be stretching it a bit.

IMHO, RA has a long way to go to match the record of a mare like Gallorette. Who defeated future KY derby winner Hoop Jr as a 2yo. Belmont winner Pavot as a 3yo. And then won the Met, Brooklyn, and Whitney as a 4yo against horses like Stymie, Armed, and Assualt, in one of the deepest handicap divisions in history. Now that Mare was a monster lol.


Of all the RA threads etc, this one imho puts things into perspective.For all Jackson has done with RA his boycott of this yrs. BC does'nt do RA any justice. His sudden turn around view of the Pro- ride AFTER Curlin lost the Classic is narrow minded.Curlin lost to 2 horse's who had very good
campaigns that yr.It's a no brainer this yr the Euros will come back 2-fold.So whats he really afraid of? Horse's who have won at Kee have done so on pro-ride & back,and to say that she not that caliber of a horse is laughable. Great Horse's over come bias,have in the past & will do so in the future.

Yeah Sportsmanship!

[joanied]

look RA is HOY unless summer bird or gio ponti make some drastic moves, thats unquestionable. however, those who are saying shes a great horse are mistaken. yes, shes a great 3 yo, but to say shes a great HORSE?? thats jumping to conclusions. big brown was an incredible 3 yo, one of the best ive seen, but was he a top horse of all time? no way. so is anyone with me that we should just let RA relax for a few months, enjoy the BC preps and whatnot, and worry about if RA is truly a great horse or not after her 4 yo campaign?

:confused: :confused: :confused: ...and maybe when next year rolls around...you'll consider her a great 4 year old:bang:

[lamboguy]

Of all the RA threads etc, this one imho puts things into perspective.For all Jackson has done with RA his boycott of this yrs. BC does'nt do RA any justice. His sudden turn around view of the Pro- ride AFTER Curlin lost the Classic is narrow minded.Curlin lost to 2 horse's who had very good
campaigns that yr.It's a no brainer this yr the Euros will come back 2-fold.So whats he really afraid of? Horse's who have won at Kee have done so on pro-ride & back,and to say that she not that caliber of a horse is laughable. Great Horse's over come bias,have in the past & will do so in the future.

Yeah Sportsmanship!you must think that JESS JACKSON is a multibillionaire because he is stupid.
the man looks around him and sees what happened last year to CURLIN on the synthetic. he sees poor JOHN WARD blow up million $horses training in keeneland and trying to run them in saratoga.

JACKSON has decided that he is not going to risk his filly on synthetic this year and wait for breeder's cup next year on a conventional surface. i don't see any thing wrong with that logic.

[FenceBored]

Of all the RA threads etc, this one imho puts things into perspective.For all Jackson has done with RA his boycott of this yrs. BC does'nt do RA any justice. His sudden turn around view of the Pro- ride AFTER Curlin lost the Classic is narrow minded.Curlin lost to 2 horse's who had very good
campaigns that yr.It's a no brainer this yr the Euros will come back 2-fold.So whats he really afraid of? Horse's who have won at Kee have done so on pro-ride & back,and to say that she not that caliber of a horse is laughable. Great Horse's over come bias,have in the past & will do so in the future.

Yeah Sportsmanship!

Yeah, that's why Europe's top 3 year old will avoid the Arc like the plague if the footing doesn't come up to his trainer's liking. Owners and trainers routinely scratch or don't even enter where they the conditions aren't as favorable as they might prefer. Jackson's not doing anything out of the ordinary.

[joanied]

Yeah, that's why Europe's top 3 year old will avoid the Arc like the plague if the footing doesn't come up to his trainer's liking. Owners and trainers routinely scratch or don't even enter where they the conditions aren't as favorable as they might prefer. Jackson's not doing anything out of the ordinary.

Excellent reply.
I doubt there is a trainer in history that didn't scratch a very good/great horse because of track conditions.

Also...11CashCall...
"His sudden turn around view of the Pro- ride AFTER Curlin lost the Classic is narrow minded"

Jackson did not change his mind about Pro Ride AFTER the BC Classic...quite the contrary...he stated numerous times before he sent Curlin to SA that he hates the Pro Ride...and was not going to run Curlin in the Classic because of the synthetic...but he did so because he wanted to be a good sportsman.

You need to get the facts straight.

[lamboguy]

if JACKSON didn't make so many surface changes last year with CURLIN you would have seen RACHEL and CURLIN run as an entry in the WOODWARD. he was sick to his stomach that he had to retire CURLIN.

he is paying more right now to insure RACHEL than what she could possibly get for winning every single race she runs.

he knows now what synthetic surface has to offer, and he choses to stay away from the stuff.

[ghostyapper]

Owners and trainers routinely scratch or don't even enter where they the conditions aren't as favorable as they might prefer. Jackson's not doing anything out of the ordinary.

Interesting, that's all I've been saying about them avoiding 10 furlong races and I've been crucified. They don't enter because the conditions aren't as favorable as they prefer.

[joanied]

if JACKSON didn't make so many surface changes last year with CURLIN you would have seen RACHEL and CURLIN run as an entry in the WOODWARD. he was sick to his stomach that he had to retire CURLIN.

he is paying more right now to insure RACHEL than what she could possibly get for winning every single race she runs.

he knows now what synthetic surface has to offer, and he choses to stay away from the stuff.

Not quite sure what you are getting at, Lambo...
1- I doubt he worries about insuring RA...he wants her 'legacy' to be a great one, and that is bottom line for him, IMHO.
2- he really didn't make many changes...lots of trainers/owners try grass with a dirt horse...I don't understand why surface changes for Curlin has anything to do with his being retired....
no doubt sending Curlin to the farm was tough for JJ...did he HAVE to retire the colt?
:)

[joanied]

Interesting, that's all I've been saying about them avoiding 10 furlong races and I've been crucified. They don't enter because the conditions aren't as favorable as they prefer.

I beleive Fencebored was referring to SURFACE...not distance!!!

[Hanover1]

This is a tiring topic....The horse will tell us if she is great-has already spoken, has more to say........Let history judge.

[joanied]

This is a tiring topic....The horse will tell us if she is great-has already spoken, has more to say........Let history judge.

I think she's already telling us...and no doubt will have plenty more to say in 2010:jump: ...but, and I say this politely...if it's a bore for you, then just don't post in this thread...that's what I do:) :) :)

[bisket]

brown reminds me a great deal of a 3 year old this year who hasn't been able to race because of the same hoof problem; quality road. at least brown made it to the derby and preakness before his problems. brown was the closest thing to northern dancer than anyone else in his line. imop

[ghostyapper]

I beleive Fencebored was referring to SURFACE...not distance!!!

same concept whether its the surface or distance that the connections feel will hinder a horses best performance.

[RobinFromIreland]

I like the way the word "great" is being treated by some as something that's measurable and objective.

[bisket]

i for one think zens connections are the ones really handling their mare in a not to intelligent manner. zens been raced on poly her whole career, and i think in 20 years everybody will be saying. what was polytrack? who's gonna buy a yearling with her breeding when they don't know what to make of her dirt form.

[bisket]

zen will be spitting out poly track specialists, and the only place they'll be able to run the horses is at delmar :bang:

[DanG]

i for one think zens connections are the ones really handling their mare in a not to intelligent manner. zens been raced on poly her whole career, who's gonna buy a yearling with her breeding when they don't know what to make of her dirt form.

zen will be spitting out poly track specialists, and the only place they'll be able to run the horses is at delmar :bang:
In the opinion of many people I respect her best race was on dirt. If you have watched her closely she HATES Del Mar as her action showed.

Please research the animal before you start regurgitating the BS that is circulating cyber space and other unexplored galaxies.

Note to self; why bother.

[statik27]

zen will be spitting out poly track specialists, and the only place they'll be able to run the horses is at delmar :bang:

She's by Street Cry out of a Kris S. Mare. She's already proven she can run and win on dirt and she's a half to multiple Graded stakes dirt performer Balance. In what realm does this suggest she would only throw syth performers?

If anything this mare has the potential to throw multi surface performers that can adapt to any surface, turf included.

[Imriledup]

Longevity doesn't matter, greatness does. Barry Sanders is considered an all time great NFL player and he only played till he was 30. Longevity didn't matter with Barry because he was so incredible.


Just like Rachel.

[PaceAdvantage]

Interesting, that's all I've been saying about them avoiding 10 furlong races and I've been crucified. They don't enter because the conditions aren't as favorable as they prefer.The only difference is, there is no evidence to justify such. No glaring breeding difficiencies that suggest 10f is a killer. A win at 9.5 furlongs against top 3yo males in the Preakness, a mere .5 furlong shorter than your holy grail 10f. No quote from team Jackson saying "we have our doubts about 10f, which is why we aren't going to be running her that far."

In short, you're making this up out of thin air.

[Java Gold@TFT]

The only difference is, there is no evidence to justify such. No glaring breeding difficiencies that suggest 10f is a killer. A win at 9.5 furlongs against top 3yo males in the Preakness, a mere .5 furlong shorter than your holy grail 10f. No quote from team Jackson saying "we have our doubts about 10f, which is why we aren't going to be running her that far."

In short, you're making this up out of thin air.
Don't worry PA, Goldikova and Ta Wee aren't great racing females either because they have their distance limitations too :bang:

[11cashcall]

you must think that JESS JACKSON is a multibillionaire because he is stupid.
the man looks around him and sees what happened last year to CURLIN on the synthetic. he sees poor JOHN WARD blow up million $horses training in keeneland and trying to run them in saratoga.

JACKSON has decided that he is not going to risk his filly on synthetic this year and wait for breeder's cup next year on a conventional surface. i don't see any thing wrong with that logic.

Where did i call JJ stupid? Seriously even a novice capper understands the
Bu$$iness aspects of the game.My post was not in that direction.JJ did state after the Woodward that RA has another hurdle in front of her.Did he mean this yr, next yr or the BC & did it mean anything in regards to surface?

[classhandicapper]

I think class meant that as well, just wrote Preakness instead of Derby.

No, I actually did mean his Preakness.

His Preakness wasn't very fast (though I have long questioned that Beyer figure as being too low or at least not reflective of the ability of the horses because of the way several horses came out of the race to run better).

But the thing is, if an overwhelmingly superior horse like BB just sits with the pack and his jockey only asks him to run for 1/8th mile +/- a little and then gears him down after he spurts away by 5 lengths effortlessly, I don't think speed figures can possibly measure his superiority or performance properly. I can't do it either. But I tend to think you can make a very good judgment by looking at the surrounding form if its relevant. So "IMHO" he was just as good in the Preakness as he was in the FL Derby and Derby. I just can't prove it. I understand how more literal numbers guys might disagree.

[11cashcall]

Excellent reply.
I doubt there is a trainer in history that didn't scratch a very good/great horse because of track conditions.

Also...11CashCall...
"His sudden turn around view of the Pro- ride AFTER Curlin lost the Classic is narrow minded"

Jackson did not change his mind about Pro Ride AFTER the BC Classic...quite the contrary...he stated numerous times before he sent Curlin to SA that he hates the Pro Ride...and was not going to run Curlin in the Classic because of the synthetic...but he did so because he wanted to be a good sportsman.

You need to get the facts straight.


Again....RA is quite adaptable to syn.Am i wrong here? What record were the connection's aimimg at setting that yr, & did that really have anything to do with sportsmanship? What did Asmussen say about Pyro before & after the Blue Grass which btw is relevant here.

[FenceBored]

Interesting, that's all I've been saying about them avoiding 10 furlong races and I've been crucified. They don't enter because the conditions aren't as favorable as they prefer.

I don't know, but maybe it had something to do with the fact that you seem to have been emphasizing the negative interpretation of anything to do with Rachel Alexandra, her handling by Jackson/Asmussen, and the ebuliency of some of her fans ever since the Preakness. So, by the time you got to the distance complaint, and the way you put it, it came across to some people more as a slam on the horse or the connections than anything else. But, I could be wrong.

[FenceBored]

Again....RA is quite adaptable to syn.Am i wrong here? What record were the connection's aimimg at setting that yr, & did that really have anything to do with sportsmanship? What did Asmussen say about Pyro before & after the Blue Grass which btw is relevant here.

Does it matter if she's adaptable to synthetics? If Jerry Moss says he's not going to risk Zenyatta on off track at Churchill, does it matter whether or not Zenyatta has a good pedigree for the slop, or is likely to excel on it? No, it doesn't. His horse, his decision. There are owners who focus on turf and don't want to run their horses on dirt. There are owners who prefer dirt, and wouldn't try a Rahy-Theatrical cross on the grass if 3 of its full siblings where G1 winners on the turf. There are owners who hate synthetics (Jackson), there are owners who love synthetics.

