PDA

View Full Version : Rachel Alexandra - weak opposition exposed, once and for all


Bing-Bang-BOOOOOOM
12-13-2009, 07:44 PM
The best field Rachel Alexandra faced this year had just two other runners and Rachel Alexandra was 1-to-20 on the board. Furthermore the race was simply handed to Rachel Alexandra when the other two, each running for second money, staged a white-hot battle for the early lead with Rachel sitting last and able to pick up the pieces once the others expired.


The Kentucky Oaks, supposedly a Grade I affair, brought forth competition that has tallied a 2-for-21 record since the race. One of those wins was the typical four-horse field in the slop variety.


The Preakness found the next eleven runners across the line able to combine for just two wins since mid-May. One of those wins came at Charles Town Race Track, and the other was an optional claimer in the slop. The final horse in the field switched to turf and later won a pair of Grade 1 races for 3yo's.


The Haskell saw six opponents tally just three wins between them since, all of which were in the slop, and one was the usual 4-horse field. Summer Bird accounted for the other two wins.


The Woodward Stakes, as everyone knows by now, hasn't seen any of the starters win a race since, now more than three months after the race.


So in four of Rachel Alexandra's five Grade I wins this year, the competition all put together can claim exactly two fast-track wins between them since the respective races.

The only other Grade I success by Rachel Alexandra was handed to her by extraordinary pace conditions.



Zenyatta, by contrast, faced not-in-common opponents who accounted for ten Grade I wins vs. unrestricted company in 2009. Rachel Alexandra's not-in-common opponents accounted for just two Grade I wins vs. unrestricted company in 2009.


Zenyatta: $3,330,000

Rachel Alexandra: $2,746,914

Rachel Alexandra hasn't faced a soul this year in the way of a not-in-common opponent who has in 2009 earned anywhere near to Life Is Sweet's $1,620,000 yearly bankroll. Most of that earned since being Zenyatta's habitual punching-bag.


Life Is Sweet dominated the older fillies and mares in the championship event of a division into which Rachel Alexandra never even set foot.


I don't think we really need to go over the 2009 records of runners who have beaten Rachel Alexandra, but one of them couldn't even win for $7500 claiming at Lone Star and was later unable to complete the course in a $6250 claimer at Zia Park. Another managed a maiden win at Evangeline Downs while still another took a maiden claimer to run her record to one-for-fifteen.


Zenyatta, by contrast, has never been defeated.


The media can highlight or emphasize anything it chooses, but herein lies the rest of the story.

Maybe you attended the races on a day when Rachel Alexandra ran in your city, and maybe you even cashed a ticket hinged in large part on her winning, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether she deserves to be mentioned in the same breath with an undefeated champion. (not just "undefeated in 2009", but undefeated using the true definition of the word)

PaceAdvantage
12-13-2009, 07:48 PM
I've barely read your post all the way through, but something that immediately catches my eye:

You are downgrading Rachel's performances because of sloppy surfaces ("saw six opponents tally just three wins between them since, all of which were in the slop, and one was the usual 4-horse field") yet nowhere do you mention artificial surfaces when it comes to Zenyatta.

Yeah, you're objective.

PS. Welcome to the board...

johnhannibalsmith
12-13-2009, 07:55 PM
Thank heavens for colors and font size so we can at least be treated to something refreshingly new and unique on this tiresome subject. :rolleyes:

Spalding No!
12-13-2009, 08:02 PM
Great spin.

Fact of the matter is that Rachel Alexandra's beaten foes accounted for 7 Grade 1 events subsequent to facing her.

Zenyatta's beaten foes accounted for a single subsequent Grade 1 event.

the_fat_man
12-13-2009, 08:18 PM
I don't know. :rolleyes:

Any claim about anything in racing that doesn't contain "Beyer number', at least a half dozen times, just doesn't appear credible to me. Do a rewrite, throw in a "Beyer Number' for each line of text and you're good to go. I'd sign off on it with the changes.

I'm sure this will become a HUGE thread.

PaceAdvantage
12-13-2009, 09:38 PM
I don't know. :rolleyes:

Any claim about anything in racing that doesn't contain "Beyer number', at least a half dozen times, just doesn't appear credible to me. Do a rewrite, throw in a "Beyer Number' for each line of text and you're good to go. I'd sign off on it with the changes.

I'm sure this will become a HUGE thread.Another broken record...

Stillriledup
12-13-2009, 10:43 PM
Rachel Beat the Ky Derby winner, fair and square, when that runner was at the height of his game and she beat him on his best surface. Add up all the Grade 1 winners that Mine that Bird beat in the Derby and add that to Rachel's totals.

Zippy Chippy
12-13-2009, 11:26 PM
Lets just enjoy this incredible year that we've had with these 2 tremendous fillys. They've both done everything that has been asked and more. We will probably never see another year like this in our lifetime

Stillriledup
12-13-2009, 11:28 PM
Lets just enjoy this incredible year that we've had with these 2 tremendous fillys. They've both done everything that has been asked and more. We will probably never see another year like this in our lifetime
:ThmbUp:

cj
12-13-2009, 11:32 PM
I don't know. :rolleyes:

Any claim about anything in racing that doesn't contain "Beyer number', at least a half dozen times, just doesn't appear credible to me. Do a rewrite, throw in a "Beyer Number' for each line of text and you're good to go. I'd sign off on it with the changes.

