Rachel vs. Zenyatta (Tale of the Tape)

[PaceAdvantage]

Head to head match up on my home page...complete with videos of all their 2009 races.

After examining the statistical and video evidence, I'm not quite sure how anyone can honestly say Rachel Alexandra did not run the better Horse of the Year campaign.

But, it's up there to view at your leisure. Those videos were the only two I could find that contained all the races for each horse in 2009. In fact, I had to edit the Zenyatta video down, because all of the compilation videos I found on Zenyatta contained ALL of her career races, and to be fair, I am only showing the 2009 races.

See my tale of the tape at the following link:

http://www.paceadvantage.com

[Stillriledup]

Add average beyer fig, i'd love to see who was the faster horse.

[ghostyapper]

Add average beyer fig, i'd love to see who was the faster horse.

Yes because they have proven to be so reliable in judging zenyatta. She was running sub 100's all year then when she finally enters a race that is usually won with a +110 number she magically runs that.

Get real.

[ghostyapper]

By the way after viewing that presentation (nice job pa) I don't know how anyone, on either side, could possibly say that this should not be a very close vote. Both horses are deserving.

[lamboguy]

after viewing this home page, i would strongly reccomend the people that vote for horse of the year to visit these 2 different video's. if after watching them front to back it is pretty clear to see who had the tougher tasks and tougher accomplishments due to age. its no contest, RACHEL ALEXANDRA will be horse of the year.

thankyou for making this very clear

[Steve R]

Yes because they have proven to be so reliable in judging zenyatta. She was running sub 100's all year then when she finally enters a race that is usually won with a +110 number she magically runs that.

Get real.
To be accurate, she earned the co-second lowest Beyer figure since at least 1990. OTOH, my figures have her performance much better than that, putting her in about the middle of the pack over the last 11 years. In addition, 3 of her 4 races prior to the Classic earned figures equivalent to Beyers of 105, 101 and 107 using my methodology.

And in response to Stillriledup, my Beyer equivalent averages for Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta in 2009 are 109 and 102, respectively. However, if you toss that clunker called the Clement L. Hirsch, Zenyatta's average moves to 106.

[Pell Mell]

Rachel totally devastated her fields and even when setting brutal pace turned back all challenges. An unreal, magnificent animal! :ThmbUp:

[lamboguy]

after reading the post's on this board for the last 5 days i have come to the conclusion that some people here suffer from severe cases of amnesia, and must go in for some treatment imediately.

[Moyers Pond]

Head to head match up on my home page...complete with videos of all their 2009 races.

After examining the statistical and video evidence, I'm not quite sure how anyone can honestly say Rachel Alexandra did not run the better Horse of the Year campaign.

But, it's up there to view at your leisure. Those videos were the only two I could find that contained all the races for each horse in 2009. In fact, I had to edit the Zenyatta video down, because all of the compilation videos I found on Zenyatta contained ALL of her career races, and to be fair, I am only showing the 2009 races.

See my tale of the tape at the following link:

http://www.paceadvantage.com

Perhaps you could add the list of grade 1 winning horses beat by each this year and include the NTRA rankings of each of the horses they beat.

Could you also include the number of suspensions their trainers have received over the course of their careers. Thanks.

Lastly, maybe you could also add what part of the country you are from. Let me guess, New York or somewhere in the Northeast.

[Charlie D]

after viewing this home page, i would strongly reccomend the people that vote for horse of the year to visit these 2 different video's. if after watching them front to back it is pretty clear to see who had the tougher tasks and tougher accomplishments due to age. its no contest, RACHEL ALEXANDRA will be horse of the year.

thankyou for making this very clear


If you have superior ability to the opposition, your task is not really that tough.

RA's toughest assignment i think came in Preakness where the only real competition came from the KD winner.

Zenyatta's toughest assignment i think came in Classic where the competition had more depth to it than what RA had faced, however, one or more may not have been at thier best on the day making Zenyatta's task easier than maybe it would have been on another day.

[Moyers Pond]

Rachel totally devastated her fields and even when setting brutal pace turned back all challenges. An unreal, magnificent animal! :ThmbUp:

Yeah, the devastation of Mine That Bird and that monster Macho Again was unreal. :lol:

[speed]

Yeah, the devastation of Mine That Bird and that monster Macho Again was unreal. :lol:


I am far from bright but i am dumbfounded how anybody on any planet could possibly knock the year Rachel had.

No matter who you feel is better or faster or prettier she has had an astounding year.

Both of these horses had amazing years.

[FenceBored]

Yeah, the devastation of Mine That Bird and that monster Macho Again was unreal. :lol:

Anabaa's Creation. At least when RA gets tested, it's by G1 winners.

[Show Me the Wire]

The important statistics Zenyatta wins. Beat larger fields, won more money, beat the toughest field assembled in North America this year. To me this is the outstanding performance.


Winning lengths is pretty meaningless. R.A. in her toughest and most impressive races did not win by open lengths, but saw her lead quickly diminish prior to the wire.

Her margin of victory in her other races just illustrates she ran against a group of tomato cans and is meanigless information.

[FenceBored]

The important statistics Zenyatta wins. Beat larger fields, won more money, beat the toughest field assembled in North America this year. To me this is the outstanding performance.


Winning lengths is pretty meaningless. R.A. in her toughest and most impressive races did not win by open lengths, but saw her lead quickly diminish prior to the wire.