Scott Blasi on Pyro's performance in the Blue Grass:
“We brought our horses here to train because we thought this surface was the safest way to get our horses to the Derby,” Blasi said. “Some horses that train well on it don’t always run that way. He didn’t handle the track; you could see that early on. I don’t put much into (the finish), because I have a lot of confidence in the horse. If he wins the Derby, they’re not going to care anyways.”
-- http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/44568/pletcher-duo-one-two-in-blue-grass
From a Steve Haskin - Talkin' Horses exchange (http://www.bloodhorse.com/talkinhorses/SH041708.asp):

Haskin:
... All he [Asmussen] said was that Curlin would be pointed for a summer return, so I would guess the Whitney would likely be his first start. As to what he'll do about going to a synthetic track I have no idea. After what happened to Pyro, you can bet he'll give it serious thought. If Pyro wins the Derby, Asmussen already said no more synthetic track for him.
Haskin:
... To commit to a track for two years when you don't even know what surface they'll be running on is questionable, especially considering the disastrous winter meet they had there. Wait until the Eastern trainers say, 'the heck with the BC; I'm not shipping 3,000 miles to run over a synthetic surface against California horses who have been running on it all year.' Steve Asmussen has already said Pyro will not go out there. And more will follow. And if you have a 3-year-old who doesn't like synthetic, you know already you can kiss the BC goodbye for the horse's entire career. It's no coincidence that the first three finishers of the Santa Anita Handicap this year were good to average turf horses, who like the synthetic surface.

[ghostyapper]

The only difference is, there is no evidence to justify such. No glaring breeding difficiencies that suggest 10f is a killer. A win at 9.5 furlongs against top 3yo males in the Preakness, a mere .5 furlong shorter than your holy grail 10f. No quote from team Jackson saying "we have our doubts about 10f, which is why we aren't going to be running her that far."

In short, you're making this up out of thin air.

Actions speak louder than words. Since she staggered home in the preakness there have been 3 ten furlong+ races and they've either passed to run in a race with less money or stayed home entirely. And would you honestly expect her connections to admit in public that 10 furlongs is a weakness?

She is a 9 furlong specialist just like her daddy.

[46zilzal]

Actions speak louder than words. Since she staggered home in the preakness there have been 3 ten furlong+ races and they've either passed to run in a race with less money or stayed home entirely. And would you honestly expect her connections to admit in public that 10 furlongs is a weakness?

She is a 9 furlong specialist just like her daddy.
Same as Hard Spun...never won a race above 9 furlongs 1 inch.

[11cashcall]

Does it matter if she's adaptable to synthetics? If Jerry Moss says he's not going to risk Zenyatta on off track at Churchill, does it matter whether or not Zenyatta has a good pedigree for the slop, or is likely to excel on it? No, it doesn't. His horse, his decision. There are owners who focus on turf and don't want to run their horses on dirt. There are owners who prefer dirt, and wouldn't try a Rahy-Theatrical cross on the grass if 3 of its full siblings where G1 winners on the turf. There are owners who hate synthetics (Jackson), there are owners who love synthetics.

Scott Blasi on Pyro's performance in the Blue Grass:
“We brought our horses here to train because we thought this surface was the safest way to get our horses to the Derby,” Blasi said. “Some horses that train well on it don’t always run that way. He didn’t handle the track; you could see that early on. I don’t put much into (the finish), because I have a lot of confidence in the horse. If he wins the Derby, they’re not going to care anyways.”
-- http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/44568/pletcher-duo-one-two-in-blue-grass
From a Steve Haskin - Talkin' Horses exchange (http://www.bloodhorse.com/talkinhorses/SH041708.asp):

Haskin:
... All he [Asmussen] said was that Curlin would be pointed for a summer return, so I would guess the Whitney would likely be his first start. As to what he'll do about going to a synthetic track I have no idea. After what happened to Pyro, you can bet he'll give it serious thought. If Pyro wins the Derby, Asmussen already said no more synthetic track for him.
Haskin:
... To commit to a track for two years when you don't even know what surface they'll be running on is questionable, especially considering the disastrous winter meet they had there. Wait until the Eastern trainers say, 'the heck with the BC; I'm not shipping 3,000 miles to run over a synthetic surface against California horses who have been running on it all year.' Steve Asmussen has already said Pyro will not go out there. And more will follow. And if you have a 3-year-old who doesn't like synthetic, you know already you can kiss the BC goodbye for the horse's entire career. It's no coincidence that the first three finishers of the Santa Anita Handicap this year were good to average turf horses, who like the synthetic surface.











Does it matter? Your kidding right! :eek:

Also my post was not abt what SB comments were,nor what is posted above.

My point was abt a trainer/connections with foreknowledge in regards to the surface.

[11cashcall]

Actions speak louder than words. Since she staggered home in the preakness there have been 3 ten furlong+ races and they've either passed to run in a race with less money or stayed home entirely. And would you honestly expect her connections to admit in public that 10 furlongs is a weakness?

She is a 9 furlong specialist just like her daddy.

Borel's comment after the race spoke volumes.

[Steve R]

Actions speak louder than words. Since she staggered home in the preakness there have been 3 ten furlong+ races and they've either passed to run in a race with less money or stayed home entirely. And would you honestly expect her connections to admit in public that 10 furlongs is a weakness?

She is a 9 furlong specialist just like her daddy.
FYI, Rachel Alexandra did not stagger home in the Preakness. She ran the last 3/16ths in :19.1 which is the average for all Preakness winners since at least 1973. In fact, she covered the last 3/16ths faster than Point Given, Charismatic, Silver Charm, Sunday Silence, Risen Star, Spectacular Bid and Seattle Slew among others.

As for Medaglia d'Oro, he was hardly a 9f specialist. He won the Travers with a 113 Beyer and was beaten in the Belmont by a half length. The next year he earned Beyer figures of 117 and 118 at 10f in the BC Classic and Pacific Classic. He may have been superior at 9f, but that is not the same as being a specialist at the distance.

[46zilzal]

FYI, Rachel Alexandra did not stagger home in the Preakness. .
According to the rider, who was in a better position than anyone else:


Calvin Borel, winning jockey, Rachel Alexandra -- “She struggled a lot (with the track) She’s so used to that track at Churchill. She just skips along. She was struggling at the end. from the Preakness webstie.

[FenceBored]

Does it matter? Your kidding right! :eek:

No, I'm not kidding. Why does it matter? Details, please.



Also my post was not abt what SB comments were,nor what is posted above.

My point was abt a trainer/connections with foreknowledge in regards to the surface.

You asked what Asmussen said about Pyro's Blue Grass, before and after. Well, Blasi has been Asmussen's main assistant for Pyro/Curlin/Rachel Alexandra. If he says something, then I take it as relevent to what the connections are probably thinking.

That was the after, here's the before:
“It was a good work, he ran real well to the wire and was very smooth, which is what we needed pointing to this race,” said assistant trainer Scott Blasi. “We’re very happy with it and think he fits the racetrack well.”
-- http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/44505/fighting-fire11-face-pyro-in-blue-grass
Oops, that's that Blasi fellow again. Why does he keep showing up in these searches?

The Haskin quotes, if you bothered to read them, reference Asmussen's statements, and his intentions vis a vis synthetics clearly.

As to your point, perhaps you could make it more clearly. Keeneland's Polytrack is not SA's Pro-Ride. The BC Classic is not a A52000n2L. RA's success in a A52000n2L at Keeneland does not conclusively demonstrate anything regarding her possible performance in the BC Classic on Pro-Ride. Asmussen and Pyro's owners discovered with Pyro that you don't really know how a horse will respond to a particular surface under race conditions until you run a race on it. Now Asmussen and another owner don't want to take that same gamble with different horse, I'm shocked, shocked.

[russwg1970]

I'm new to the board, and new to horse racing really. I have kind of stakled this board for a little while, but I thought I could add to this conversation.

Rachel Alaxander is what piqued my interest into horse racing. I kept hearing about this little Filly, and after her Preakness win, I said I'm going to see what all the fuss is about. The Mother Goose was a small field, and a romp for RA. Still, I was drawn in by this special filly. I was on a trip when she ran in the Haskell, but I made sure I was in the hotel room to watch her run, and this time she drew in my wife, and my 3 year old daughter. For the Haskell we were all excited to see her run, and sat around the TV to watch a full card at Saratoga, and I even managed to win a few bets.

My point is she was great enough to draw in me and to some extent my family as horse racing fans. I can't get enough horse racing now (Books, betting, games, etc). Watch TVG all the time, and anything else related to horse racing. Which explains my arrival here. Heck, even my three year can point out RA, and loves to talk about her.

I doubt I'm alone as a new horse racing fan due to RA, or Zenyatta for that matter. To me that is the definition of greatness, when a horse can bring fresh new fans to a sport that desperately needs them.

BTW, I'm not a RA fanboy. I just have to give credit where credit is due. Without RA, I would not have become a fan of this wonderful sport.

[Quagmire]

I'm new to the board, and new to horse racing really. I have kind of stakled this board for a little while, but I thought I could add to this conversation.

Rachel Alaxander is what piqued my interest into horse racing. I kept hearing about this little Filly, and after her Preakness win, I said I'm going to see what all the fuss is about. The Mother Goose was a small field, and a romp for RA. Still, I was drawn in by this special filly. I was on a trip when she ran in the Haskell, but I made sure I was in the hotel room to watch her run, and this time she drew in my wife, and my 3 year old daughter. For the Haskell we were all excited to see her run, and sat around the TV to watch a full card at Saratoga, and I even managed to win a few bets.

My point is she was great enough to draw in me and to some extent my family as horse racing fans. I can't get enough horse racing now (Books, betting, games, etc). Watch TVG all the time, and anything else related to horse racing. Which explains my arrival here. Heck, even my three year can point out RA, and loves to talk about her.

I doubt I'm alone as a new horse racing fan due to RA, or Zenyatta for that matter. To me that is the definition of greatness, when a horse can bring fresh new fans to a sport that desperately needs them.

BTW, I'm not a RA fanboy. I just have to give credit where credit is due. Without RA, I would not have become a fan of this wonderful sport.

Welcome. Best of luck. Spread the word.

[Steve R]

According to the rider, who was in a better position than anyone else:


Calvin Borel, winning jockey, Rachel Alexandra -- “She struggled a lot (with the track) She’s so used to that track at Churchill. She just skips along. She was struggling at the end. from the Preakness webstie.
Well that certainly says a lot. Apparently she is so good that even when she was struggling she was still able to run the last part of the Preakness faster than Spectacular Bid and Seattle Slew. I guess that confirms she really is one of the all-time greats. Thanks.

[46zilzal]

Well that certainly says a lot. Apparently she is so good that even when she was struggling she was still able to run the last part of the Preakness faster than Spectacular Bid and Seattle Slew. I guess that confirms she really is one of the all-time greats. Thanks.
Each race is mutually exclusive unto itself. That is handicapping 1A

A Preakness containing Pensive is different than Tim Tam's is different to Omaha's or Personality's run

[FenceBored]

Each race is mutually exclusive unto itself. That is handicapping 1A

A Preakness containing Pensive is different than Tim Tam's is different to Omaha's or Personality's run

OK, now square that with everything you've been saying about 'greatness.'

"I compare current horses with the greats of the past."
"You can't compare current races with those of the past."

Yep, no inconsistency there.

[46zilzal]

OK, now square that with everything you've been saying about 'greatness.'

"I compare current horses with the greats of the past."
"You can't compare current races with those of the past."

Yep, no inconsistency there.
The make up of the RACE that day is the yardstick, The overall excellence of the factors in any one season put in into better perspective...there is a major inconsistency even in your presented argument.

Greatness goes far beyond any particular race or even groups of races. Northern Dancer would have to be considered a great one MORE for his abilities in the breeding shed than for his very good record on the track, BUT it was his very good record as a runner that balances his remarkable accomplishments as the best sire of the twentieth century. If he had not been a very good race horse to begin with, his after racing career would not have been supported as it was.

[Java Gold@TFT]

The make up of the RACE that day is the yardstick, The overall excellence of the factors in any one season put in into better perspective...there is a major inconsistency even in your presented argument.