I'm sure this will become a HUGE thread.

I really hope you have both of your posts saved in a Word document so you can just copy and paste them. If you had to type them out each time you'd be in serious jeopardy of carpal tunnel syndrome.

Cratos
12-14-2009, 12:45 AM
The best field Rachel Alexandra faced this year had just two other runners and Rachel Alexandra was 1-to-20 on the board. Furthermore the race was simply handed to Rachel Alexandra when the other two, each running for second money, staged a white-hot battle for the early lead with Rachel sitting last and able to pick up the pieces once the others expired.


The Kentucky Oaks, supposedly a Grade I affair, brought forth competition that has tallied a 2-for-21 record since the race. One of those wins was the typical four-horse field in the slop variety.


The Preakness found the next eleven runners across the line able to combine for just two wins since mid-May. One of those wins came at Charles Town Race Track, and the other was an optional claimer in the slop. The final horse in the field switched to turf and later won a pair of Grade 1 races for 3yo's.


The Haskell saw six opponents tally just three wins between them since, all of which were in the slop, and one was the usual 4-horse field. Summer Bird accounted for the other two wins.


The Woodward Stakes, as everyone knows by now, hasn't seen any of the starters win a race since, now more than three months after the race.


So in four of Rachel Alexandra's five Grade I wins this year, the competition all put together can claim exactly two fast-track wins between them since the respective races.

The only other Grade I success by Rachel Alexandra was handed to her by extraordinary pace conditions.



Zenyatta, by contrast, faced not-in-common opponents who accounted for ten Grade I wins vs. unrestricted company in 2009. Rachel Alexandra's not-in-common opponents accounted for just two Grade I wins vs. unrestricted company in 2009.


Zenyatta: $3,330,000

Rachel Alexandra: $2,746,914

Rachel Alexandra hasn't faced a soul this year in the way of a not-in-common opponent who has in 2009 earned anywhere near to Life Is Sweet's $1,620,000 yearly bankroll. Most of that earned since being Zenyatta's habitual punching-bag.


Life Is Sweet dominated the older fillies and mares in the championship event of a division into which Rachel Alexandra never even set foot.


I don't think we really need to go over the 2009 records of runners who have beaten Rachel Alexandra, but one of them couldn't even win for $7500 claiming at Lone Star and was later unable to complete the course in a $6250 claimer at Zia Park. Another managed a maiden win at Evangeline Downs while still another took a maiden claimer to run her record to one-for-fifteen.


Zenyatta, by contrast, has never been defeated.


The media can highlight or emphasize anything it chooses, but herein lies the rest of the story.

Maybe you attended the races on a day when Rachel Alexandra ran in your city, and maybe you even cashed a ticket hinged in large part on her winning, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether she deserves to be mentioned in the same breath with an undefeated champion. (not just "undefeated in 2009", but undefeated using the true definition of the word)

Rachel Alexandra beat the horses which were entered into the races that she raced in; neither she (and I realize that she is a horse) nor her connections decided on which horses should be in her races.

Furthermore your comments would be more meritorious if they had come after each of Rachel’s races, but to wait until the season is over and you now myopically look back at Zenyatta’s spectacular BC Classic victory; and start demeaning Rachel’s competition moves you from the ridiculous to utter stupidity.

Jackal
12-15-2009, 04:36 AM
Bing-Bang-BOOOOOOM all I can say is you are deluded. Big drama had more graded wins than you accounted for.

Zenyatta stood in her stall and watched 750K+ races. Other than the BC she never ran in a race with a purse larger than 300k. Moreover no horse that never left CA has ever won HOTY.

Bing-Bang-BOOOOOOM you simply ruined your credibility.

Stillriledup
12-15-2009, 06:10 AM
Bing-Bang-BOOOOOOM all I can say is you are deluded. Big drama had more graded wins than you accounted for.

Zenyatta stood in her stall and watched 750K+ races. Other than the BC she never ran in a race with a purse larger than 300k. Moreover no horse that never left CA has ever won HOTY.

Bing-Bang-BOOOOOOM you simply ruined your credibility.


What credibility? the guy has 1 post and never came back.

rokitman
12-15-2009, 11:42 AM
What credibility? the guy has 1 post and never came back.
Why would he? To get dooshbagged some more? He naively invested quite a bit of time in his first post, not knowing how inferior he was. But, apparently, he's a quick study.

Show Me the Wire
12-15-2009, 11:58 AM
Maybe this is what born2ride means about the way new posters are treated. Poor fellow he didn't know this is R.A. central and thought he put forth some legitimate points.

Let me up this can of worms. It seems to me the bias against Zenyatta is the aws. If Zenyatta would have run on dirt once or twice this year and turned in her typical performance, would all you R.A. backers concede Zenyatta is HOY? It is a hypothetical question.

tucker6
12-15-2009, 12:08 PM
Maybe this is what born2ride means about the way new posters are treated. Poor fellow he didn't know this is R.A. central and thought he put forth some legitimate points.