Her margin of victory in her other races just illustrates she ran against a group of tomato cans and is meanigless information.

Like Summer Bird?

[Dahoss9698]

Could you also include the number of suspensions their trainers have received over the course of their careers. Thanks.

Lastly, maybe you could also add what part of the country you are from. Let me guess, New York or somewhere in the Northeast.

What do either of these things have to do with who deserves horse of the year? Thanks.

[Show Me the Wire]

Like Summer Bird?

I believe he lost to Zenyatta too. However, the point is R.A. did not win her two biggest races by open lengths. The beaten lengths is skewed by her 20 length victories of the tnmato cans.

Actually, Zenyatta's race against Summer Bird is more impressive. Summer Bird had a large tactical advantage, he was in front of Zenyatta, as whe was dead last, and had first run on her. She ran right pass him as he was tied to a post.

[FenceBored]

I believe he lost to Zenyatta too. However, the point is R.A. did not win her two biggest races by open lengths. The beaten lengths is skewed by her 20 length victories of the tnmato cans.

Actually, Zenyatta's race against Summer Bird is more impressive. Summer Bird had a large tactical advantage, he was in front of Zenyatta, as whe was dead last, and had first run on her. She ran right pass him as he was tied to a post.

Like Rachel did at the top of the stretch in the Haskell, when she opened up six on Summer Bird. Like that?

[Dahoss9698]

I believe he lost to Zenyatta too. However, the point is R.A. did not win her two biggest races by open lengths. The beaten lengths is skewed by her 20 length victories of the tnmato cans.

Actually, Zenyatta's race against Summer Bird is more impressive. Summer Bird had a large tactical advantage, he was in front of Zenyatta, as whe was dead last, and had first run on her. She ran right pass him as he was tied to a post.

A large tactical advantage? On a track she adores? Not to mention a surface that is very kind to her running style. Did you see where the top 3 finishers came from? How about where the pacesetters finished?

All things considered Summer Bird ran a very good race. First run on synthetics means nothing. The horse with the last run has the tactical advantage.

[46zilzal]

One beat the best assembled group in the world on NA racing's biggest day. The other did not even show up and was not injured.

The crux of the matter

[Show Me the Wire]

A large tactical advantage? On a track she adores? Not to mention a surface that is very kind to her running style. Did you see where the top 3 finishers came from? How about where the pacesetters finished?

All things considered Summer Bird ran a very good race. First run on synthetics means nothing. The horse with the last run has the tactical advantage.

Did I knock his performance. You used him as an example and I pointed out Zenyatta beat him too and the manner in which she accomplished it.

Maybe the top three finishers are better and faster horses at the distance. The leaders had a head start but it wasn't far enough not to be overtaken by the better horses.

Gio Ponte is no slouch, he runs down good horses.

Your real gripe is with the surface, as you said..

[Steve R]

I believe he lost to Zenyatta too. However, the point is R.A. did not win her two biggest races by open lengths. The beaten lengths is skewed by her 20 length victories of the tnmato cans.

Actually, Zenyatta's race against Summer Bird is more impressive. Summer Bird had a large tactical advantage, he was in front of Zenyatta, as whe was dead last, and had first run on her. She ran right pass him as he was tied to a post.
Exactly why is being last a tactical advantage? If it were generally true, which it isn't, horses toward the back early would win more races than horses in the first flight. Exactly the opposite is true and by a large margin. Then there is the late runner bias at Santa Anita in route races which is well documented by cynthiapublishing.com, so the horses near the front are the ones at a tactical disadvantage on that surface.

Also, I'm guessing you haven't really watched a video of the Haskell very closely. Summer Bird was on the rail and ahead of the filly who was in the three-path entering the final turn. Desormeaux initiated his move before Borel, which is obvious as you see Desormeaux already down in the saddle and Borel still essentially standing up. When Borel asked her to go he still wasn't really "riding" her as his body position scarcely changed. Then she just drew away effortlessly while still wide on the turn.

And FYI, Summer Bird got the last quarter in :24.3 which is hardly "tied to a post". But I guess a :23.2 final quarter is impressive to you even if it comes off a half in :50.2. Turf horses do that all the time. Conduit got his last quarter in the BC Turf, a 12f race, in :23.3 after a half in :48.1. Of course the surfaces are different, but in terms of energy expenditure it's the style we're talking about and Zenyatta's style is similar to that of grass horses (on a surface that many believe plays like turf...hmmmmm).

[Reezy]

What was zenyattas beyer for the classic?

[Show Me the Wire]

Exactly why is being last a tactical advantage? If it were generally true, which it isn't, horses toward the back early would win more races than horses in the first flight. Exactly the opposite is true and by a large margin. Then there is the late runner bias at Santa Anita in route races which is well documented by cynthiapublishing.com, so the horses near the front are the ones at a tactical disadvantage on that surface.

Also, I'm guessing you haven't really watched a video of the Haskell very closely. Summer Bird was on the rail and ahead of the filly who was in the three-path entering the final turn. Desormeaux initiated his move before Borel, which is obvious as you see Desormeaux already down in the saddle and Borel still essentially standing up. When Borel asked her to go he still wasn't really "riding" her as his body position scarcely changed. Then she just drew away effortlessly while still wide on the turn.