Greatness goes far beyond any particular race or even groups of races. Northern Dancer would have to be considered a great one MORE for his abilities in the breeding shed than for his very good record on the track, BUT it was his very good record as a runner that balances his remarkable accomplishments as the best sire of the twentieth century. If he had not been a very good race horse to begin with, his after racing career would not have been supported as it was.
So you are saying that Northern Dancer is one of the all time greats in horse racing but not one of the all time great horses in races? Your definition of greatness gets more and more convoluted every time you post anything. Go back and look at your beloved Forego's record on sloppy tracks. He hated them. The one time I saw him in person was at the Whitney in Saratoga. I was worried that my father wouldn't take me because there was so much word that he would be scratched in the rain. He only ran because he had owners who were willing to let people see their horse run. That was 35 years ago and times have changed about how many times per year a horse will race.

[46zilzal]

So you are saying that Northern Dancer is one of the all time greats in horse racing but not one of the all time great horses in races?
Nope

and FOREGO is honored as one of only a dozen or so greatest of the greats in the American Racing Manual. PEOPLE IN THE KNOW, folks who are part of the racing business know what good versus brilliant versus great is all about.

There is no singular definition of that word.

Most all who know would call Katharine Hepburn one of the greatest actresses of all time. That is today, when her body of work is available for evaluation. IF you looked at what she had accomplished in say 1937, she would not even been considered for that honor: good yes, great no. It is quality over time that makes greatness.

[11cashcall]

No, I'm not kidding. Why does it matter? Details, please.




You asked what Asmussen said about Pyro's Blue Grass, before and after. Well, Blasi has been Asmussen's main assistant for Pyro/Curlin/Rachel Alexandra. If he says something, then I take it as relevent to what the connections are probably thinking.

That was the after, here's the before:
“It was a good work, he ran real well to the wire and was very smooth, which is what we needed pointing to this race,” said assistant trainer Scott Blasi. “We’re very happy with it and think he fits the racetrack well.”
-- http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/44505/fighting-fire11-face-pyro-in-blue-grass
Oops, that's that Blasi fellow again. Why does he keep showing up in these searches?

The Haskin quotes, if you bothered to read them, reference Asmussen's statements, and his intentions vis a vis synthetics clearly.

As to your point, perhaps you could make it more clearly. Keeneland's Polytrack is not SA's Pro-Ride. The BC Classic is not a A52000n2L. RA's success in a A52000n2L at Keeneland does not conclusively demonstrate anything regarding her possible performance in the BC Classic on Pro-Ride. Asmussen and Pyro's owners discovered with Pyro that you don't really know how a horse will respond to a particular surface under race conditions until you run a race on it. Now Asmussen and another owner don't want to take that same gamble with different horse, I'm shocked, shocked.


Fencebored,I believe i have given them in other post's,& as far as the quotes go,yes i've read them.Tell me where Blasi quotes Asmussen on the "spinning wheels" & that ANY foreknowledge is already discovered info.

Agree,Kee is not SA surface nor have i ever pretended such.But horse's have made the transition.No?

"The BC Classic is not a A52000n2L" etc. :lol:

On the same note: "These false tracks create potential for injury, a risk that I am not willing to take with Rachel. Bottom line, despite an increase in purses, she will not race at the Breeders' Cup this year."


Has anyone given this statement serious thought. There is nothing wrong with her speed,conformation, physical/muscular/skeletal characteristics that even remotely suggest a Risk.(I do realize that there are freak accidents,but those can happen on any surface.)I think it's safe to say that any risk of "overloading" are behind her.

[Steve R]

[snip]...Northern Dancer would have to be considered a great one MORE for his abilities in the breeding shed than for his very good record on the track, BUT it was his very good record as a runner that balances his remarkable accomplishments as the best sire of the twentieth century...[snip]
That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Or is it simply an American perspective? I believe many if not most Thoroughbred racing historians would argue that Phalaris (1913-1931) was easily the best sire of the 20th century (or any century, for that matter). His direct male line descendants currently account for 90% or more of contemporary North American SWs and that number is still increasing. Northern Dancer peaked at about 40% some 40 years after his birth and began a decline. His has since been displaced by Raise a Native as the leading sire line of North American SWs. I'm not suggesting Northern Dancer isn't one of Thoroughbred racing's best ever sires, but before calling him "the best", a bit more understanding of Thoroughbred history is required and doing so indicates a lack of attention to detail, wherein lies the devil.

[FenceBored]

Fencebored,I believe i have given them in other post's,& as far as the quotes go,yes i've read them.Tell me where Blasi quotes Asmussen on the "spinning wheels" & that ANY foreknowledge is already discovered info.


Actually, as far as a coherent argument goes, no you haven't given one, yet. You think Jackson is should be obligated to go to the BC? Yes, no, maybe? If so, why? You think every owner is obliged to run on whatever surface YOU think they should? Why?


On the same note: "These false tracks create potential for injury, a risk that I am not willing to take with Rachel. Bottom line, despite an increase in purses, she will not race at the Breeders' Cup this year."

Has anyone given this statement serious thought. There is nothing wrong with her speed,conformation, physical/muscular/skeletal characteristics that even remotely suggest a Risk.(I do realize that there are freak accidents,but those can happen on any surface.)I think it's safe to say that any risk of "overloading" are behind her.

Personally, I think he's just trying to take a jab at those who pushed the synthetics for safety, by saying he won't run his horses on them for safety's sake. If so, it's a stupid thing to do and he should quit it. If she were to get hurt on dirt quotes like that will be thrown back in his face so fast it won't be funny.

[Steve R]

Nope

and FOREGO is honored as one of only a dozen or so greatest of the greats in the American Racing Manual. PEOPLE IN THE KNOW, folks who are part of the racing business know what good versus brilliant versus great is all about.

There is no singular definition of that word.

Most all who know would call Katharine Hepburn one of the greatest actresses of all time. That is today, when her body of work is available for evaluation. IF you looked at what she had accomplished in say 1937, she would not even been considered for that honor: good yes, great no. It is quality over time that makes greatness.
If PEOPLE IN THE KNOW are important, consider this. In 1998, The Bloodhorse enlisted a panel of just such PEOPLE IN THE KNOW to generate a list of the 100 greatest Thoroughbreds of the 20th century. A couple of dozen or so are fillies and mares:

Ruffian, 35
Busher, 40
Gallorette, 45
Personal Ensign, 48
Dahlia, 50
Susan's Girl, 51
Twilight Tear, 59
Cicada, 62
Top Flight, 66
All Along, 68
Shuvee, 70
Regret, 71
Go For Wand, 72
Lady's Secret, 76
Two Lea, 77
Gallant Bloom, 79
Ta Wee, 80
Affectionately, 81
Miesque, 82
Gamely, 87
Bewitch, 89
Davona Dale, 90
Genuine Risk, 91
Artful, 94
Bayakoa, 95
Beldame, 98

A PERSON IN THE KNOW, John Nerud, who trained Dr. Fager (number 6 on the list) and Ta Wee (number 80) has flat out declared Rachel Alexandra is better than Ruffian at number 35. In other words, from what he has seen, Rachel Alexandra is about 50 places on the list higher than his own great filly, Ta Wee. I won't argue that point, but I'm absolutely sure Rachel Alexandra is better than Genuine Risk at number 91. So realistically, she has to be considered among the top two dozen fillies and mares since the start of the 20th century. Personally, I'd put her in the top half dozen, having seen just about all of them since the mid-1950s.

[46zilzal]

A PERSON IN THE KNOW, John Nerud, who trained Dr. Fager (number 6 on the list) and Ta Wee (number 80) has flat out declared Rachel Alexandra is better than Ruffian at number 35.
So he is a single voice and obviously a devotee of speed.

I will wager one thing, the name Rachel Alexandra will NOT wind up in the front pages of the American Racing Manual hall of fame anytime soon if ever, based upon a string of a few races one season/

[Steve R]

So he is a single voice and obviously a devotee of speed.

I will wager one thing, the name Rachel Alexandra will NOT wind up in the front pages of the American Racing Manual hall of fame anytime soon if ever, based upon a string of a few races one season/
Busher and Gallorette aren't on the ARM list either, yet both are rated by the Bloodhorse panel as superior to Personal Ensign, Lady's Secret, Shuvee and Twilight Tear, which are. Only Ruffian rates higher than those two. Any way you slice it, whether or not Rachel Alexandra ever appears on the ARM list, she is clearly among the top two dozen fillies and mares of all time.

Furthermore, I have no idea who generated the ARM list. The Bloodhorse panel included Howard Battle, Lenny Hale, Jay Hovdey, William Nack, Pete Pedersen, Jennie Rees and Tommy Trotter. I doubt the DRF staff could match that group's qualifications.

[Steve R]

So he is a single voice and obviously a devotee of speed.

I will wager one thing, the name Rachel Alexandra will NOT wind up in the front pages of the American Racing Manual hall of fame anytime soon if ever, based upon a string of a few races one season/
It's been brought up earlier. Your take on Sea-Bird is...?

[46zilzal]

Busher and Gallorette aren't on the ARM list either, yet both are rated by the Bloodhorse panel as superior to Personal Ensign, Lady's Secret, Shuvee and Twilight Tear, which are. Only Ruffian rates higher than those two.
.
I would not disagree with ANY you have listed in this group and add Pretty Polly (24 22-2-0), Miesque, Alez France, Bayakoa, Fashion(36 32-0-0), Firenze (82 47-21-9), Gallant Bloom (22 16 1 1 ), Idlewild (25 18 1 1), Maskette (17 12-3-0), La Prevoyante (39 25 -5-3), Princess Rooney (21 17-2-1), etc.

[46zilzal]

It's been brought up earlier. Your take on Sea-Bird is...?
A remarkable horse winner of the biggest double Europe has to offer, and like Native Dancer, 2nd only once........ akin to Shegar, Ribot, Nashwan

[FenceBored]

The make up of the RACE that day is the yardstick, The overall excellence of the factors in any one season put in into better perspective...there is a major inconsistency even in your presented argument.


If "each race is mutually exclusive unto itself," then BY DEFINITION you can't construct a yardstick by which to compare one race with any other race. If you can't compare two races, you can't say that the competition was tougher in one of them, or that one was run faster than the other. If you can't compare races, you can't compare agregated races (i.e. seasons, or careers). Frankly, if you truly believe that "each race is mutually exclusive unto itself," I don't see how you can claim to handicap at all.

[46zilzal]

Frankly, if you truly believe that "each race is mutually exclusive unto itself," I don't see how you can claim to handicap at all.
Learn all about it at any Sartin methodology site.

Race the same 10 horses against one another every 30 days throughout the year. The race will be different each time as the horses change (from cycle), track conditions change, even riders may be injured along the way. Tactics change etc.

Performances CHANGE, but at the heart one is looking at how PERFORMERS withstood the various challenges of different pace scenarios. Good case in point was Cigar's Pacific Classic: he was screwed when the pace scenario left him as one of the only pressers and he was tailing off and changing tracks. If he went with Siphon he would get cooked and if he stayed too far back Siphon (alone on the lead) would be gone, rested and with enough left to hang on.

Did Cigar ever meet that exact pace pressure situation again? Don't think so and even if he did , it was NOT at that precise point of his form cycle.
Each race is mutually exclusive to itself made up of various levels of pace pressure (alone or in concert) from the other contenders in the race and the added random noise that also inhabits each and every race on every card

[Steve R]

A remarkable horse winner of the biggest double Europe has to offer, and like Native Dancer, 2nd only once........ akin to Shegar, Ribot, Nashwan
But because he did it in one year over a series of just five races, are we to understand that by your definition he wasn't "great" even though he is rated the very greatest ever by Timeform?

[46zilzal]

But because he did it in one year over a series of just five races, are we to understand that by your definition he wasn't "great" even though he is rated the very greatest ever by Timeform?
When something or someone is unique they stand out. Dick Fosbury, not the greatest of all high jumpers, but HIS INNOVATION changed the entire sport.

Your telling me what I have said. Please QUOTE my expression saying that Sea Bird was anything other than a top horse.

I agree with Patrick Robertson who expressed in many of his books The Golden Post being one, his admiration of Mill Reef , Brigadier Gerrard and Sea Bird as being the top three to come out of Europe in the past 50 years (book written before 2000). His comments among many others isolate that horse in greatness winning in the same year the Epsom Derby, The French Derby, Prix Lupin, The Irish Derby and the King George and Queen Elizabeth stakes, the Gran Prix de St. Cloud and the Arc......he moved away easily from the best Europe had in the top contests. The passage of time has not dimmed his accomplishments no less that Red's have.

Historical perspective is the yardstick of greatness expressed through beating quality fields at differing distances, and overcoming adversity along the way.

Native Dancer won horse of the year from three runs

[Steve R]

[snip]...Your telling me what I have said. Please QUOTE my expression saying that Sea Bird was anything other than a top horse...[snip]
This has nothing to do with any quotes you made specifically about Sea-Bird. It is about your stated definition of greatness, and by those words he doesn't qualify.