Let me up this can of worms. It seems to me the bias against Zenyatta is the aws. If Zenyatta would have run on dirt once or twice this year and turned in her typical performance, would all you R.A. backers concede Zenyatta is HOY? It is a hypothetical question.
but she didn't run on dirt, and if she had run on dirt and given a Hirsch Handicap type performance, she would been handed her head on a silver platter. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Jackal
12-15-2009, 12:10 PM
We all made our first posts without getting run down. But none of us jumped into the hottest topic right off the bat. I love Rachel but I waited a month or so to jump into the HOTY debate.

tzipi
12-15-2009, 12:16 PM
Maybe this is what born2ride means about the way new posters are treated. Poor fellow he didn't know this is R.A. central and thought he put forth some legitimate points.

Let me up this can of worms. It seems to me the bias against Zenyatta is the aws. If Zenyatta would have run on dirt once or twice this year and turned in her typical performance, would all you R.A. backers concede Zenyatta is HOY? It is a hypothetical question.


If she ran on dirt(She had chance,she scratched or didn't enter) or even faced a groups(boys and girls) outside of the same girls she was beatting up on and won,then yeah she probably wins by a small margin over RA for HOTY for me. Would be tight.

PaceAdvantage
12-15-2009, 12:20 PM
Maybe this is what born2ride means about the way new posters are treated. Poor fellow he didn't know this is R.A. central and thought he put forth some legitimate points.This is a joke right? You've been punking me this whole time...I get it now...:lol:

Just to refresh everyone's memory, this is a horse racing forum, not some "Nickelodeon Kid's Zone" forum...

The OP may have put forth some legitimate points, and he/she received legitimate points in return.

Are we going to micromanage every single thread now?

Cadillakin
12-15-2009, 12:24 PM
Rachel Beat the Ky Derby winner, fair and square, when that runner was at the height of his game and she beat him on his best surface. Add up all the Grade 1 winners that Mine that Bird beat in the Derby and add that to Rachel's totals.
That's sort of an odd claim... in that Mine that Bird has never won a single race on a fast dirt surface... He is 0-5. On the other hand, Mine that Bird won 4 races on synthetics.

Obviously, he can handle both well enough...

PaceAdvantage
12-15-2009, 12:27 PM
One day I am actually going to sit down and compile a list of all the runners Zenyatta and Rachel have beaten this year in terms of Graded Stakes victories and money earned. Or has this already been done?

CincyHorseplayer
12-15-2009, 12:43 PM
Nothing spells greatness better than absolute hatred.Rachel has gotten that.


Rachel Alexandra,Zenyatta,and Sea The Stars made 2009 a great year of racing.Why fugg with it??

I don't get it.This is a great board,but it has been suffocating since the BC.

Paceadvantage uber alles!!

OntheRail
12-15-2009, 01:47 PM
One day I am actually going to sit down and compile a list of all the runners Zenyatta and Rachel have beaten this year in terms of Graded Stakes victories and money earned. Or has this already been done?
Pace it's been done.
There it a link to a list on here somewhere... I think andymay posted it.

Here is a part of it.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5078
I know that the whole link to both is around here someplace.

Show Me the Wire
12-15-2009, 01:48 PM
This is a joke right? You've been punking me this whole time...I get it now...:lol:

Just to refresh everyone's memory, this is a horse racing forum, not some "Nickelodeon Kid's Zone" forum...

The OP may have put forth some legitimate points, and he/she received legitimate points in return.

Are we going to micromanage every single thread now?

I don't agree these are legitimate points, even if used as a preface for something relavent.

Thank heavens for colors and font size so we can at least be treated to something refreshingly new and unique on this tiresome subject.

Bing-Bang-BOOOOOOM all I can say is you are deluded.

Great spin

What credibility? the guy has 1 post and never came back

No, I don't expect this to be "Nickelodeon Kid's Zone", anyone tries to discuss R.A.'s competition, insults are hurled, becuase this perception sums it up nicely:
Nothing spells greatness better than absolute hatred.Rachel has gotten that.

Any criticism is viewed as hatred. Very myopic view.

To clarify, I don't expect threads to be micromanaged, but there were more insults directed at the poster than actual counter points

johnhannibalsmith
12-15-2009, 02:05 PM
How many of these RA vs Zenyatta HOF Threads are needed? Really?

This one subtly purported to have 'some new' angle and instead, it is a rehash of the same old stuff contained in any one of the other threads on the subject. This wasn't the post of a 'novice' contributor, but someone looking to stoke a fire regardless of how many posts were made.

Given that there was nothing contained that 'exposed' anything or added to the debate that couldn't easily be ascertained by clicking on almost any of the other 263 threads on the subject - I figured that my contribution --

"Thank heavens for colors and font size so we can at least be treated to something refreshingly new and unique on this tiresome subject."

-- made that statement in fewer words than were required to do so in this explanatory post.

CincyHorseplayer
12-15-2009, 02:11 PM
I don't agree these are legitimate points, even if used as a preface for something relavent.

Thank heavens for colors and font size so we can at least be treated to something refreshingly new and unique on this tiresome subject.

Bing-Bang-BOOOOOOM all I can say is you are deluded.

Great spin

What credibility? the guy has 1 post and never came back

No, I don't expect this to be "Nickelodeon Kid's Zone", anyone tries to discuss R.A.'s competition, insults are hurled, becuase this perception sums it up nicely:
Nothing spells greatness better than absolute hatred.Rachel has gotten that.

Any criticism is viewed as hatred. Very myopic view.