And FYI, Summer Bird got the last quarter in :24.3 which is hardly "tied to a post". But I guess a :23.2 final quarter is impressive to you even if it comes off a half in :50.2. Turf horses do that all the time. Conduit got his last quarter in the BC Turf, a 12f race, in :23.3 after a half in :48.1. Of course the surfaces are different, but in terms of energy expenditure it's the style we're talking about and Zenyatta's style is similar to that of grass horses (on a surface that many believe plays like turf...hmmmmm).


I am not talking about the any other race then the Classic. I said, Zenyatta made Summer Bird look like he was nailed to a post, which she did with those long strides.

Some say it plays like turf, some say it is a third completely different surface? Which is it? Is there a consensus among all the figure makers pro-ride plays like turf?

[Hanover1]

Perhaps you could add the list of grade 1 winning horses beat by each this year and include the NTRA rankings of each of the horses they beat.

Could you also include the number of suspensions their trainers have received over the course of their careers. Thanks.

Lastly, maybe you could also add what part of the country you are from. Let me guess, New York or somewhere in the Northeast.
Dont recall trainer suspensions as a factor in the voting......Beyers figures and in depth statistical studies often back up personal views, but seldom sway voters. Its about races won, types of races won vs competition, winning ways, and public appeal? How many bettors (who support the sport) saw action on each race? Most of these areas do in fact point to RA as having the edge. However, we have elected some real "winners" in politics in the past, via the vote, based on past performance, and have been wrong.......

[Steve R]

One beat the best assembled group in the world on NA racing's biggest day. The other did not even show up and was not injured.

The crux of the matter
Are you nuts? Did you ever look at the field for this year's Arc de Triomphe? It makes the BC Classic look like a Grade 2.

[Dahoss9698]

Did I knock his performance. You used him as an example and I pointed out Zenyatta beat him too and the manner in which she accomplished it.

Maybe the top three finishers are better and faster horses at the distance. The leaders had a head start but it wasn't far enough not to be overtaken by the better horses.

Gio Ponte is no slouch, he runs down good horses.

Your real gripe is with the surface, as you said..

I didn't use anyone as an example. I also said nothing about the surface other than it favors her running style. The leaders had a head start? Brilliant...

[ghostyapper]

Are you nuts? Did you ever look at the field for this year's Arc de Triomphe? It makes the BC Classic look like a Grade 2.

Did you're statistical analysis lead you to believe that france was in north america? :eek:

[ghostyapper]

One other thing I get a kick out of is how all the detractors keep saying how synthetic plays more like turf. But then they want to use beaten lengths as to who is better when history shows that margins of victory are much smaller on turf compared to dirt.

Which is it gang?

[FenceBored]

One beat the best assembled group in the world on NA racing's biggest day. The other did not even show up and was not injured.

The crux of the matter

Only if you're view of matters is geared to flashes of BRILLANCE and not a more sustained effort of a greater body of work.

[Show Me the Wire]

Steve R:

Let me discuss this different perspective at looking at a race. The horse that can run the specific amount of ground in the fastest time wins. All races do not turn out that way, right?

Usually a horse gets enough a head start, first run, that the fastest horse loses because the race ended before the fastest horse could run the entire distance. There is a certain point where the front horse has an insurmountable advantage as it is to close to the finish line to be caught.

R.A.'s win in the Woodward perfectly describes time running out on Macho Again..

Generally, when you give very good horses, like R.A., enough of a head start it is very difficult to catch them. Gio Ponte and Summer Bird were well in themselves and they had a good head start on Zenyatta. Yet, she negated their advantage with her win.

The above is what makes her performances magnificent, especially her win in the classic. No horse has been able to achieve that insurmountable head start to make time run out on her.

[Steve R]

I am not talking about the any other race then the Classic. I said, Zenyatta made Summer Bird look like he was nailed to a post, which she did with those long strides.

Some say it plays like turf, some say it is a third completely different surface? Which is it? Is there a consensus among all the figure makers pro-ride plays like turf?
I don't think you need a consensus of figure makers. The charts for route races on Pro-Ride generally show moderate to slow early paces coupled with fast closing fractions and a large majority late-running winners. That itself is a turf-like pattern and atypical of American dirt tracks. Furthermore, every BC AWS winner on Saturday and Sunday had shown excellent form on either turf, an AWS or both. No horse that hadn't shown good form on either turf or an AWS won and only two even hit the board. I think that suggests some degree of turf-like character for Pro-Ride although I personally consider AWSs as a third, unique surface.

[Show Me the Wire]

I didn't use anyone as an example. I also said nothing about the surface other than it favors her running style. The leaders had a head start? Brilliant...

Sorry, fence board did.

Read my post, to Steve R., about head starts and you will see how brillant it is. Time runs out at a certain point in the race, where not enough ground can be made up, that is why the fastest horse at a distance doesn't always win.

[Show Me the Wire]

I don't think you need a consensus of figure makers. The charts for route races on Pro-Ride generally show moderate to slow early paces coupled with fast closing fractions and a large majority late-running winners. That itself is a turf-like pattern and atypical of American dirt tracks. Furthermore, every BC AWS winner on Saturday and Sunday had shown excellent form on either turf, an AWS or both. No horse that hadn't shown good form on either turf or an AWS won and only two even hit the board. I think that suggests some degree of turf-like character for Pro-Ride although I personally consider AWSs as a third, unique surface.