"Endurance over time and, as in the case of Bayakoa, AGAINST all comers as in TWO Breeder's Cup wins. That is quality."

"It is quality over time that makes greatness."

Maybe I don't understand English well enough, but what I get from your quotes is that endurance over time is quality and quality over time is greatness. By endurance you were referring to the number of major wins by various horses. Sea-Bird did nothing over time, concentrating his accomplishments in just five races.

You either meant those words as written or you didn't. If you did, then Sea-Bird may have been a top horse by your standards, but he wasn't great.

[PaceAdvantage]

According to the rider, who was in a better position than anyone else:


Calvin Borel, winning jockey, Rachel Alexandra -- “She struggled a lot (with the track) She’s so used to that track at Churchill. She just skips along. She was struggling at the end. from the Preakness webstie.46, are you using anecdotal evidence in support of a theory over statistical and historical fact?

I for one am shocked! :eek:

[SoCalCircuit]

alright i dont want my thread to turn into a bashing rachel thread haha. Trust me, as much as i like gio ponti better than RA as a horse, ill admit that shes the greatest 3 yo filly weve ever seen and an incredible horse. All I want to say is that shes simply had a really good 6 month stretch, but does that really make a great horse? BB's stretch from Fla Derby to preakness was great, but hes not a great horse. Curlin's stretch from Dubai to BCC was great, but hes not a great horse. Is it simply because shes a filly or what?

[bisket]

lets get something straight about borel's comment. pimlico's surface is very, very similar to churchills. another words he's full of it with that comment!!!

[bisket]

it reminds me of his comments after riding street sense in the preakness. he said he thought ss concentration was broken from the crowd. well the fact that he stood up in the saddle and stopped riding him in the derby didn't figure into that. also the fact that he stopped riding street sense half way through the stretch at pimlico didn't figure into it. he stopped rubbing on the colts neck and looked behind him repeatedly half way through the stretch at pimlico. in my opinion he ruined a GREAT horse that day!!!!!!!!!!! theres no way anyone can convince me otherwise. borel is on my talk to the hand list as far as comments after a race is concerned. he's second only to todd pletcher on that list.
all this is the main reason i stuck up for him on the comments about him needlessly hitting rachel with the whip

[bisket]

and let me just finsh by saying anybody who thinks rachel isn't a all time great doesn't have a clue :p

[bisket]

yeah i got issues with borel. he screwed up my superior handicapping job in the preakness!!! although it really wasn't rocket science to bet ss, clydesdale, hardspun straight tri. until borel came along and screwed it up!!

[ghostyapper]

yeah i got issues with borel. he screwed up my superior handicapping job in the preakness!!! although it really wasn't rocket science to bet ss, clydesdale, hardspun straight tri. until borel came along and screwed it up!!

You'd have been lucky if that trifecta paid $40.

[bisket]

had 20 bucks on it!!

[NYPlayer]

That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Or is it simply an American perspective? I believe many if not most Thoroughbred racing historians would argue that Phalaris (1913-1931) was easily the best sire of the 20th century (or any century, for that matter)...I'm not suggesting Northern Dancer isn't one of Thoroughbred racing's best ever sires, but before calling him "the best", a bit more understanding of Thoroughbred history is required and doing so indicates a lack of attention to detail, wherein lies the devil.

Well, if you go back far enough, Byerley Turk, Darley, and Godolpin were the sires of all stakes winners. Phalaris may have been a prolific sire in the twentieth century, but I don't think it's useful to go back that far as his influence is just a bit too remote.

I think a prerequisite to being declared a "great" sire is too look at the significant achievements and overall consistency of his progeny. Winning the Triple Crown in American racing is one such measure. When we look at the sires of the last few horses in the 1970's to win the Crown, two of them, Secretariat and Seattle Slew, were descendents of Bold Ruler. Also, Spectacular Bid narrowly lost the Crown in 1979, and his grandsire as well as Affirmed's grandsire was Bold Ruler.

In the twenty-first century, Bernardini (who arguably ran better than Secretariat) was sired by AP Indy who was sired by Seattle Slew and whose grandsire is Secretariat. So with Bernardinini there is multiple Bold Ruler influences in his pedigiree, and only a smidgen of Native Dancer.

[bisket]

bernardini was a lightweight and doesn't belong with any of the other greats you have described

[statik27]

TWILIGHT TEAR
- Champion Two-Year-Old Filly in 1943
- Champion Three-Year-Old Filly, Handicap Mare and Horse Of The Year in 1944 (first filly to be named Horse Of The Year)
- Won 1944 Classic S. at Washington Park, defeating Pensive (winner of the Kentucky Derby and Preakness S. in 1944)
- Won 1944 Pimlico Special by 6 lengths, defeating Devil Diver (Champion Handicap Horse in 1943 and 1944)
- Won 1944 Rennert H. at Pimlico, defeating Armed (Champion Handicap Horse in 1946 and 1947, and Horse Of The Year in 1947)
- Set a new track record of 1:22 3/5 for seven furlongs in the 1944 Skokie H. at Washington Park
1944 Race Record: 17-14-1-1, $167,555
Lifetime Record: 24-18-2-2, $202,165

I copy and pasted this from another site cause it was easier, but what it doesn't say here is that in 1944, as a 3yo, TT also won the Test, Gazelle, Acorn and CCA oaks. In the pimlico special she defeated Pensive again as well as Devil Diver, a horse that won the Met Handicap 3yrs in a row. She also equaled the track record set by Seabuiscuit. While winning 14 of 17 starts that season, she reeled off 11 wins in a row.

It could be argued that this is the single best season by a 3yo filly in history, but thats not what I'm trying to say. Time has made this an amazing record, Devil Diver and Armed are both Hall of Famer's as is Twilight Tear herself and Pensive prolly should be, but it is only TIME that has made that happen.

Looking back, we could never imagine a 3yo filly running such a hard campaign in this era. Rachel is a great filly, but she's always going to be haunted by the iron ghosts of the past.

You tell me she's never lost to the boys and I'll tell you Regret ran exclusively at 2 and 3 with the boys and never lost. You say Rachel beat older horses in the Woodward and I'll tell you Maskette GAVE weight to her elders and beat them. The great mare of the 19th century Ruthless won a race against fillies and then the very next day defeated older horses at 10f. She also won the first Belmont stakes.

It goes on and on, only time can tell us what Rachel really means to racing, but don't try and demean the greats of the past to make her something she isn't, because honestly, its all been done before.

P.S. How could anyone argue that Bernardini ran better then Secretariat?

[FenceBored]

Learn all about it at any Sartin methodology site.

Race the same 10 horses against one another every 30 days throughout the year. The race will be different each time as the horses change (from cycle), track conditions change, even riders may be injured along the way. Tactics change etc.


No thanks, I already know that all snowflakes are unique. But, strangely enough, you can compare them to each other.

[FenceBored]

TWILIGHT TEAR
- Champion Two-Year-Old Filly in 1943
- Champion Three-Year-Old Filly, Handicap Mare and Horse Of The Year in 1944 (first filly to be named Horse Of The Year)
- Won 1944 Classic S. at Washington Park, defeating Pensive (winner of the Kentucky Derby and Preakness S. in 1944)
- Won 1944 Pimlico Special by 6 lengths, defeating Devil Diver (Champion Handicap Horse in 1943 and 1944)
- Won 1944 Rennert H. at Pimlico, defeating Armed (Champion Handicap Horse in 1946 and 1947, and Horse Of The Year in 1947)
- Set a new track record of 1:22 3/5 for seven furlongs in the 1944 Skokie H. at Washington Park
1944 Race Record: 17-14-1-1, $167,555
Lifetime Record: 24-18-2-2, $202,165

I copy and pasted this from another site cause it was easier, but what it doesn't say here is that in 1944, as a 3yo, TT also won the Test, Gazelle, Acorn and CCA oaks. In the pimlico special she defeated Pensive again as well as Devil Diver, a horse that won the Met Handicap 3yrs in a row. She also equaled the track record set by Seabuiscuit. While winning 14 of 17 starts that season, she reeled off 11 wins in a row.

It could be argued that this is the single best season by a 3yo filly in history, but thats not what I'm trying to say. Time has made this an amazing record, Devil Diver and Armed are both Hall of Famer's as is Twilight Tear herself and Pensive prolly should be, but it is only TIME that has made that happen.
Looking back, we could never imagine a 3yo filly running such a hard campaign in this era. Rachel is a great filly, but she's always going to be haunted by the iron ghosts of the past.

You tell me she's never lost to the boys and I'll tell you Regret ran exclusively at 2 and 3 with the boys and never lost. You say Rachel beat older horses in the Woodward and I'll tell you Maskette GAVE weight to her elders and beat them. The great mare of the 19th century Ruthless won a race against fillies and then the very next day defeated older horses at 10f. She also won the first Belmont stakes.

It goes on and on, only time can tell us what Rachel really means to racing, but don't try and demean the greats of the past to make her something she isn't, because honestly, its all been done before.


So you're saying that Rachel Alexandra is a throwback to the great fillies of the past. Ok, I'll buy that. :)

[ghostyapper]

In the twenty-first century, Bernardini (who arguably ran better than Secretariat)

:eek:

Ran better where? Certainly not on a race track

[DanG]

All I want to say is that shes simply had a really good 6 month stretch, but does that really make a great horse? Is it simply because shes a filly or what?
Good article by a serious racing historian Jon White on the XB web site. Of course I’m going to say it’s a ‘good’ article because it largely represents my view point and I respect Jon’s knowledge of our sports history, but regardless of your position it raises some fair point’s imo…
THE “G” WORD


Why in the heck do some people have such a big problem with calling Rachel Alexandra great?

http://www.xpressbet.com/columns.aspx?view=1528&author=JonWhite

[Java Gold@TFT]

Good article by a serious racing historian Jon White on the XB web site. Of course I’m going to say it’s a ‘good’ article because it largely represents my view point and I respect Jon’s knowledge of our sports history, but regardless of your position it raises some fair point’s imo…

http://www.xpressbet.com/columns.aspx?view=1528&author=JonWhite
DanG, I read that article earlier and agree with it 100%. I admit to my past of misunderestimating horses while they were running. Hell, I didn't like Slew as a 3yo but just as much because I couldn't stand the idiot owners as the "who did he beat" type of debates. Now, I wish I appreciated him sooner than his 4yo season when he beat my beloved Affirmed twice. He had won me over before he went on to become a great sire. I was also a little uneasy about Cigar - kept wondering "what if Holy Bull never got injured?" The 16 race streak never would have happened in my mind but I can't change history. Holy Bull was retired and Cigar went on to beat everything they put in the gate to challenge him. Rachel was off my radar until her 2nd race at Oaklawn. After that i paid attention. The Oaks was brilliant and the Preakness cemented her as one of the chosen ones. Everything she has done since then has only confirmed it. She simply wins races that are historical. Next year the bitch pack will complain that she beat nothing in the Apple Blossom or Louisville Distaff mostly because no above average horse would show up against a great horse. I hope Stardom Bound stays in training and gets to Oaklawn in the spring so that that debate can be put away before Rachel starts to take on males again.

I have learned to appreciate them while you have them and I honestly hope to see her a couple of more times next year in NY. A 2 time winner of the Woodward would be awesome.

[Cratos]

Good article by a serious racing historian Jon White on the XB web site. Of course I’m going to say it’s a ‘good’ article because it largely represents my view point and I respect Jon’s knowledge of our sports history, but regardless of your position it raises some fair point’s imo…

http://www.xpressbet.com/columns.aspx?view=1528&author=JonWhite

Dan, my point of view on Rachel’s “greatness” or “not greatness” at this juncture in her racing career is well-documented in various posts in other threads on this forum.

However, I will say to Mr. Jon White whose rhetorical comments from the article were somewhat turgid: "that greatness is demonstrated by events of the present, but it takes time to determine and confirm greatness.”

[statik27]

So you're saying that Rachel Alexandra is a throwback to the great fillies of the past. Ok, I'll buy that. :)


If thats what you got out of my post, well, I don't know what to tell ya.

[NYPlayer]

:eek:

Ran better where? Certainly not on a race track

I can understand that being your opinion. However, a quick glance at the Ragozin Sheets tells me that Bernardini was at least as good a horse as Secretariat and in my opinion he is better. If I'm right, then Bern would be the first in Sec's line that was an improvement.