To clarify, I don't expect threads to be micromanaged, but there were more insults directed at the poster than actual counter points



Here's a shocker!!!:lol:

Show Me the Wire
12-15-2009, 02:13 PM
Here's a shocker!!!:lol:

Not really :lol:

CincyHorseplayer
12-15-2009, 02:23 PM
Not really :lol:


You're right.Absolutely a shocker!!:lol:

Show Me the Wire
12-15-2009, 02:26 PM
johnhannibalsmith:

And you know for sure the first post is flame bait. Just like some posters assumed I was posting about R.A.'s performance as flame bait.

CincyHorseplayer
12-15-2009, 02:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTeV9Wb2OWo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M9ozmgsSGE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb68fbcFp30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt-88DTxeYs




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRGvbUmqv-s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRbF1kZQLjA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS1EG0zf8sk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysO_Fhc8Fpw

NJ Stinks
12-15-2009, 03:06 PM
Maybe this is what born2ride means about the way new posters are treated. Poor fellow he didn't know this is R.A. central and thought he put forth some legitimate points.

Let me up this can of worms. It seems to me the bias against Zenyatta is the aws. If Zenyatta would have run on dirt once or twice this year and turned in her typical performance, would all you R.A. backers concede Zenyatta is HOY? It is a hypothetical question.

If this thread is too hard for Bing-Bang-Boom to handle, I hope he/she never loses any money at a racetrack or gets dumped! In fact, I strongly suggest BBB never leave home period. :p Anyway, BBB, if you're still reading, there is no such as thing as "once and for all" when it comes to Zenyatta and Rachel here. But you showed some moxie by trying to slip it into in your first post. :D

As for your hypothetical question, SMTW, it would have made a big difference to me. It would certainly make my vote a lot tougher than it is today.

Bobzilla
12-15-2009, 03:20 PM
That's sort of an odd claim... in that Mine that Bird has never won a single race on a fast dirt surface... He is 0-5. On the other hand, Mine that Bird won 4 races on synthetics.

Obviously, he can handle both well enough...


Is it not possible that Mine that Bird won those races over the Woodbine Polytrack surface last year because he was simply much better than his competition and not because he was performing over a surface for which he was most biomechanically suited? Seems to me horses can, and often do, win a race with less than their "A" game performance when facing inferior foes. Likewise horses can, and often do, lose with their "A" game performance when other variables conspire against their chances of winning, especially when the competition is stout as would be the case in a legitimate G1 event.

Show Me the Wire
12-15-2009, 03:34 PM
NJ Stinks: Of course I am still reading this thread. I read all your posts. I am a big fan. ;)

PaceAdvantage
12-15-2009, 03:54 PM
If we want to talk about Rachel's weak competition how about we also examine Zenyatta's competition in the only race that can possibly justify her getting HOY...the BC Classic:

1) Mine That Bird - Now regarded as not much more than a fluke...even before the BC Classic...he couldn't win the WV Derby at odds on, and he finished sixth in his last race (Goodwood) over the same surface as the BC Classic...nobody considered him much of a threat, and rightly so.

2) Colonel John - Hadn't won anything of importance since taking the Travers in 2008 over what is now regarded as a very weak 3yo crop. Only victory in 2009 in three starts was a restricted $91,000 TURF race where he was barely the favorite. He did almost win the Goodwood in his last start though.

3) Summer Bird - the only legit Grade 1 dirt runner in the field, and the only other horse besides Zenytta with any legit claim to HOY running in the BC Classic. His resume is well known...he was beaten six lengths by Rachel Alexandra when finishing SECOND in the Haskell. Never raced over synth.

4) Twice Over - A winner of one graded race over in Europe on the turf in 2009 (Champion Stakes where he went off at 14-1)...we have no idea going into the BC Classic how he will handle the synth.

5) Richard's Kid - Only one graded win in 2009...a neck victory in the Pacific Classic at 24-1 over Einstein...hardly the stuff of legends.

6) Gio Ponti - Top rated American grass horse of 2009...he has had two starts over the synth prior to the BC Classic, his latest a 5th place finish in the Strub in February 2009 at Santa Anita as the lukewarm 3-1 favorite...he immediately switched to the turf and never looked back...synth obviously isn't his best surface.

7) Einstein - Caught two weak Grade 1 synth fields in California this year...winning the SA Handicap and losing to Richard's Kid in the Pacific Classic...was thrashed by Gio Ponti at Arlington over the summer on the turf, despite owning a career 7 for 18 record and $1.4M earned over the grass.

8) Girolamo - Lightly raced up-and-comer who never raced on synth before, stretching out from 1M to 1 1/4M in only his fourth start of the year and seventh start overall.

9) Rip Van Winkle - Spent 2009 chasing Sea The Stars, then went on to win two Grade 1s in Europe over the turf in his last two outings...never raced on synth before and his three bad feet was all that you heard talked about in the hours leading up to the race...clearly a horse who was nowhere near his best, whether it was his feet or the surface.

10) Regal Ransom - Got absolutely clobbered in his only synth appearance, which occurred over the Santa Anita strip last year in the Grade 1 Norfolk.

11) Awesome Gem - 1 for 12 lifetime over synth...finished seventh behind Richard's Kid and Einstein in the Pacific Classic...'nuff said.

Reality says the only horses that were Zenyatta's peers going into this race were the ones who have run well on synth before while facing legitimate graded stakes company...and that boils down to Colonel John, Richard's Kid and Einstein (and even these three horses are very suspect when it comes to the phrase "faced legitimate graded stakes company" over synth).