Okay, I accept that for this particular day.. So what, alot of horses that show great form on dirt go to another dirt track and do poorly. Dirt tracks very in composition, configuration and the beneficial running style. Every year after the Derby or some other big race trainers say their horse doesn't like the dirt surface.

Same ole, same ole, big deal. How about this for a novel idea? If the B.c. or a certain race is going to be run on a specific surface at a specific track how about having your horse run, a prep race there or on a similar surface, to see if your horse likes the surface before the big race.

[Steve R]

Steve R:

Let me discuss this different perspective at looking at a race. The horse that can run the specific amount of ground in the fastest time wins. All races do not turn out that way, right?

Usually a horse gets enough a head start, first run, that the fastest horse loses because the race ended before the fastest horse could run the entire distance. There is a certain point where the front horse has an insurmountable advantage as it is to close to the finish line to be caught.

R.A.'s win in the Woodward perfectly describes time running out on Macho Again..

Generally, when you give very good horses, like R.A., enough of a head start it is very difficult to catch them. Gio Ponte and Summer Bird were well in themselves and they had a good head start on Zenyatta. Yet, she negated their advantage with her win.

The above is what makes her performances magnificent, especially her win in the classic. No horse has been able to achieve that insurmountable head start to make time run out on her.
I understand your point, but let me propose something else. Can we assume that in a Grade 1 race other than an obvious blowout, all of the horses in contention at the quarter pole will be full out in the drive? I think they would have to be because no one can be sure exactly how fast the competition is going to finish. If they are using all of their available energy, that amount of energy has already been determined by the energy expended up to the stretch. After all, horses are only human. :D They have a finite amount of energy to expend. Furthermore, there are physical limits to how fast they can finish regardless of how slow they ran early and how little energy they used up. No horse is going to run the last quarter of a 10f race in 21 seconds even if they go the first three-quarters in 1:20. This is the essence of "pace makes the race." Although we tend to focus on the drama of stretch drives, the physical reality is that, barring trip issues in the lane, the outcome of races is usually determined by the quarter pole where the contenders begin to use everything they have left.

To illustrate, I conducted an exercise where I ran a regression analysis on every horse's performance in the Classic. Using their fractional times at 2, 4, 6 and 8f, I was able to project their 10f final times assuming they could maintain their momentum. The result was that Zenyatta had the lowest projected final time even though she was 9th, almost 7 lengths behind at the 8f marker, and the four immediately behind her were in the order of their finish, indicating that they had stayed on as well as they could. There were a couple of anomalies in Richard's Kid and Mine That Bird which projected to finish faster than they did, but they backed up instead and couldn't maintain their momentum, and neither one projected a better final time than Zenyatta anyway.

I'm not downplaying the result of the race. Zenyatta won fair and square and clearly put in the best performance of the BC on AWS, not just the Classic. I'm just trying to be objective and avoid adjectives like "magnificent" or some other over-the-top descriptors some may have used. In the end, physics trumps emotionalism and intuition. Beyond that, one really has to wonder how different things might have been on dirt. An AWS superstar and two G1-quality grass horses running 1-2-3 in America's premier "dirt" race has to at least make people think about what affected the reult, doesn't it? Maybe not.

[Steve R]

Okay, I accept that for this particular day.. So what, alot of horses that show great form on dirt go to another dirt track and do poorly. Dirt tracks very in composition, configuration and the beneficial running style. Every year after the Derby or some other big race trainers say their horse doesn't like the dirt surface.

Same ole, same ole, big deal. How about this for a novel idea? If the B.c. or a certain race is going to be run on a specific surface at a specific track how about having your horse run, a prep race there or on a similar surface, to see if your horse likes the surface before the big race.
I think quite a few potential BC starters that didn't show up may have done just that. Then again, if AWSs are not dirt substitutes, how about a third set of BC races, one for each surface type. If a three surface configuration gains wide acceptance, we wouldn't be concerned about a Zenyatta-Rachel Alexandra confrontation anymore than we would in earlier times have fretted over a confrontation between, say, Spectacular Bid and John Henry. To each, his own. IOW, if we accept AWSs and dirt as truly being different, top horses on each surface could be judged fairly only in the context of their competition and not against horses specializing in another surface. As long as we deny AWSs and dirt are different, we will continue to have the kind of ultimately useless debate that is presently ongoing.

[Show Me the Wire]

But Steve, you are not addressing my issue of time running out and your example negates it. My perspective is not about energy expanded, but the tipping point.

However, I agree energy distribution is important but I can't agree that all the horses are full out in the drive at a particular pole. That thought is an ideal and not reality. The norm is ususlly like Presious Passion full out before the drive and hang on until time runs out on the closers.

This is a fact of racing, no matter how much energy a horse expended there is a point of no return where the fatest horse will run out of time before it can run the distance. No horse has been able to do this to Zenyatta over 14 races. Objectively this is an unusual achievement.

Also, what is wrong with using adjectives like magnificent? One reason I say she is magnificant is because I never seen her come close to exending all her energy to win a race. Her jockey holds the same opinion about her energy expenditure too.