No one's opinion really matters, of course. But the Sheik has seen fit to bid over $1 for yearlings by Bernardini, and Darley believes that Bern is their most promsing sire. His great, great, grandsire, Bold Ruler, produced some of the sport's most phenomenal champions, and he has multiple influences from Bold Ruler. He may well serve as a conduit for Bold Ruler's genetic potency.

[tucker6]

I can understand that being your opinion. However, a quick glance at the Ragozin Sheets tells me that Bernardini was at least as good a horse as Secretariat and in my opinion he is better. If I'm right, then Bern would be the first in Sec's line that was an improvement.


But the problem is that life real life isn't necessarily accurately depicted on Ragozin Sheets. Please show us how Bernardini was a better horse than Sec on the track. In horse racing, that's all that matters.

[Cratos]

Well, if you go back far enough, Byerley Turk, Darley, and Godolpin were the sires of all stakes winners. Phalaris may have been a prolific sire in the twentieth century, but I don't think it's useful to go back that far as his influence is just a bit too remote.

I think a prerequisite to being declared a "great" sire is too look at the significant achievements and overall consistency of his progeny. Winning the Triple Crown in American racing is one such measure. When we look at the sires of the last few horses in the 1970's to win the Crown, two of them, Secretariat and Seattle Slew, were descendents of Bold Ruler. Also, Spectacular Bid narrowly lost the Crown in 1979, and his grandsire as well as Affirmed's grandsire was Bold Ruler.

In the twenty-first century, Bernardini (who arguably ran better than Secretariat) was sired by AP Indy who was sired by Seattle Slew and whose grandsire is Secretariat. So with Bernardinini there is multiple Bold Ruler influences in his pedigiree, and only a smidgen of Native Dancer.


For you to say that Bernardini “arguably ran better than Secretariat” I will ask the simple question: “When and where?” because in my opinion there isn’t anything in Bernardini’s past performances that would suggest that your assertion is true or even near truthful.

However I am all for fans supporting their beloved horses, but when they make a bizarre assertion akin to the one you made above I began to wonder whether you ever saw either horse run.

But I am still thankful for the lot of you who sent Bernardini off in the 2006 BC Classic at Churchill Downs as the prohibitive favorite and allowed Invasor to go off at 6-1 and capture the Classic with a victory over Bernardini.

[FenceBored]

But I am still thankful for the lot of you who sent Bernardini off in the 2006 BC Classic at Churchill Downs as the prohibitive favorite and allowed Invasor to go off at 6-1 and capture the Classic with a victory over Bernardini.

:ThmbUp::ThmbUp: :jump::jump::jump:

[bisket]

I can understand that being your opinion. However, a quick glance at the Ragozin Sheets tells me that Bernardini was at least as good a horse as Secretariat and in my opinion he is better. If I'm right, then Bern would be the first in Sec's line that was an improvement.

No one's opinion really matters, of course. But the Sheik has seen fit to bid over $1 for yearlings by Bernardini, and Darley believes that Bern is their most promsing sire. His great, great, grandsire, Bold Ruler, produced some of the sport's most phenomenal champions, and he has multiple influences from Bold Ruler. He may well serve as a conduit for Bold Ruler's genetic potency.
which only reinforces my opinion that sheets in general are better used as toilet paper than a handicapping tool

[bisket]

For you to say that Bernardini “arguably ran better than Secretariat” I will ask the simple question: “When and where?” because in my opinion there isn’t anything in Bernardini’s past performances that would suggest that your assertion is true or even near truthful.

However I am all for fans supporting their beloved horses, but when they make a bizarre assertion akin to the one you made above I began to wonder whether you ever saw either horse run.

But I am still thankful for the lot of you who sent Bernardini off in the 2006 BC Classic at Churchill Downs as the prohibitive favorite and allowed Invasor to go off at 6-1 and capture the Classic with a victory over Bernardini.
i was on invasor from the pimlico special forward, and that was one of the few times i actually had the winner of the classic.

[ghostyapper]

I can understand that being your opinion. However, a quick glance at the Ragozin Sheets tells me that Bernardini was at least as good a horse as Secretariat and in my opinion he is better. If I'm right, then Bern would be the first in Sec's line that was an improvement.


I was always left scratching my head when the figures came back for bernardini's races. His times were ok (nothing special) on tracks that were not super slow and he always received astronomical figures.

Of course when he finally faced a talented horse (who according to the figures was much slower than him) that hadn't raced in 3 months he lost.

I can think of at least 5 horses this decade that were better than him so that should tell you how I feel about you calling him better than secretariat :eek:

[bisket]

I was always left scratching my head when the figures came back for bernardini's races. His times were ok (nothing special) on tracks that were not super slow and he always received astronomical figures.

Of course when he finally faced a talented horse (who according to the figures was much slower than him) that hadn't raced in 3 months he lost.

I can think of at least 5 horses this decade that were better than him so that should tell you how I feel about you calling him better than secretariat :eek:
when it comes to 3 and 4 year olds figures take a back seat to class when handicapping races. bernie just came into form when most of the crop of 3 year olds were tailing off in my opinion. invasor showed nothing but commanding class. his race record in south america and in the states showed this. this is another example of what i've been discussing on the herd thread. when a horse is the class of the field his figs can make him look unbeatable. let that same horse get into a race with a horse like invasor thats older and every bit as classy and that same horses fig in that race isn't anywhere near what his previous races showed. this is why being able to analyze class is more important than adding and subtracting!!!! with three year old colts

[DanG]

Dan, my point of view on Rachel’s “greatness” or “not greatness” at this juncture in her racing career is well-documented in various posts in other threads on this forum.

However, I will say to Mr. Jon White whose rhetorical comments from the article were somewhat turgid: "that greatness is demonstrated by events of the present, but it takes time to determine and confirm greatness.”
Cratos,

First of all I had to look up “turgid” because my Jersey public education never got a round to the “T’s” I guess. :blush: :D

Reading your posts; you have a real gift with math and unfortunately what we are discussing is not 100% quantifiable, but every bit as enjoyable. If we waited for a version of the old comedians formula of (tragedy + time = comedy), some of us may never be able to discuss these topics.

Horseplayers by nature will always look to be first on / or off the bandwagon because that’s what we do before the bell rings. Waiting 3, 30 or 300 years to discuss her 3yo season might be historically prudent, but it might make for a dull forum.

[fmolf]

In my opinion ...If summer bird wins the classic he needs to be considered for horse of the year ....because he would have won 3 of the top 5 races in the country...belmont....travers...bc classic.....against the best in the land.Rachel really has not beaten the horses that summer bird has although she did beat him in the haskell no denying that.I think it will be a close race if bird can win the classic.

[Java Gold@TFT]

In my opinion ...If summer bird wins the classic he needs to be considered for horse of the year ....because he would have won 3 of the top 5 races in the country...belmont....travers...bc classic.....against the best in the land.Rachel really has not beaten the horses that summer bird has although she did beat him in the haskell no denying that.I think it will be a close race if bird can win the classic.
Beat the best in the land? So far? Quick, name who finished 2nd in the Travers. No time for thinking or google. Summer Bird beat MTB and Dunkirk in the Belmont. Rachel beat MTB in the Preakness. Dunkirk hasn't been seen since June. In the Travers and Belmont who were the best in the land that he beat? Quality Road was the only other G-I winner in the field. Rachel has either won or beat the winners of 11 G-I races this year. SA Derby, KY Derby, Belmont, Stephen Foster, Acorn, Secretariat, Test, Travers, Whitney winners while winning the Oaks, Preakness, Mother Goose, Haskell and Woodward. Yep, I guess you are right - so far this year Sumemr Bird has faced better competition. :rolleyes:

[joanied]

Beat the best in the land? So far? Quick, name who finished 2nd in the Travers. No time for thinking or google. Summer Bird beat MTB and Dunkirk in the Belmont. Rachel beat MTB in the Preakness. Dunkirk hasn't been seen since June. In the Travers and Belmont who were the best in the land that he beat? Quality Road was the only other G-I winner in the field. Rachel has either won or beat the winners of 11 G-I races this year. SA Derby, KY Derby, Belmont, Stephen Foster, Acorn, Secretariat, Test, Travers, Whitney winners while winning the Oaks, Preakness, Mother Goose, Haskell and Woodward. Yep, I guess you are right - so far this year Sumemr Bird has faced better competition. :rolleyes:

There ya go...:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[joanied]

Originally Posted by NYPlayer
I can understand that being your opinion. However, a quick glance at the Ragozin Sheets tells me that Bernardini was at least as good a horse as Secretariat and in my opinion he is better. If I'm right, then Bern would be the first in Sec's line that was an improvement.





which only reinforces my opinion that sheets in general are better used as toilet paper than a handicapping tool


(quote from Tucker6)
"But the problem is that life real life isn't necessarily accurately depicted on Ragozin Sheets. Please show us how Bernardini was a better horse than Sec on the track. In horse racing, that's all that matters."

NYPlayer...without pasteing anymore quotes...are you serious:confused: :bang: :eek: ...
Bernardini better than Secretariat...no, you can't possibly be serious...gotta be a typo or something...

I really like bisket's reply and I agree about the 'sheets'...
and tucker6 has explained it further... and may I add...on Secretariat's worse day and on Bernardini's best day...Secretariat beats him by about the same margin he won the Belmont by...
have you seen Secretariat's races? Have you read any history on the horse? To even compare him to Bernardini (I was a fan of Bernie) is ridiculous...to say he was better...is a travesty!!

aaarrrgghh:bang:

[Cratos]

Cratos,

First of all I had to look up “turgid” because my Jersey public education never got a round to the “T’s” I guess. :blush: :D

Reading your posts; you have a real gift with math and unfortunately what we are discussing is not 100% quantifiable, but every bit as enjoyable. If we waited for a version of the old comedians formula of (tragedy + time = comedy), some of us may never be able to discuss these topics.

Horseplayers by nature will always look to be first on / or off the bandwagon because that’s what we do before the bell rings. Waiting 3, 30 or 300 years to discuss her 3yo season might be historically prudent, but it might make for a dull forum.

Dan, you are correct about my desire to be quantitative before qualitative and I guess that is because of my engineering background and admittedly I am more conservative than liberal.

Having said that, I have never said that Rachel couldn’t or would be “great;” just that I believed her to be “very good.” However my wife who is an English major corrected me by saying the dictionary defines “great” as “very good” and because I am on record on this forum for that assertion, I respectfully concede to Rachel’s greatness.

Incidentally, I try not to be “wordy” with my posts and therefore used words that are comprehensive in their meaning and expression, but I will refrain from ever using the word “turgid” in any of my future posts.

Have a great day.

[DanG]

Incidentally, I try not to be “wordy” with my posts and therefore used words that are comprehensive in their meaning and expression, but I will refrain from ever using the word “turgid” in any of my future posts.

Have a great day.
Please don’t ‘C; I enjoy learning.

Enjoy your Sunday as well.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by NYPlayer
I can understand that being your opinion. However, a quick glance at the Ragozin Sheets tells me that Bernardini was at least as good a horse as Secretariat and in my opinion he is better. If I'm right, then Bern would be the first in Sec's line that was an improvement.








(quote from Tucker6)
"But the problem is that life real life isn't necessarily accurately depicted on Ragozin Sheets. Please show us how Bernardini was a better horse than Sec on the track. In horse racing, that's all that matters."

NYPlayer...without pasteing anymore quotes...are you serious:confused: :bang: :eek: ...
Bernardini better than Secretariat...no, you can't possibly be serious...gotta be a typo or something...

I really like bisket's reply and I agree about the 'sheets'...
and tucker6 has explained it further... and may I add...on Secretariat's worse day and on Bernardini's best day...Secretariat beats him by about the same margin he won the Belmont by...
have you seen Secretariat's races? Have you read any history on the horse? To even compare him to Bernardini (I was a fan of Bernie) is ridiculous...to say he was better...is a travesty!!

aaarrrgghh:bang:
... but how do you really feel Joanie ... :lol:

I like Bernie too, btw. He would have finished 4th, IMHO, in that Belmont.

[WinterTriangle]

When I saw yet another belated Rachel thread, I had one thought....if I don't make it into heaven, the worst punishent would be making me read more
*re-treads* on Rachel.

Or, Big Brown. :lol:

she ran, she conquered. NEXT!

Start a BC topic or something.

[PaceAdvantage]

SA Derby, KY Derby, Belmont, Stephen Foster, Acorn, Secretariat, Test, Travers, Whitney winners while winning the Oaks, Preakness, Mother Goose, Haskell and Woodward. Yep, I guess you are right - so far this year Sumemr Bird has faced better competition. :rolleyes:Hard to argue in the face of these kinds of facts.