All the rest either never raced on synth before (Summer Bird, Twice Over, Girolamo, Rip Van Winkle), or raced poorly and/or never beat anyone of importance on synth (Mine That Bird, Gio Ponti, Regal Ransom, Awesome Gem).

Given all of the above, I really have to wonder how Zenyatta is leading in all of these HOY polls off of this one race.

NJ Stinks
12-15-2009, 04:12 PM
PA, that was a most objective analysis of the Classic field IMO. :ThmbUp:

Not that you will be getting any love from Zenyatta fans, of course. :)

lamboguy
12-15-2009, 04:15 PM
If we want to talk about Rachel's weak competition how about we also examine Zenyatta's competition in the only race that can possibly justify her getting HOY...the BC Classic:

1) Mine That Bird - Now regarded as not much more than a fluke...even before the BC Classic...he couldn't win the WV Derby at odds on, and he finished sixth in his last race (Goodwood) over the same surface as the BC Classic...nobody considered him much of a threat, and rightly so.

2) Colonel John - Hadn't won anything of importance since taking the Travers in 2008 over what is now regarded as a very weak 3yo crop. Only victory in 2009 in three starts was a restricted $91,000 TURF race where he was barely the favorite. He did almost win the Goodwood in his last start though.

3) Summer Bird - the only legit Grade 1 dirt runner in the field, and the only other horse besides Zenytta with any legit claim to HOY running in the BC Classic. His resume is well known...he was beaten six lengths by Rachel Alexandra when finishing SECOND in the Haskell. Never raced over synth.

4) Twice Over - A winner of one graded race over in Europe on the turf in 2009 (Champion Stakes where he went off at 14-1)...we have no idea going into the BC Classic how he will handle the synth.

5) Richard's Kid - Only one graded win in 2009...a neck victory in the Pacific Classic at 24-1 over Einstein...hardly the stuff of legends.

6) Gio Ponti - Top rated American grass horse of 2009...he has had two starts over the synth prior to the BC Classic, his latest a 5th place finish in the Strub in February 2009 at Santa Anita as the lukewarm 3-1 favorite...he immediately switched to the turf and never looked back...synth obviously isn't his best surface.

7) Einstein - Caught two weak Grade 1 synth fields in California this year...winning the SA Handicap and losing to Richard's Kid in the Pacific Classic...was thrashed by Gio Ponti at Arlington over the summer on the turf, despite owning a career 7 for 18 record and $1.4M earned over the grass.

8) Girolamo - Lightly raced up-and-comer who never raced on synth before, stretching out from 1M to 1 1/4M in only his fourth start of the year and seventh start overall.

9) Rip Van Winkle - Spent 2009 chasing Sea The Stars, then went on to win two Grade 1s in Europe over the turf in his last two outings...never raced on synth before and his three bad feet was all that you heard talked about in the hours leading up to the race...clearly a horse who was nowhere near his best, whether it was his feet or the surface.

10) Regal Ransom - Got absolutely clobbered in his only synth appearance, which occurred over the Santa Anita strip last year in the Grade 1 Norfolk.

11) Awesome Gem - 1 for 12 lifetime over synth...finished seventh behind Richard's Kid and Einstein in the Pacific Classic...'nuff said.

Reality says the only horses that were Zenyatta's peers going into this race were the ones who have run well on synth before while facing legitimate graded stakes company...and that boils down to Colonel John, Richard's Kid and Einstein (and even these three horses are very suspect when it comes to the phrase "faced legitimate graded stakes company" over synth).

All the rest either never raced on synth before (Summer Bird, Twice Over, Girolamo, Rip Van Winkle), or raced poorly and/or never beat anyone of importance on synth (Mine That Bird, Gio Ponti, Regal Ransom, Awesome Gem).

Given all of the above, I really have to wonder how Zenyatta is leading in all of these HOY polls off of this one race.good arguement with great proof

chickenhead
12-15-2009, 04:22 PM
I for one am still undecided. I'd like to see this get threshed out some more before casting my vote.

NJ Stinks
12-15-2009, 04:24 PM
I for one am still undecided. I'd like to see this get threshed out some more before casting my vote.

:lol:

tzipi
12-15-2009, 04:25 PM
I can imagine what Zenyatta fans would be saying if Rachel ran against that "field". The competition in the BC Classic was RVW an ailing turf horse,Gio Ponti(turf horse) and Summer Bird,who Rachel whipped and was running on synthetics.
You want a Classic field,go take a look at the 1998 field. Alot of great ones over the years. This one was not even close to the top.

Show Me the Wire
12-15-2009, 04:37 PM
I say neither of them qualifies on who they beat. I say Zenyatta's win, the how, was more impressive as she walked out of the gate. Name how many other G1 winners, in one of the richest races on any surface, that walked out of the gate and still won over a full field better than average horses.

Also, Zenyatta won more money. Money is the tie breaker and Zenyatta wins the tie breaker.

OOPs I forgot impressive wins on the poly don't count, but the money does ;)

fmolf
12-15-2009, 04:41 PM
Zenyatta will win it because the state of california racing needs her to win it!I would venture to say it is almost a foregone conclusion.Since moss and shirreffs are viewed as good guys and jackson and asmussen as the outlaws you do the math.