[Show Me the Wire]

I think quite a few potential BC starters that didn't show up may have done just that. Then again, if AWSs are not dirt substitutes, how about a third set of BC races, one for each surface type. If a three surface configuration gains wide acceptance, we wouldn't be concerned about a Zenyatta-Rachel Alexandra confrontation anymore than we would in earlier times have fretted over a confrontation between, say, Spectacular Bid and John Henry. To each, his own. IOW, if we accept AWSs and dirt as truly being different, top horses on each surface could be judged fairly only in the context of their competition and not against horses specializing in another surface. As long as we deny AWSs and dirt are different, we will continue to have the kind of ultimately useless debate that is presently ongoing.


You are correct. The crux of the matter is the AWS.

What bewilders me is you will accept variations of dirt surfaces and pretend they all are the same maintrack surface, which they are not, while not accepting AWS as a variation of a maintrack surface.

[cj]

You are correct. The crux of the matter is the AWS.

What bewilders me is you will accept variations of dirt surfaces and pretend they all are the same maintrack surface, which they are not, while not accepting AWS as a variation of a maintrack surface.

The reason is even the most novice handicapper realizes that the all weather surfaces are a lot closer to turf than dirt.

[Dahoss9698]

Steve R:

Let me discuss this different perspective at looking at a race. The horse that can run the specific amount of ground in the fastest time wins. All races do not turn out that way, right?

Usually a horse gets enough a head start, first run, that the fastest horse loses because the race ended before the fastest horse could run the entire distance. There is a certain point where the front horse has an insurmountable advantage as it is to close to the finish line to be caught.

R.A.'s win in the Woodward perfectly describes time running out on Macho Again..

Generally, when you give very good horses, like R.A., enough of a head start it is very difficult to catch them. Gio Ponte and Summer Bird were well in themselves and they had a good head start on Zenyatta. Yet, she negated their advantage with her win.

The above is what makes her performances magnificent, especially her win in the classic. No horse has been able to achieve that insurmountable head start to make time run out on her.

So Macho Again is a faster horse at 9 furlongs than Rachel Alexandra is? I've heard it all now.

[Show Me the Wire]

The reason is even the most novice handicapper realizes that the all weather surfaces are a lot closer to turf than dirt.


So it would be fair to say Hawthorne prior to the freeze and Fairgrounds play like turf too, as the advantage goes to the late runners?

[Show Me the Wire]

So Macho Again is a faster horse at 9 furlongs than Rachel Alexandra is? I've heard it all now.


Talking generalities about racing dynamics. It would be nice if you could add to the discussion.

[Dahoss9698]

Talking generalities about racing dynamics. It would be nice if you could add to the discussion.

I thought I already did. Honestly, for someone who questioned anothers credibility, you are doing a pretty good job of ruining any you might have had in this thread.

Synthetic surfaces generally favor closers. It's because they play more like turf. I'm not even sure why that is still debateable.

Zenyatta was at no disadvantage in the Classic. If you look at where the pace setters finished and where the closers finished it should jump out at you.

Then, if you take a look at the Woodward, it's the opposite. Aside from Rachel, where did the other horses that were on the pace finish? And where did the closers finish?

[Steve R]

But Steve, you are not addressing my issue of time running out and your example negates it. My perspective is not about energy expanded, but the tipping point.

However, I agree energy distribution is important but I can't agree that all the horses are full out in the drive at a particular pole. That thought is an ideal and not reality. The norm is ususlly like Presious passion full out before the drive and hang on until time runs out on the closers.

This is a fact of racing, no matter how much energy a horse expended there is a point of no return where the fatest horse will run out of time before it can run the distance. No horse has been able to do this to Zenyatta over 14 races. Objectively this is an unusual achievement.

Also, what is wrong with using adjectives like magnificent? One reason I say she is magnificant is because I never seen her come close to exending all her energy to win a race. Her jockey holds the same opinion about her energy expenditure too.
First, I have no idea what a "tipping point" is in physiological terms.

Second, when I use the term "full out" I simply mean "as fast as they possibly can." If a horse is not giving its full effort while still in contention during the stretch drive of a G1 race, then the fix is on. And yes, horses may run "full out" before the quarter pole, but that doesn't negate the proposition that whatever energy they have used up before the quarter pole is unavailable in the stretch. And I doubt that Presious Passion was truly full out in the early stages any more than Spend a Buck was full out on the Kentucky Derby or Secretariat full out in the Belmont. No horse runs a :24.1 final quarter at a mile and a half off a 1:09.1 split without significant reserve energy. Conduit was less than 3 ticks faster in the last quarter despite being over 2 seconds slower at the halfway point. I'll put it this way. Presious Passion lost, but I'd certainly be tempted to breed a mare to him before I would breed to Conduit. Physiology like Presious Passion's is extremely rare.

As for no horses being able to beat Zenyatta, why not just conclude she was better, just as Personal Ensign was better than any she faced or Peppers Pride was better than any she faced? There is no need to speculate on any extraordinary or unique characteristics or to invoke notions of a "point of no return". There is biology and there is physics. Understand what's going on in those arenas and many things fall into place. Also, despite her unbeaten string she wasn't an unusually fast individual over the entire course of her races. Unless she stands apart in the history of the Thoroughbred, I think you would have a hard time finding a legendary horse that wasn't consistently very fast. Just my opinion.

Finally, personal assessments of a horse's energy state are just that...personal assessments. I don't care if you're the horse's trainer, jockey or acupuncturist. The only way to know how much may have been taken out of a horse is through comprehensive laboratory tests of biochemical and biomechanical function. That said, the rather conservative management of Zenyatta, assuming no soundness issues, makes me wonder about her recovery rate between races.