Like I said elsewhere...she has a stone cold LOCK on HOY unless Summer Bird wins the JCGC and the BCC. Then it's a close vote, but Rachel still has the upper hand in head-to-head matchup + she's made history while winning her races and captured more public attention.

[joanied]

... but how do you really feel Joanie ... :lol:

I like Bernie too, btw. He would have finished 4th, IMHO, in that Belmont.

:lol: ...guess I got my point across:ThmbUp: ...yep, Bernie would have run good in that Belmont:) ...it's really too bad that horse didn't get much of a race career under his 'girth'...big, gorgeous, powerful colt with a lot of ability...like so many really good ones...his time on the track was way too limited.

[46zilzal]

Hard to argue in the face of these kinds of facts.

Like I said elsewhere...she has a stone cold LOCK on HOY unless Summer Bird wins the JCGC and the BCC. Then it's a close vote, but Rachel still has the upper hand in head-to-head matchup + she's made history while winning her races and captured more public attention.
THEY, the public, don't vote. When one ducks the biggest championship day, it goes a long way against them (notable exceptions abound for injury, i. e. John Henry)

[cj]

THEY, the public, don't vote. When one ducks the biggest championship day, it goes a long way against them (notable exceptions abound for injury, i. e. John Henry)

We know the public doesn't vote. That wasn't the point. Voters do take that into account since many have mentioned this in the past.

I think running on rubber is definitely worthy of a notable exception.

[tucker6]

THEY, the public, don't vote. When one ducks the biggest championship day, it goes a long way against them (notable exceptions abound for injury, i. e. John Henry)
Where I come from, saying you won't do something (like run in the BC) months in advance of the event is not ducking. Quite the opposite actually. If Jackson has waited until RA's recovery from the Woodward to say she wouldn't run the BC, then you'd have a stronger case.

Even though the public doesn't vote in a literal sense, they do have some sway over the people who do.

[Hank]

I can understand that being your opinion. However, a quick glance at the Ragozin Sheets tells me that Bernardini was at least as good a horse as Secretariat and in my opinion he is better. If I'm right, then Bern would be the first in Sec's line that was an improvement.

No one's opinion really matters, of course. But the Sheik has seen fit to bid over $1 for yearlings by Bernardini, and Darley believes that Bern is their most promsing sire. His great, great, grandsire, Bold Ruler, produced some of the sport's most phenomenal champions, and he has multiple influences from Bold Ruler. He may well serve as a conduit for Bold Ruler's genetic potency.

You'll be hearing from Len's attorney.And I can recommend a fine optometrist.:rolleyes:

[FenceBored]

THEY, the public, don't vote. When one ducks the biggest championship day, it goes a long way against them (notable exceptions abound for injury, i. e. John Henry)

What are you talking about? Jackson's not ducking the biggest championship day. He will be there on Eclipse presentation day to pick up his trophy.

[46zilzal]

Even though the public doesn't vote in a literal sense, they do have some sway over the people who do.
Baloney they do

[joanied]

Where I come from, saying you won't do something (like run in the BC) months in advance of the event is not ducking. Quite the opposite actually. If Jackson has waited until RA's recovery from the Woodward to say she wouldn't run the BC, then you'd have a stronger case.

Even though the public doesn't vote in a literal sense, they do have some sway over the people who do.

Well said and I agree...everyone has known from day one how JJ feels about the Pro Ride...and I agree with cj...that suface is is the exception to the rule...JJ ain't ducking anyone...no doubt he'd love to run RA in the BC this year...a lot can happen between this one and next year's...but he feels so strongly about the rubber, who can blame him...man, I would be on pins & needles waiting for BC day if she was running...but I respect this man's opinion and gotta give him credit for sticking to his guns and not caving like he did last year with Curlin...
I also think the public does hold some sway over the Eclispe voting...and I also think that Rachel has it locked up, regardless of how Summer Bird or any of the colts run in the BC.
She IS the ONE:jump:

[tucker6]

Baloney they do
The public (including the networks and ad agencies) has the money that makes the world go round. Therefore, they have some sway. Never bite the hand that feeds ya unless the alternative is better from a marketing standpoint. SB or MTB isn't a better alternative. Plain and simple.

[ghostyapper]

We know the public doesn't vote. That wasn't the point. Voters do take that into account since many have mentioned this in the past.

I think running on rubber is definitely worthy of a notable exception.

but ducking the jcgc wouldn't be worthy.

[cj]

but ducking the jcgc wouldn't be worthy.

Which horses are going to show up there that she hasn't already beaten?

By today's standards, the horse has had a very vigorous campaign. Who are we to tell the connections the horse doesn't need a break?

[ghostyapper]

Which horses are going to show up there that she hasn't already beaten?

By today's standards, the horse has had a very vigorous campaign. Who are we to tell the connections the horse doesn't need a break?

Seattle Slew already beat affirmed but he didn't stay at home for the jcgc. Affirmed already beat alydar but he didn't stay at home for the travers. Please stop with the lame excuse of since she already beat every horse that will run (even though this is not true) that she should never face them again.

A break at the end of october would suffice, not at the beginning of september.

[cj]

Seattle Slew already beat affirmed but he didn't stay at home for the jcgc. Affirmed already beat alydar but he didn't stay at home for the travers. Please stop with the lame excuse of since she already beat every horse that will run (even though this is not true) that she should never face them again.

A break at the end of october would suffice, not at the beginning of september.

You missed two things apparently. First, by TODAY's standards, which would kind of exclude Seattle Slew more than 30 years ago.

Second, who are you to say the horse doesn't need a rest. The connections have been very sporting all year. If they say she needs a rest, who are we to argue?

[joanied]

Seattle Slew already beat affirmed but he didn't stay at home for the jcgc. Affirmed already beat alydar but he didn't stay at home for the travers. Please stop with the lame excuse of since she already beat every horse that will run (even though this is not true) that she should never face them again.

A break at the end of october would suffice, not at the beginning of september.

When is everyone gonna stop comparing Rachels' campaign to those that happened decades ago...I wish things were the way they were 'back in the day'...but that is wishful thinking...by today's 'standards', RA has done more than enough for one race season...and, as cj mentioned...every horse entered in the JCGC (so far) is a horse she's already beaten...and I'm sure, as long as her form remains intact...she'd beat them again...

now, if JJ said she's done after this season and will have a date with Curlin, then we'd all have something to whine about...we'd be craving a couple more races...but we know she's coming back next year as 4 yr. old...so if her connections feel it's best to put her on the shelf for now...then so be it, and who among us can possibly think he knows better how to manage this filly than her own connections!!

[ghostyapper]

You missed two things apparently. First, by TODAY's standards, which would kind of exclude Seattle Slew more than 30 years ago.

Second, who are you to say the horse doesn't need a rest. The connections have been very sporting all year. If they say she needs a rest, who are we to argue?

Your opinion of already beating the competition so not having to do it again is as lame today as it was 30 years ago, thats why I brought up slew and affirmed, had nothing to do with her campaign by today's standards.

And sorry I don't buy the "she needs a rest"

So she needs a rest unless Zenyatta comes east for the Beldame then all of a sudden Rachel doesn't need a rest? That tells me they are confident in beating Zenyatta on the east coast on dirt but not confident in winning the jcgc.

[ghostyapper]

every horse entered in the JCGC (so far) is a horse she's already beaten...and I'm sure, as long as her form remains intact...she'd beat them again.

The jcgc is at a distance she has never defeated any horse at. Maybe you don't take distance of the race into consideration when handicapping but I do.

Even if the jcgc was at 9 furlongs (her favorite distance) I still wouldn't buy into the "she has nothing left to prove" because she beat SB once in the slop and macho again by a head and she's never even faced quality road.

But I guess the rachel world can use the twisted logic that rachel beat sb who beat quality road so she beat quality road.

[Java Gold@TFT]

Damn that Chip Woolley for ducking the JCGC with MTB and going to a cushier race at a shorter distance. If only Rachel was going to the JCGC then he could PROVE he could beat her when he hasn't been able to do it yet.

Ghosty, when are you going to chime in about Zenyatta never running farther than 9F and is going to duck the BC Classic at 10F and is ducking males in the 9F Goodwood?

[PaceAdvantage]

because she beat SB once in the slopAnd we all saw how much SB hated the slop in the Travers...

[joanied]

Damn that Chip Woolley for ducking the JCGC with MTB and going to a cushier race at a shorter distance. If only Rachel was going to the JCGC then he could PROVE he could beat her when he hasn't been able to do it yet.
:lol: :ThmbUp:
Ghosty, when are you going to chime in about Zenyatta never running farther than 9F and is going to duck the BC Classic at 10F and is ducking males in the 9F Goodwood?
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

PA's quote:
"And we all saw how much SB hated the slop in the Travers..."
:ThmbUp: :cool:

Sorry I keep butting in here...like Micheal Corleone said.."Everytime I think I'm out, they drag me back in again"...I just can't help but follow this thread;)

[CincyHorseplayer]

If they decided to have an all turf Breeder's Cup,would you think it set the bar for what a championship horse should be by the results??

That's essentially what it is this year on a foreign surface.

All the "You don't duck a championship race" talk is pretty weak.This year's "Championship" is a farce.It muddles reality and is the antithesis of what the BC is supposed to do=define clearly the divisions.If this is what they want,there has to be a 3rd day of races for the 3rd surface.Sound ridiculous???It already is IMO.

[cj]

If they decided to have an all turf Breeder's Cup,would you think it set the bar for what a championship horse should be by the results??

That's essentially what it is this year on a foreign surface.

All the "You don't duck a championship race" talk is pretty weak.This year's "Championship" is a farce.It muddles reality and is the antithesis of what the BC is supposed to do=define clearly the divisions.If this is what they want,there has to be a 3rd day of races for the 3rd surface.Sound ridiculous???It already is IMO.

You nailed it. The BC is going to be a farce this year.

[joanied]

You nailed it. The BC is going to be a farce this year.

Cincy & cj.... yes indeed...IMO, with the exception of the turf races on grass....it's basically all turf racing, and pretty much determines zilch as far as the championships are concerned...and Rachel won't be the only good one to stay home...because of the surface...and only because of the surface.

I hope the moron's that came up with this Pro Ride 2 years in a row are finally going to see the error of their ways...the complete blunder they made with this idiotic plan of theirs...I still can't see any logic in it...it'll be 2 yrs now that many horses are not running that should be...and the biggie this year is having Rachel skip the thing...as they say on the street...this SA 2 yrs in a row is a complete clusterf*** :eek:

Thank the racing gods that next year the real Breeders Cup will be back...and let's hope they also discontinue a few of the newer races they carded...it's just too much:bang:

[classhandicapper]

You nailed it. The BC is going to be a farce this year.

Not if you're a European. :lol:

[Cratos]

Somewhere on this forum I said if I had a vote I would vote for Rachel Alexandra as Horse-of-the-Year (HOY). I also said that if Summer Bird wins both the Jockey Club Gold Cup and the Breeders' Cup Classic, Rachel’s run for HOY would be in trouble.

Why? Because when we look not at the HOY champions of long ago, but just of the 2000 decade going back to 2002 and with very little inspection we can see that the Breeders’ Cup Classic is the dominant common thread that ties the winners to the HOY.

Also Summer Bird is a colt and whether we like it or not there will be a gender bias amongst the HOY voters against Rachel.

However all of this hyperbole is just hypothetical and the voters will decide (I hope)

2008 – Curlin
Major Win Accomplishments:
Jockey Club Gold Cup @ 1 ¼ miles
Jaguar Trophy Handicap
Dubai World Cup @ 1 ¼ Miles
Stephen Foster Handicap
Woodward Stakes

2007 – Curlin
Major Win Accomplishments:
Jockey Club Gold Cup @ 1 ¼ miles
Breeders Cup Classic @ 1 ¼ miles
Preakness Stakes
Arkansas Derby
Rebel Stakes

2006 – Invasor
Major Win Accomplishments:
Breeders Cup Classic @ 1 ¼ miles
Whitney Handicap
Suburban Handicap
Pimilco Special Handicap

2005 – Saint Liam
Major Win Accomplishments
Breeders Cup Classic @ 1 ¼ miles
Woodward Stakes
Stephen Foster Handicap
Donn Handicap

2004 – Ghostzapper
Major Win Accomplishments
Breeders Cup Classic @ 1 ¼ miles
Woodward Stakes
Philip H Iselin Breeders Cup Handicap
Tom Fool Handicap

2003 – *Mineshaft
Major Win Accomplishments
Jockey Club Gold Cup @ 1 ¼ miles
Pimilco Special Handicap
New Orleans Handicap
Suburban Handicap
Woodward Stakes
Ben Ali Stakes
Diplomat Way Handicap
*Retired due to injury before Breeders’ Cup

2002 – Azeri
Major Win Accomplishments
Breeders Cup Distaff
San Margarita Handicap
Apple Blossom Handicap
Milady Breeders Cup Handicap
Vanity Handicap
Clement L. Hirsh Handicap
Lady’s Secret BC Handicap

[tucker6]

Somewhere on this forum I said if I had a vote I would vote for Rachel Alexandra as Horse-of-the-Year (HOY). I also said that if Summer Bird wins both the Jockey Club Gold Cup and the Breeders' Cup Classic, Rachel’s run for HOY would be in trouble.