Show Me the Wire
12-15-2009, 05:02 PM
Truly, I hope the vote will not be decided on the theory that Moss and Shirreffs are viewed as good guys and that Jackson and Asmussen as the outlaws.

R.A.'s performances are worthy of HOY, but she will be penalized because Jackson decided to stay in the barn on B.C. day.

Bobzilla
12-15-2009, 05:12 PM
I certainly hope that "penalizing" doesn't factor into this decision at all. I simply hope that the voters decide this on the basis of ANALYSIS and not out of a sense of ACTIVISM on behalf of the Breeders' Cup.... the latter position subscribed to by a particular talking head on HRTV.

tzipi
12-15-2009, 05:30 PM
Truly, I hope the vote will not be decided on the theory that Moss and Shirreffs are viewed as good guys and that Jackson and Asmussen as the outlaws.

R.A.'s performances are worthy of HOY, but she will be penalized because Jackson decided to stay in the barn on B.C. day.

How the heck did HOLY BULL win HOY?? He ran in big races,beat everyone and then stayed in the barn for the Breeders Cup! HOY is not a BC award.

Show Me the Wire
12-15-2009, 05:32 PM
That was then and this is now. The economics are different, times change, you know.

tzipi
12-15-2009, 05:38 PM
That was then and this is now. The economics are different, times change, you know.

Oh Ok HOY is a BC award now. Wow,well Holy Bull lucked out he ran in the old times. His 1994 year would have won him squat in these times. He "ducked" the BC.

Stillriledup
12-15-2009, 06:09 PM
That's sort of an odd claim... in that Mine that Bird has never won a single race on a fast dirt surface... He is 0-5. On the other hand, Mine that Bird won 4 races on synthetics.

Obviously, he can handle both well enough...

Accoring to the OP's claims about who defeated the most amount of Grade 1 winners, you could say that Mine that Bird is better than Rachel. After all, didn't he defeat horses in the Derby who accounted for at least 10 grade 1 races? Add up all the grade 1 races that were won by the horses that Mine that Bird defeated and you can make the case he's better than Rachel and as good as Zenyatta.

FenceBored
12-15-2009, 06:37 PM
Accoring to the OP's claims about who defeated the most amount of Grade 1 winners, you could say that Mine that Bird is better than Rachel. After all, didn't he defeat horses in the Derby who accounted for at least 10 grade 1 races? Add up all the grade 1 races that were won by the horses that Mine that Bird defeated and you can make the case he's better than Rachel and as good as Zenyatta.

At the start of the Ky Derby there were two 2009 G1 winners in the gate, namely Pioneerof The Nile and General Quarters (neither of them has started since the Preakness and PotN is retired). Since the Derby only one starter has won any G1s, Summer Bird. So, Mine that Bird defeated 3 2009 G1 winners accounting for 5 G1 wins.

OntheRail
12-15-2009, 07:05 PM
I say neither of them qualifies on who they beat. I say Zenyatta's win, the how, was more impressive as she walked out of the gate. Name how many other G1 winners, in one of the richest races on any surface, that walked out of the gate and still won over a full field better than average horses.

Also, Zenyatta won more money. Money is the tie breaker and Zenyatta wins the tie breaker.

OOPs I forgot impressive wins on the poly don't count, but the money does ;)

Yes quite an astonishing feat for a stone cold closer to leave the gate last and win on her preferred surface against a weak field... I swear your either a comedian or a politician. I can't decide which as you talk in circular logic and often do make me laugh when it comes to HOTY . :lol: :D :lol:

tzipi
12-15-2009, 07:31 PM
I just don't know why this Classic is talked about like it was the greatest field ever she beat. If she beat the 1998 field or other fields I say,hey cool. The dirt BC Classic was mostly overrated turf horses(except Gio Ponti) and average horses besides Summer Bird but he was killed by RA and was running on turfsynthetics. I just think overall RA went to everyone,boys,girls,older,different tracks,etc and beat them all pretty good.

Show Me the Wire
12-16-2009, 12:33 PM
OntheRail:

The difference is the field gets an unintended advantage of a larger head start. A race is a limited distance, if you give any runner a large enough head start you wil not overcome the advantage. It is a nuance, but come from behind runners can have poor starts too.


Think of it this way. You and your young son foot race as a form of play. You don't want to discourage your son, so you run at a pace to let him lead most of the way and you win the foot race at the end, by a close margin. You do this you encourage your son to practice and with more practice he will prevail.

One day your measured pace, is interrupted by a slip causing you to lose your balance for a second or two. As a result of your momentary loss of balance you can't catch your son, per usual, based on your running style and your son wins, because he covered more ground than usual and making it impossible for you to overcome the gound loss. The same happens to closers, they lose the benefit of their tactical advantage, with a poor start.

The physics of your foot race applies to horse races. Applying the same physics, a poor start for a come from behind runner is even more detrimental (as your unintended slip) than for a front-running horse, with tactical speed. In Zenyatta's case her walking out of the gate, which is not her usual start allowed very decent horses to cover more ground, than if she had her usual and customary start, thus making it more difficult for her to catch the front horses.

Does it make some sense to you now, when I point out the poor start or do you think still think ill of me?

OntheRail
12-16-2009, 01:16 PM
SMTW.