[cj]

So it would be fair to say Hawthorne prior to the freeze and Fairgrounds play like turf too, as the advantage goes to the late runners?

Not at all, because it is not horses that have shown an affinity for turf doing the closing.

Also, it isn't running style that necessarily leads one to believe it is closer to turf. It is the horses that are successful when switching, regardless of style.

[Show Me the Wire]

Here is my problem. Look at the two qoutes. One says its like turf due to energy distribution and the other because turf horses show an infinity for it, not because of the energy distribution.

Synthetic surfaces generally favor closers. It's because they play more like turf. I'm not even sure why that is still debateable.


Not at all, because it is not horses that have shown an affinity for turf doing the closing.

It has nothing to do with credibility. I am trying to understand all the different postitions of the AWS naysayers.

Maybe CJ is the correct one, since people seem to accept varying energy distributions on dirt maintracks, rather than accepting a more uniform energy distribution across several different maintracks.

[Dahoss9698]

As I said, generally. CJ is probably closer to the truth, as it would be hard to deny horses with prior turf success have been able to transfer their form over.

IMO, I think the surfaces also favor closers. Riders seem to ride that way. Synthetics seem to take away any advantage there is to speed. No matter how slow or fast you go early, it doesn't seem to matter.

[Show Me the Wire]

Steve R:

The idea of the tipping point is the actual physical point in the race, which varies, when the the fastest horse can't overtake the horse with the first run head start.

The idea of time running out is really a nugget from Tom Brohamer, MPH, Once time has expired you can't get it back and the reality of running any type of race.

if you give the slowest runner a large enough advantage, for whatever reason, he will beat the fastest. We all know the fable the tortoise and the hare. A bit extreme, but makes the point.

You can't measure numericallly when the fast hare lost his advantage of speed to the tortoise, no more than you can measure it in a horse race. The tortoise won because time ran out.

[Steve R]

Steve R:

The idea of the tipping point is the actual physical point in the race, which varies, when the the fastest horse can't overtake the horse with the first run head start.

The idea of time running out is really a nugget from Tom Brohamer, MPH, Once time has expired you can't get it back and the reality of running any type of race.

if you give the slowest runner a large enough advantage, for whatever reason, he will beat the fastest. We all know the fable the tortoise and the hare. A bit extreme, but makes the point.

You can't measure numericallly when the fast hare lost his advantage of speed to the tortoise, no more than you can measure it in a horse race. The tortoise won because time ran out.
I understand the words but not what they mean in a practical sense. All I can tell you is that regression analysis of each horse's pace line in the Classic just up to the quarter pole projects that Zenyatta would win (even though she was still almost 7 behind with a quarter mile to run) and that she would get the lead between the the eighth pole and the sixteenth pole. This "time running out" concept eludes me.

[bks]

Zenyatta "visited" Churchill Downs this year. The last category is misleading.

If you mean tracks on which a race was run, say that.

Rachel is HOY. Zenyatta is better horse. Both are clear.

[Dahoss9698]

Zenyatta "visited" Churchill Downs this year. The last category is misleading.

If you mean tracks on which a race was run, say that.

Rachel is HOY. Zenyatta is better horse. Both are clear.

:lol:

Thanks for clearing it up. Why didn't she run at Churchill? Oh....that's right, her connections didn't want her to run on the wet surface. :lol:

[cj]

:lol:

Thanks for clearing it up. Why didn't she run at Churchill? Oh....that's right, her connections didn't want her to run on the wet surface. :lol:

I find it amazing she ran in the same exact four races leading up to the BC this year that she did last year, while of course skipping the Apple Blossom. What a sense of accomplishment the connections must feel. They managed to take an alleged all time great and gave her exactly zero challenges between the Apple Blossom and the Classic nearly two years later.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Seeing the videos helped break the tie for me. I found some new wrinkles I hadn't read in the arguments that I have read (I have missed a few). Rachel Alexandra won multiple graded races, mostly grade 1s, beat the boys 3 times. Won 8 graded races at 7 different race tracks in 6 states. Won on a sloppy and dry tracks. Beat the Derby winner. Beat the Belmont winner. Won for 2 different trainers & ownership groups which had different goals - champion 3yo filly vs winning a TC race and Top 3yo open(male) events. Great horses, and the collective wisdom of the actual voters will decide, but to me Rachel Alexandra did more of the things beyond just winning races for her age & gender division than Zenyatta did, although Zenyatta did finally at the end - and the top ranked U.S. race of the year at that. Heck, would Zenyatta have run in the Classic instead of the Ladies Classic if Rachel hadn't done it 3 times this year and won all three, and needed the extra accomplishment to bolster her HOY case? No complaints from me if Zenyatta does get HOY, but Rachel Alexandra to me will be My HOY.

[Show Me the Wire]

I understand the words but not what they mean in a practical sense. All I can tell you is that regression analysis of each horse's pace line in the Classic just up to the quarter pole projects that Zenyatta would win (even though she was still almost 7 behind with a quarter mile to run) and that she would get the lead between the the eighth pole and the sixteenth pole. This "time running out" concept eludes me.

Think of it this way. You can run 50 yards in 10 seconds. Your friend can run 50 yards in 50.5 seconds. Your friend will never beat you, unless you give him a head start equal to .50 seconds or possibly you stumble at the start and that stumble costs more than .50 seconds.