Why? Because when we look not at the HOY champions of long ago, but just of the 2000 decade going back to 2002 and with very little inspection we can see that the Breeders’ Cup Classic is the dominant common thread that ties the winners to the HOY.

Also Summer Bird is a colt and whether we like it or not there will be a gender bias amongst the HOY voters against Rachel.

However all of this hyperbole is just hypothetical and the voters will decide (I hope)

2008 – Curlin
Major Win Accomplishments:
Jockey Club Gold Cup @ 1 ¼ miles
Jaguar Trophy Handicap
Dubai World Cup @ 1 ¼ Miles
Stephen Foster Handicap
Woodward Stakes

2007 – Curlin
Major Win Accomplishments:
Jockey Club Gold Cup @ 1 ¼ miles
Breeders Cup Classic @ 1 ¼ miles
Preakness Stakes
Arkansas Derby
Rebel Stakes

2006 – Invasor
Major Win Accomplishments:
Breeders Cup Classic @ 1 ¼ miles
Whitney Handicap
Suburban Handicap
Pimilco Special Handicap

2005 – Saint Liam
Major Win Accomplishments
Breeders Cup Classic @ 1 ¼ miles
Woodward Stakes
Stephen Foster Handicap
Donn Handicap

2004 – Ghostzapper
Major Win Accomplishments
Breeders Cup Classic @ 1 ¼ miles
Woodward Stakes
Philip H Iselin Breeders Cup Handicap
Tom Fool Handicap

2003 – *Mineshaft
Major Win Accomplishments
Jockey Club Gold Cup @ 1 ¼ miles
Pimilco Special Handicap
New Orleans Handicap
Suburban Handicap
Woodward Stakes
Ben Ali Stakes
Diplomat Way Handicap
*Retired due to injury before Breeders’ Cup

2002 – Azeri
Major Win Accomplishments
Breeders Cup Distaff
San Margarita Handicap
Apple Blossom Handicap
Milady Breeders Cup Handicap
Vanity Handicap
Clement L. Hirsh Handicap
Lady’s Secret BC Handicap
I don't know Cratos. Four BC classic winners won HOY out of seven years provided, which is as you stated. Seven years is statistically insignificant though. However, four Woodward Stakes winners also won HOY out of seven years provided. RA won the Woodward, so she is essentially a lock for HOY given your criteria. Wouldn't you agree??

[NYPlayer]

But the problem is that life real life isn't necessarily accurately depicted on Ragozin Sheets. Please show us how Bernardini was a better horse than Sec on the track. In horse racing, that's all that matters.

The Sheets aside, he won nearly every race he raced in. Most all of these were grade 1 stakes races such as the Preakness and Travers and some of his victories were very impressive wins by open lengths. If you're making figures, you couldn't possibly have assigned less than championship ratings to each of these. He ran second in the BC Classic to Invasor (who was a very good older horse) after racing wide around both turns, yet he still earned a good figure.

True, he didn't race as a two year old or win the Triple Crown, but his impressive string of victories as a three year old I think is enough to delcare him a "reincarnation".

[CincyHorseplayer]

There really is a contingent of fans who think that the BC on a 3rd surface amounts to more than a hill of beans.Awesome:lol:

[Hank]

The Sheets aside, he won nearly every race he raced in. Most all of these were grade 1 stakes races such as the Preakness and Travers and some of his victories were very impressive wins by open lengths. If you're making figures, you couldn't possibly have assigned less than championship ratings to each of these. He ran second in the BC Classic to Invasor (who was a very good older horse) after racing wide around both turns, yet he still earned a good figure.

True, he didn't race as a two year old or win the Triple Crown, but his impressive string of victories as a three year old I think is enough to delcare him a "reincarnation".

How do you ignore his meek tapout when confronted by Invasor.Had he dug in and fought to the wire, win or lose he would be held in much higher regard.He clearly submitted.I would not use him in my breeding program he lacked gameness.

[Cratos]

I don't know Cratos. Four BC classic winners won HOY out of seven years provided, which is as you stated. Seven years is statistically insignificant though. However, four Woodward Stakes winners also won HOY out of seven years provided. RA won the Woodward, so she is essentially a lock for HOY given your criteria. Wouldn't you agree??

No, I would not because when someone use statistics to make an argument and they clearly do not understand the application of statistics; they typically reach a very odd and wrong conclusion.

However I wasn’t saying that 4/7 or 57% would be the chance for the horse who wins the BC Classic to win HOY. But to use your inference and look at the data statistically, although the sample size is much too small to bear any significance, one could say Curlin being a BC Classic winner and two time HOY winner would count twice, Azeri won the premier distaff BC race, and Mineshaft had a premature retirement would give the statistic 5/6 or 83% and that would be very significant if the sample size were large and the Law of Large Numbers were applied.

The point here was not to try and apply any probabilistic conclusion, but to answer a question inferred in an earlier post about comparing Rachel’s 2009 exploits to horses of long ago which the poster felt was wrong and I agree.

Therefore looking at the recent past I will say again if Summer Bird wins the JCGC and the BC Classic Rachel’s chances to win the HOY is narrowed significantly.

[tucker6]

However I wasn’t saying that 4/7 or 57% would be the chance for the horse who wins the BC Classic to win HOY. But to use your inference and look at the data statistically, although the sample size is much too small to bear any significance, one could say Curlin being a BC Classic winner and two time HOY winner would count twice, Azeri won the premier distaff BC race, and Mineshaft had a premature retirement would give the statistic 5/6 or 83% and that would be very significant if the sample size were large and the Law of Large Numbers were applied.

That's a cherry-picking paragraph if I've ever seen one. So, Curlin winning the HOY twice narrows 7 years to 6 to improve the odds that follow in your statement. You conveniently remove the year he lost the Classic, and count the one where he won. :D You then add the Distaff as a BC Classic win because we all know to win the Distaff is the same as winning the Classic (in some years probably true). That gets you to 5 out of six. You then imply that Mineshaft was a stone cold mortal lock if only he had raced. That would have gotten you to six for six. I was surprised you didn't claim it, as it would have improved your argument that EVERY horse that wins the Classic wins HOY, and therefore, RA has zero chance to win it.

We both agree that some clearly do not understand how to apply statistics. :lol:

See why stats should never be used in the manner you used it.

[joanied]

The Sheets aside, he won nearly every race he raced in. Most all of these were grade 1 stakes races such as the Preakness and Travers and some of his victories were very impressive wins by open lengths. If you're making figures, you couldn't possibly have assigned less than championship ratings to each of these. He ran second in the BC Classic to Invasor (who was a very good older horse) after racing wide around both turns, yet he still earned a good figure.

True, he didn't race as a two year old or win the Triple Crown, but his impressive string of victories as a three year old I think is enough to delcare him a "reincarnation".

"Reincarnation":eek: ...of Secretariat? :eek: ...you are kidding, right :bang: ...I loved the horse, and he deserved his Championship title...but to compare him to Secretariat, well, it just won't fly.

[ghostyapper]

The Sheets aside, he won nearly every race he raced in. Most all of these were grade 1 stakes races such as the Preakness and Travers and some of his victories were very impressive wins by open lengths. If you're making figures, you couldn't possibly have assigned less than championship ratings to each of these. He ran second in the BC Classic to Invasor (who was a very good older horse) after racing wide around both turns, yet he still earned a good figure.

True, he didn't race as a two year old or win the Triple Crown, but his impressive string of victories as a three year old I think is enough to delcare him a "reincarnation".

I respect your opinion and at least you are man enough to admit to thinking that he was an all time great. All the others who thought so as well 3 years ago deny ever thinking that.

But seriously, he would have had a hard time even keeping up with easy goer forget about secretariat or slew.

[Cratos]

That's a cherry-picking paragraph if I've ever seen one. So, Curlin winning the HOY twice narrows 7 years to 6 to improve the odds that follow in your statement. You conveniently remove the year he lost the Classic, and count the one where he won. :D You then add the Distaff as a BC Classic win because we all know to win the Distaff is the same as winning the Classic (in some years probably true). That gets you to 5 out of six. You then imply that Mineshaft was a stone cold mortal lock if only he had raced. That would have gotten you to six for six. I was surprised you didn't claim it, as it would have improved your argument that EVERY horse that wins the Classic wins HOY, and therefore, RA has zero chance to win it.

We both agree that some clearly do not understand how to apply statistics. :lol:

See why stats should never be used in the manner you used it.

Did you read my post? If not, the following is the essence of what I said in respect to statistics:

“But to use your inference and look at the data statistically, although the sample size is much too small to bear any significance, one could say Curlin being a BC Classic winner and two time HOY winner would count twice, Azeri won the premier distaff BC race, and Mineshaft had a premature retirement would give the statistic 5/6 or 83% and that would be very significant if the sample size were large and the Law of Large Numbers were applied.”

The initial sentence tells that your inference is statistically insignificant. Furthermore, the implied conditions from your inference was a logical construct to what might have happened if the data mapped the itself the same way in large numbers,

However we don’t know what Mineshaft would have done and in statistics that is a null hypothesis and should be eliminated; and that is why n-6 not n=7.

Please understand before your write.

[tucker6]

Did you read my post? If not, the following is the essence of what I said in respect to statistics:

“But to use your inference and look at the data statistically, although the sample size is much too small to bear any significance, one could say Curlin being a BC Classic winner and two time HOY winner would count twice, Azeri won the premier distaff BC race, and Mineshaft had a premature retirement would give the statistic 5/6 or 83% and that would be very significant if the sample size were large and the Law of Large Numbers were applied.”

The initial sentence tells that your inference is statistically insignificant. Furthermore, the implied conditions from your inference was a logical construct to what might have happened if the data mapped the itself the same way in large numbers,

However we don’t know what Mineshaft would have done and in statistics that is a null hypothesis and should be eliminated; and that is why n-6 not n=7.

Please understand before your write.
The next time you wish to issue a logical construct, please make it sound and logical. That's all I'm asking. You can write all day that four BC winners were HOY in the last seven years and that RA is not a lock. I can write all day that four Woodward winners were HOY in the last seven years and that RA is a lock. Just because my statement doesn't jive with your assertion doesn't make my statement untrue. It has the same logic you espouse, yet you claim my logic is illogical. Kinda like looking in the mirror, ain't it. ;)

[joanied]

The next time you wish to issue a logical construct, please make it sound and logical. That's all I'm asking. You can write all day that four BC winners were HOY in the last seven years and that RA is not a lock. I can write all day that four Woodward winners were HOY in the last seven years and that RA is a lock. Just because my statement doesn't jive with your assertion doesn't make my statement untrue. It has the same logic you espouse, yet you claim my logic is illogical. Kinda like looking in the mirror, ain't it. ;)

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: ...now this post sounds logical :)

[bisket]

i think gio ponti has a better chance at hoy than summer. i give him a legitimate shot at winning the classic if they choose to run

[classhandicapper]

Hard to argue in the face of these kinds of facts.

Like I said elsewhere...she has a stone cold LOCK on HOY unless Summer Bird wins the JCGC and the BCC. Then it's a close vote, but Rachel still has the upper hand in head-to-head matchup + she's made history while winning her races and captured more public attention.

I think you have it right.

IMO, even if Summer Bird wins the JCGC and BCC in very impressive fashion and most people are convinced he developed into the superior horse, RA would still get HOY because she has captured public attention to such high degree and beat him.

[classhandicapper]

i think gio ponti has a better chance at hoy than summer. i give him a legitimate shot at winning the classic if they choose to run

I think Gio Ponti running in the Classic is a pretty interesting idea, but I can't see him getting HOY even if he wins. It would cap off a terrific campaign, but turfers aren't usually given as much consideration in this country unless there isn't a good dirt candidate. RA is a terrific dirt cadidate.