This it true but it's less of a disadvantage then a front runner or stalking type... as the amount of energy need to correct or over come the bad start is less with a late runner. Also Zenyatta did not spot them that much of a lead. It was the largest field she faced all year and just like a must lead can get hung up in traffic... a closer can get swept along with the pace. She ran out of the four hole so a slow start from her could of been a tactic... and with her running style was not a issue.

And no I have not ill feeling toward you at all... I just think your augment of it's easier to win running wire to wire is funny.

Show Me the Wire
12-16-2009, 01:34 PM
Ah, that is horse racing, opinions differ. If you wish to believe a closer having to overcome more ground loss, like the foot-race example is easier and not detrimental, that is your prerogative. As you see I talked about ground loss something that cannot be overcome by any amount of available energy. Two separate issues are they not, one is static i.e. the amount of ground and the other is variable, i.e. energy?

While in you example of energy, the front-runner with the bad start may have enough energy to over come the early disadvantage.

BTW there has been some very good discussions about on this board about a closer being swept up in a quick pace, resulting in the closer running its best race (has to do with more efficient energy expenditure).

Many things in racing are counter-intuitive.

However, if you feel there is an easier way for the quickest and the fastest over the distance, to win than on the front-end so-be it.

OntheRail
12-16-2009, 02:39 PM
Zen did not lose ground to that field... your trying to make it more then it was... it's not like mike held her till they where at the corner. She had nothing to overcome in this race as the impact from her NORMAL running line did not vary. Zenyatta at the back of the pack was not a shocker.

In your hypo the Dad was already running the race and tripped up not just starting... it's much harder to recover and collect while running then it is from a standing start.

Yep stalking just off the pace and blow by them into the stretch... being pressed on the lead is draining... that's why many more fade at the turn then make it to the wire.

TurfRuler
12-16-2009, 02:47 PM
After seeing filly Estrapade (n. 1. (Man.) The action of a horse, when, to get rid of his rider, he rears, plunges, and kicks furiously. ) All I could say was "when you see a thoroughbred that looks like that bet it." Same goes for Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta.

Show Me the Wire
12-16-2009, 03:05 PM
Zen did not lose ground to that field... your trying to make it more then it was... it's not like mike held her till they where at the corner. She had nothing to overcome in this race as the impact from her NORMAL running line did not vary. Zenyatta at the back of the pack was not a shocker.

In your hypo the Dad was already running the race and tripped up not just starting... it's much harder to recover and collect while running then it is from a standing start.

Yep stalking just off the pace and blow by them into the stretch... being pressed on the lead is draining... that's why many more fade at the turn then make it to the wire.

I side with the announcer v j stauffer and his comments about how far back Zenyatta found herself, due to the poor start. Let's just say the announcer and I viewed the race differently than you.

So now you are agreeing that my point about static ground and closers is generally valid. However, you do not think in this particular race that the slow start had no impact on Zenyatta.

So, really, the only disagreement is not about that a poor start can be a detriment to a closer, but the over all effect of a poor start in this particular race. That is something reasonable persons can differ in interpretation.

Show Me the Wire
12-16-2009, 03:12 PM
.................................................. .........................
Yep stalking just off the pace and blow by them into the stretch... being pressed on the lead is draining... that's why many more fade at the turn then make it to the wire.


So being pressed by your son, while in the lead is more tiring? I think you are adding more to what I said: "the quickest and fastest at the distance". You are quicker and faster than your young son, no amount of his pressing is going to drain you on the lead. In fact he couldn"t press you, even if he tried.

OntheRail
12-16-2009, 07:43 PM
However, if you feel there is an easier way for the quickest and the fastest over the distance, to win than on the front-end so-be it.
I
Yep stalking just off the pace and blow by them into the stretch... being pressed on the lead is draining... that's why many more fade at the turn then make it to the wire.
I thought we were talking about horses running style.


So being pressed by your son, while in the lead is more tiring? I think you are adding more to what I said: "the quickest and fastest at the distance". You are quicker and faster than your young son, no amount of his pressing is going to drain you on the lead. In fact he couldn"t press you, even if he tried.
Now your back to Apples and Oranges once again.

Ok I'll play... young is a relative term are we talking 7 or 17 because either would be considered young to me. 7 yr. old no trouble at all but being chased (pressed) by a 17 yr.. old yes that would be draining as you exert more energy to try and stay ahead. Because your running harder lactic acid gonna build faster in the muscles and you fatigue faster.

Would you not agree?

OntheRail
12-16-2009, 08:03 PM
I side with the announcer v j stauffer and his comments about how far back Zenyatta found herself, due to the poor start. Let's just say the announcer and I viewed the race differently than you.
Come on they had hardly cleared the shoot when he exclaims Zenyatta's dead last... Zenyatta's dead last... :lol: :lol:


So now you are agreeing that my point about static ground and closers is generally valid. However, you do not think in this particular race that the slow start had no impact on Zenyatta.

So, really, the only disagreement is not about that a poor start can be a detriment to a closer, but the over all effect of a poor start in this particular race. That is something reasonable persons can differ in interpretation. :bang: :bang:

Like I said she did not lose any ground to this field.

Ok which would be more detrimental to a winning effort a step or two at the start... or being hung six wide around the corner coming into the stretch?

Nikki1997
12-16-2009, 09:53 PM
Trevor Denman called the Classic.

Show Me the Wire
12-17-2009, 12:36 PM
.......................Like I said she did not lose any ground to this field.

Ok which would be more detrimental to a winning effort a step or two at the start... or being hung six wide around the corner coming into the stretch?