[badcompany]

One beat the best assembled group in the world on NA racing's biggest day. The other did not even show up and was not injured.

The crux of the matter

Rachel had already run 8 races and travelled extensively.

How many races did Zenyatta run as a 3 year old? Was she in the BC Classic that year?

[FenceBored]

Did you're statistical analysis lead you to believe that france was in north america? :eek:


One beat the best assembled group in the world on NA racing's biggest day. The other did not even show up and was not injured.
What part of world don't you understand?

[Show Me the Wire]

Think of it this way. You can run 50 yards in 10 seconds. Your friend can run 50 yards in 50.5 seconds. Your friend will never beat you, unless you give him a head start equal to .50 seconds or possibly you stumble at the start and that stumble costs more than .50 seconds.

Should be 10.5 seconds not 50.5 seconds for your friend.

[Speed Figure]

Compete bias!!! 9:45 for Rachel Alexandra telling you everything before each race. 1:49 for Zenyatta. Nothing said before any of the races and, the Breeders Cup Classic is treated like it's just another race!! :ThmbDown: :rolleyes:

[Stillriledup]

I am not talking about the any other race then the Classic. I said, Zenyatta made Summer Bird look like he was nailed to a post, which she did with those long strides.

Some say it plays like turf, some say it is a third completely different surface? Which is it? Is there a consensus among all the figure makers pro-ride plays like turf?


Summer Bird was strugging on the surface in the mornings prior to the race according to more than one expert clocker. THis was hardly Summer Bird's A game.

People need to realize that Z was able to bring her A game because of her lack of races during the year. She was fresh, fit and ready for this race. She did race against many other horses who won Grade 1 races, but those Grade 1 races were not on Pro Ride, she was beating horses who were out of their element surfacewise.

[Stillriledup]

Where's the average Beyer fig, it doesnt seem to be coming up on my computer?

[PaceAdvantage]

Compete bias!!! 9:45 for Rachel Alexandra telling you everything before each race. 1:49 for Zenyatta. Nothing said before any of the races and, the Breeders Cup Classic is treated like it's just another race!! :ThmbDown: :rolleyes:I didn't create the videos...they were the only ones on YouTube that I could find that contained all the 2009 races for each horse...

In fact, I had to edit down the Zenyatta video (I renamed it from Zenyatta Compilation to Zenyatta2009)...the original is here, and as you can see, it contains ALL of her 14 career races:

cSanc2jWv4w

If you can find more representative videos on YouTube that contain only the 2009 races for each, I'd be happy to link to them....

[bks]

DaHoss9698 wrote:

Thanks for clearing it up. Why didn't she run at Churchill? Oh....that's right, her connections didn't want her to run on the wet surface.


Why didn't Rachel run in the Breeders Cup??? Because her connections didn't want to run on the DRY SURFACE.

And your buddy Dickinson should stick to training horses off two years, because his handicapping sucks.

[cj]

Why didn't Rachel run in the Breeders Cup??? Because her connections didn't want to run on the DRY SURFACE.


A dry, totally different surface that plays nothing like dirt at longer distances. Oh, and the fact she ran hard without a break since February.

[Dahoss9698]

Why didn't Rachel run in the Breeders Cup??? Because her connections didn't want to run on the DRY SURFACE.

And your buddy Dickinson should stick to training horses off two years, because his handicapping sucks.

That was the point. All of the people that are crying about Rachel not running in the BC, conveniently leave out Zenyatta scratching because the track was a little wet.

[cmoore]

Yes because they have proven to be so reliable in judging zenyatta. She was running sub 100's all year then when she finally enters a race that is usually won with a +110 number she magically runs that.

Get real.

Exactly Ghost..She runs the race according to the pace..So for someone to compare Beyer figures is crazy.

[chickenhead]

Oh, and the fact she ran hard without a break since February.

This keeps coming up -- and while it is effective as a contrast to Zenyatta -- if she were a perfectly sound colt that would never occur to anyone as a valid excuse (it would be laughable)...and of course, knowing she was not going to run in the Breeders Cup probably had something to do with her race scheduling in the first place. There is some circular logic there.

She didn't run in the BC because Jackson didn't want to run her in the BC, period.

[Dahoss9698]

This keeps coming up -- and while it is effective as a contrast to Zenyatta -- if she were a perfectly sound colt that would never occur to anyone as a valid excuse (it would be laughable)...and of course, knowing she was not going to run in the Breeders Cup probably had something to do with her race scheduling in the first place. There is some circular logic there.

She didn't run in the BC because Jackson didn't want to run her in the BC, period.

Was it laughable when Holy Bull was shut down after the Woodward also?

[chickenhead]

Was it laughable when Holy Bull was shut down after the Woodward also?

He wasn't nominated to the BC -- what makes you think they ever planned on running him in the BC? Rachel was not pointed to the BC. I don't believe Holy Bull was either. They didn't not run in the BC because their scheduling was so tough, they scheduled what they did because they weren't running in the BC.

[Dahoss9698]

He wasn't nominated to the BC -- what makes you think they ever planned on running him in the BC? Rachel was not pointed to the BC. I don't believe Holy Bull was either. They didn't not run in the BC because their scheduling was so tough, they scheduled what they did because they weren't running in the BC.

I don't think they planned on it. But I do know Holy Bull's connections were planning on running in the BC the next year. Just like RA's connections plan on doing next year.