[Cratos]

The next time you wish to issue a logical construct, please make it sound and logical. That's all I'm asking. You can write all day that four BC winners were HOY in the last seven years and that RA is not a lock. I can write all day that four Woodward winners were HOY in the last seven years and that RA is a lock. Just because my statement doesn't jive with your assertion doesn't make my statement untrue. It has the same logic you espouse, yet you claim my logic is illogical. Kinda like looking in the mirror, ain't it. ;)

You continue to be wrong because you don’t or refuse to understand the thesis statement of what was being said.

To that point let’s understand and see if there is a logical construct for which there would be a derivative.

What was being said is that Rachel is not a lock for HOY if Summer Bird wins the JCGC and Breeders’ Cup Classic. This doesn’t say or infer that she won’t or can’t win HOY, but it does say that it will be more difficult. I believe that most rational horseplayers will agree with that.

The derivative from that is that it is logical to conclude that when looking at recent HOY winners and their achievements, their Breeders’ Cup wins played a part in them attaining the HOY title. It is also logical to eliminate Mineshaft because although he was a HOY winner, he wasn’t a Breeders’ Cup race participant.

You can continue to respond with tumid language, but it will not change anything and if responding gives you exhilaration, please respond again and again, but my point is succinctly and logically made; and I am finished.

[bisket]

ponti has a better shot than summer bird

[NYPlayer]

I respect your opinion and at least you are man enough to admit to thinking that he was an all time great. All the others who thought so as well 3 years ago deny ever thinking that.

But seriously, he would have had a hard time even keeping up with easy goer forget about secretariat or slew.

Well, thanks for the complement. I confess, though, that I do get a little bit of a thrill when I voice an opinion that may not be popular. I think that debate is a healthy thing.

I think that ultimately, Bernardini is an interesting breeding prospect. His race record aside, he has a pretty valuable gene set from both his sire and dam. Some of his progeny have been bought for large sums. Only time will tell if they live up to expectations.

[tucker6]

You continue to be wrong because you don’t or refuse to understand the thesis statement of what was being said.

To that point let’s understand and see if there is a logical construct for which there would be a derivative.

What was being said is that Rachel is not a lock for HOY if Summer Bird wins the JCGC and Breeders’ Cup Classic. This doesn’t say or infer that she won’t or can’t win HOY, but it does say that it will be more difficult. I believe that most rational horseplayers will agree with that.

The derivative from that is that it is logical to conclude that when looking at recent HOY winners and their achievements, their Breeders’ Cup wins played a part in them attaining the HOY title. It is also logical to eliminate Mineshaft because although he was a HOY winner, he wasn’t a Breeders’ Cup race participant.

You can continue to respond with tumid language, but it will not change anything and if responding gives you exhilaration, please respond again and again, but my point is succinctly and logically made; and I am finished.
If you weren't so hell bent in defending your illogical statement about BC winners, you'd realize that I'm trying to point out the fallacy of your position by showing that the list you presented has another equally poor derivative in that Woodward winners also win HOY. You tried to present a case that being a BC winner may elevate SB or MTB to HOY status. I'm trying to tell you that being a BC winner only gets you HOY if you already had it locked up or if the race for HOY was close anyway. Neither of those apply this year. That's the derivative I take from your chart. :bang:

[FenceBored]

You continue to be wrong because you don’t or refuse to understand the thesis statement of what was being said.


No offense, but you are the one who has lost sight of your own thesis statement.


Why? Because when we look not at the HOY champions of long ago, but just of the 2000 decade going back to 2002 and with very little inspection we can see that the Breeders’ Cup Classic is the dominant common thread that ties the winners to the HOY.Dominant, as in more powerful or more prevalent than any other. As soon as Tucker6 pointed out that 4 HOY winners had won the Woodward in the same year as their HOY honor (equal to BCC wins), your "dominant" thesis had been disproved.


To that point let’s understand and see if there is a logical construct for which there would be a derivative.

What was being said is that Rachel is not a lock for HOY if Summer Bird wins the JCGC and Breeders’ Cup Classic. This doesn’t say or infer that she won’t or can’t win HOY, but it does say that it will be more difficult. I believe that most rational horseplayers will agree with that.

The derivative from that is that it is logical to conclude that when looking at recent HOY winners and their achievements, their Breeders’ Cup wins played a part in them attaining the HOY title. It is also logical to eliminate Mineshaft because although he was a HOY winner, he wasn’t a Breeders’ Cup race participant.

Ah, moving the goalposts. From "dominant common thread" to "played a part" in one easy step. Of course, every win a HOY had that year can be said to have "played a part" in winning the award. That's facile. Let's keep to the "dominant common thread" thesis, shall we.

As to excluding Mineshaft, the logical reason to exclude a datapoint that disagrees with your thesis, is that your not seriously trying to analyze the data, i.e. you're simply trying to hide contrary examples.

Were you trying to massage the data to hide facts which undercut your position? Let's look at it dispassionately. You chose 2002-2008 for your sample. Why, just these 7 years? Including 2000 and 2001 to have the entire 200x period, or even throwing in 1999 to have a full ten years would make more sense. Is there something in these years that you would prefer we not look at?

1999 BCC Winner Cat Thief
2000 BCC Winner Tiznow
2001 BCC Winner Tiznow

1999 HOY Charismatic
2000 HOY Tiznow
2001 HOY Point Given

I guess there was something here you didn't want us to focus on. It would appear that being the first back to back BC Classic winner was not enough to earn a HOY for Tiznow in 2001. The "dominant common thread" was not "dominant" enough to overcome Point Given's more stellar overall record.

And that, my friend, is the most apt comparison of Summer Bird's potential record to Rachel Alexandra's. She ends the year 8-8-0-0. At best he ends the year 8-4-1-1. She's 5 for 5 in G1s, he'd be 4 for 6, including a loss to her. She's gone outside the box, he's won't have. Unless we're dealing with some kind of Canadian Sovereign Award voter who lacks historical PERSPECTIVE, that's a no brainer.


You can continue to respond with tumid language, but it will not change anything and if responding gives you exhilaration, please respond again and again, but my point is succinctly and logically made; and I am finished.

As far as credibility goes, anyways.

[joanied]

Fencebored...:ThmbUp: Excellent:)

[FenceBored]

And that, my friend, is the most apt comparison of Summer Bird's potential record to Rachel Alexandra's. She ends the year 8-8-0-0. At best he ends the year 8-4-1-1. She's 5 for 5 in G1s, he'd be 4 for 6, including a loss to her. She's gone outside the box, he's won't have. Unless we're dealing with some kind of Canadian Sovereign Award voter who lacks historical PERSPECTIVE, that's a no brainer.


CORRECTION: make that 9-5-1-1. Was working from the Travers PPs and 'spaced' adding the Travers itself in when adding in the future JCGC and BC starts. Remembered it for the G1 count though. :bang:

[Java Gold@TFT]

One other minor thing that I don't personally hold against Summer Bird but when he won the Belmont he was still eligible for a allw nw1x. After the Ark Derby I had him in my exotics for the KY Derby. I also had him to win in the Belmont but the truth is that his YEAR currently rests on winning the Belmont and Travers while losing to the best horse in the country in the Haskell. That puts him ahead of the Derby winner who hasn't won another race during 2009. The reel wrench in the system is Quality Road. Pletcher says he is completely on track for the JCGC. A possible win over Summer Bird there gives him a G-I win in the Fla Derby, a g-I placing in the Travers and a G-I win over older horses including turning the tables on Summer Bird. I'm not saying it will happen but a 2 race win streak could steal the 3yo championship from Summer Bird. MTB still has to win both of his races to even be considered.

[Cratos]

No offense, but you are the one who has lost sight of your own thesis statement.

Dominant, as in more powerful or more prevalent than any other. As soon as Tucker6 pointed out that 4 HOY winners had won the Woodward in the same year as their HOY honor (equal to BCC wins), your "dominant" thesis had been disproved.



Ah, moving the goalposts. From "dominant common thread" to "played a part" in one easy step. Of course, every win a HOY had that year can be said to have "played a part" in winning the award. That's facile. Let's keep to the "dominant common thread" thesis, shall we.

As to excluding Mineshaft, the logical reason to exclude a datapoint that disagrees with your thesis, is that your not seriously trying to analyze the data, i.e. you're simply trying to hide contrary examples.

Were you trying to massage the data to hide facts which undercut your position? Let's look at it dispassionately. You chose 2002-2008 for your sample. Why, just these 7 years? Including 2000 and 2001 to have the entire 200x period, or even throwing in 1999 to have a full ten years would make more sense. Is there something in these years that you would prefer we not look at?

1999 BCC Winner Cat Thief
2000 BCC Winner Tiznow
2001 BCC Winner Tiznow

1999 HOY Charismatic
2000 HOY Tiznow
2001 HOY Point Given

I guess there was something here you didn't want us to focus on. It would appear that being the first back to back BC Classic winner was not enough to earn a HOY for Tiznow in 2001. The "dominant common thread" was not "dominant" enough to overcome Point Given's more stellar overall record.

And that, my friend, is the most apt comparison of Summer Bird's potential record to Rachel Alexandra's. She ends the year 8-8-0-0. At best he ends the year 8-4-1-1. She's 5 for 5 in G1s, he'd be 4 for 6, including a loss to her. She's gone outside the box, he's won't have. Unless we're dealing with some kind of Canadian Sovereign Award voter who lacks historical PERSPECTIVE, that's a no brainer.



As far as credibility goes, anyways.

I enjoy rhetorical comments that are presented having apparently not reviewed the entire thread. If all of the posts were reviewed it would have been discovered that there were complaints being made against Rachel’s chances of winning the HOY by using horses of “yesteryear” What I did was not make a case against Rachel, but a case why the HOY vote might be close (is that a distinction without a difference?) if Summer Bird’s proposed feats are achieved.

I suppose you will try again and that is okay because my mind is not changed which is Rachel should win HOY, but it will be close if Summer Bird wins the JCGC and BCC.

[FenceBored]

I enjoy rhetorical comments that are presented having apparently not reviewed the entire thread. If all of the posts were reviewed it would have been discovered that there were complaints being made against Rachel’s chances of winning the HOY by using horses of “yesteryear” What I did was not make a case against Rachel, but a case why the HOY vote might be close (is that a distinction without a difference?) if Summer Bird’s proposed feats are achieved.

I suppose you will try again and that is okay because my mind is not changed which is Rachel should win HOY, but it will be close if Summer Bird wins the JCGC and BCC.

No, I would not because when someone use statistics to make an argument and they clearly do not understand the application of statistics; they typically reach a very odd and wrong conclusion. --#post137 (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=757333&postcount=137)

Did you read my post? If not, the following is the essence of what I said in respect to statistics:
...

Please understand before your write. -- post 141 (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=757507&postcount=141)

You continue to be wrong because you don’t or refuse to understand the thesis statement of what was being said.
...
You can continue to respond with tumid language, but it will not change anything and if responding gives you exhilaration, please respond again and again, but my point is succinctly and logically made; and I am finished. -- post 147 (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=757849&postcount=147)

I see.

[FenceBored]

One other minor thing that I don't personally hold against Summer Bird but when he won the Belmont he was still eligible for a allw nw1x. After the Ark Derby I had him in my exotics for the KY Derby. I also had him to win in the Belmont but the truth is that his YEAR currently rests on winning the Belmont and Travers while losing to the best horse in the country in the Haskell. That puts him ahead of the Derby winner who hasn't won another race during 2009. The reel wrench in the system is Quality Road. Pletcher says he is completely on track for the JCGC. A possible win over Summer Bird there gives him a G-I win in the Fla Derby, a g-I placing in the Travers and a G-I win over older horses including turning the tables on Summer Bird. I'm not saying it will happen but a 2 race win streak could steal the 3yo championship from Summer Bird. MTB still has to win both of his races to even be considered.

Don't forget Quality Road's win in the GII Amsterdam.

[Java Gold@TFT]

Don't forget Quality Road's win in the GII Amsterdam.
I know, I just tend to focus on G-I's when it comes to end of the year honors. Rachel has 5, Summer Bird has 2, Zenyatta has 2, Gio Ponti has 4, Mine That Bird has 1 and Zensational has 3. Things will change during the next 6 weeks but that's where we stand now.

[bisket]

ponti's 4 grade 1's and a win over what may be a classic field of the best europe has to offer is a hoy winning campagn. i don't see summer bird winning the classic. he's just not in the same league as the crowd that'll be there. on dirt i'd give him a shot, but summer hasn't ran a race on dirt that compares to any of the races that crowd has run on the turf. so i don't see him winnning on a new surface. so this argument is alot about nothing imhop. ponti is the one that could sneak in and take it from rachel.