I think if the BC this year was on dirt, Rachel would have been there. Jess Jackson made it known months ago he had no desire to run on synth and he stuck to his guns.

[chickenhead]

I think if the BC this year was on dirt, Rachel would have been there. Jess Jackson made it known months ago he had no desire to run on synth and he stuck to his guns.

Of course. Zenyatta was managed exactly the opposite of Rachel -- her whole year was entirely about being in the Breeders Cup. Rachel's schedule was done in mind that she wouldn't be. That's all. Its no knock on Rachel.

[DeanT]

Of course. Zenyatta was managed exactly the opposite of Rachel -- her whole year was entirely about being in the Breeders Cup. Rachel's schedule was done in mind that she wouldn't be. That's all. Its no knock on Rachel.
It makes for a good year and why we see what we are seeing tho huh? Jackson took the shot and mapped out her year thinking if she wins out the BC becomes irrelevant, but Z's crew had a plan of their own and made this very interesting.

I would bet dollars to donuts after the Woodward he went to sleep thinking he had a Horse of the Year by a unanimous vote; just like a cat who ate the canary. Then he wakes up after the BC and has to start thinking about sending out more wine.

[juanepstein]

RA wins at keenland on synth- 4 wide and driving. wins the fairground oaks on a sloppy track- eased up final 16th. a tick off the haskel record on a sloppy track. shes has as much turf pedigree as zenyatta and people are gonna believe that jackson kept her from the breeders cup classic only because he doesnt like the synthetics.

good one:D

[PaceAdvantage]

RA wins at keenland on synth- 4 wide and driving. wins the fairground oaks on a sloppy track- eased up final 16th. a tick off the haskel record on a sloppy track. shes has as much turf pedigree as zenyatta and people are gonna believe that jackson kept her from the breeders cup classic only because he doesnt like the synthetics.

good one:DAre you trying to imply that he kept her out of the BC Classic because he feared Zenyatta?

How can this be when Zenyatta's own connections were hemming and hawing about which race to go in up until the very end?

Back in September, the general consensus was that Zenyatta was NOT going in the BC Classic, but would defend her "Ladies" Classic title. Many on this very board surmised keeping her record intact was more important than sportsmanship.

So, keeping Rachel out of the BC Classic could not have had much to do with fearing Zenyatta, since at the time the decision was made, it wasn't clear at all whether or not Zenyatta would even be in that race.

Why is it so difficult to believe that an owner can come away from what HE FEELS is a bad experience (Curlin last year in the BC Classic) and become totally biased against said surface? It may be irrational to you, but being a human being, I believe we've all "been there, done that."

It's totally understandable.

[Stillriledup]

If this BC was at Churchill this year, things would have been very different.

We might have had our Z vs RA matchup in the Classic, would have been one of the most riveting moments in horse racing history when these two superstars broke from the gate.

[ghostyapper]

Are you trying to imply that he kept her out of the BC Classic because he feared Zenyatta?

How can this be when Zenyatta's own connections were hemming and hawing about which race to go in up until the very end?

Back in September, the general consensus was that Zenyatta was NOT going in the BC Classic, but would defend her "Ladies" Classic title. Many on this very board surmised keeping her record intact was more important than sportsmanship.

So, keeping Rachel out of the BC Classic could not have had much to do with fearing Zenyatta, since at the time the decision was made, it wasn't clear at all whether or not Zenyatta would even be in that race.

It's totally understandable.

She might not have necessarily been ducking zenyatta in the classic but some other condition of the race other than the surface. You know what I am talking about.

And who cares what the general consensus around here was concerning whether zenyatta would run in the classic? That obviously had no effect on the thoughts of the connections.

The telling sign to me that she would run in the classic was when they didn't take shots at the boys in the pacific classic and later in the goodwood.

[FenceBored]

She might not have necessarily been ducking zenyatta in the classic but some other condition of the race other than the surface. You know what I am talking about.

It would be better if you knew what you were talking about.

[Steve R]

She might not have necessarily been ducking zenyatta in the classic but some other condition of the race other than the surface. You know what I am talking about.

And who cares what the general consensus around here was concerning whether zenyatta would run in the classic? That obviously had no effect on the thoughts of the connections.

The telling sign to me that she would run in the classic was when they didn't take shots at the boys in the pacific classic and later in the goodwood.
The Pacific Classic was an absolutely perfect fit into Zenyatta's schedule, 4 weeks after the Hirsch and on home turf, so to speak. Instead they chose not to run her for 9 weeks. They could have tried the Beldame instead of the Lady's Secret. Could they have been worried about Music Note on HER preferred surface? Earlier they had scratched from the Louisville Distaff because they had concerns about the surface at Churchill Downs - the surface, imagine that - on the same day the filly set a record in the Oaks on that very surface.

The consistently ultraconservative management of Zenyatta suggests that the decision to opt for the Classic may have been a last ditch effort to secure the HotY award. They had nothing to lose if she were beaten because there were plenty of rational reasons why should have been, and her reputation would have been intact even if her unbeaten record wasn't. The gamble paid off, but you've got to wonder why they even pre-entered the Ladies Classic if not out of hesitancy to challenge males at a mile and a quarter. I can't agree that not going to the Pacific Classic or Goodwood was an indication the BC Classic was the ultimate goal. Again, why even consider the Ladies Classic under that scenario?