Depends on the pace and the track configuration, wide on a slow pace is not detrimental. If it was a very hot pace being six wide is very detrimental.

However, we are discusiing two separate and distinct types of gorund loss. One type is variable, the postion and the other is that ground that has already been covered. No matter how much energy you expend or don't expend, like being six wide, you can't physically over come too much ground that has been consumed any others.

To clarify more, I am not talking about running styles. I am saying it is easier for the quickest horse and fastest horse to win on the lead.
I gave you plenty of examples why. If you are quicker and faster it doesn't make a difference if your son is 7 or 17.

The extreme example of a 7 year old really highlights the importance of distance expiring and time. The only way your 7 year old is going to beat you is with a large enough head start, which you can not overcome through some event, such as a momentary stumble, which you did not take into consideration or possibly a judgment error about how much of a lead you can over come.

As a result of either scenario and your son accidentally wins. Your son wins on the lead, while you lose, not because of energy expenditure related to pace, but due to physical impossibility of overcoming time running out on your ability to cover future ground. When your son crosses the finish, any opportunity to cover any further ground is gone.

In the real world, I would have to assume your 17 year old is more than likely quicker and faster than you and it would be extremely difficult for you to win a race on the lead, unless your son gives you the head start.

Show Me the Wire
12-17-2009, 12:38 PM
OOPs brain fart. Denman's call sums it up.

Cratos
12-17-2009, 01:57 PM
Depends on the pace and the track configuration, wide on a slow pace is not detrimental. If it was a very hot pace being six wide is very detrimental.

However, we are discusiing two separate and distinct types of gorund loss. One type is variable, the postion and the other is that ground that has already been covered. No matter how much energy you expend or don't expend, like being six wide, you can't physically over come too much ground that has been consumed any others.

To clarify more, I am not talking about running styles. I am saying it is easier for the quickest horse and fastest horse to win on the lead.
I gave you plenty of examples why. If you are quicker and faster it doesn't make a difference if your son is 7 or 17.

The extreme example of a 7 year old really highlights the importance of distance expiring and time. The only way your 7 year old is going to beat you is with a large enough head start, which you can not overcome through some event, such as a momentary stumble, which you did not take into consideration or possibly a judgment error about how much of a lead you can over come.

As a result of either scenario and your son accidentally wins. Your son wins on the lead, while you lose, not because of energy expenditure related to pace, but due to physical impossibility of overcoming time running out on your ability to cover future ground. When your son crosses the finish, any opportunity to cover any further ground is gone.

In the real world, I would have to assume your 17 year old is more than likely quicker and faster than you and it would be extremely difficult for you to win a race on the lead, unless your son gives you the head start.

Your assertion is correct; according to an article published in the DRF back in the 1980s; about 60% of horse races are won by horses which are in the lead or near the lead. Horses like Forego and Zenyatta being dominant and consistent winners are rare.

OntheRail
12-17-2009, 01:58 PM
Depends on the pace and the track configuration, wide on a slow pace is not detrimental. If it was a very hot pace being six wide is very detrimental.

However, we are discusiing two separate and distinct types of gorund loss. One type is variable, the postion and the other is that ground that has already been covered. No matter how much energy you expend or don't expend, like being six wide, you can't physically over come too much ground that has been consumed any others.

So you agree with me that ground lost during the race is more detrimental... then a step or two out of the gate as no pace has been established at that point.


In the real world, I would have to assume your 17 year old is more than likely quicker and faster than you and it would be extremely difficult for you to win a race on the lead, unless your son gives you the head start.

In the real world Dad could run marathons and the 17 yr. old son could be a Wii/PS2 addict and the only exercise he get is L1.. L2 X O. But I'm trying to keep within your perimeters ;)

11cashcall
12-17-2009, 02:09 PM
:3: :2: days & counting.........

Show Me the Wire
12-17-2009, 02:24 PM
So you agree with me that ground lost during the race is more detrimental... then a step or two out of the gate as no pace has been established at that point.

NO.

One type is variable, the postion and the other is that ground that has already been covered. No matter how much energy you expend or don't expend, like being six wide, you can't physically over come too much ground that has been consumed any others.

Losing ground at the start, the step or two is always more detrimental as time starts running out as the other horses consume ground. I thought my statement: you can't physically over come too much ground that has been consumed be any others in conjunction with your young 7 year old accidental win clarified my position.

Losing ground at the start is always more detrimental, I am expanding now, because it could also cause unplanned early energy expenditure in attempting to compensate for the slower start resulting in not enough late energy. More bad outcomes are associated with bad starts, making bad starts in total more detrimental.


In the real world Dad could run marathons and the 17 yr. old son could be a Wii/PS2 addict and the only exercise he get is L1.. L2 X O. But I'm trying to keep within your perimeters ;

Fair enough, but my parameters did say as a form of play, meaning through play your son was encouraged to be physically active by your good example and he continued in your wise ways.

OntheRail
12-17-2009, 05:03 PM
So you agree with me that ground lost during the race is more detrimental... then a step or two out of the gate as no pace has been established at that point.

NO.

One type is variable, the postion and the other is that ground that has already been covered. No matter how much energy you expend or don't expend, like being six wide, you can't physically over come too much ground that has been consumed any others.

Losing ground at the start, the step or two is always more detrimental as time starts running out as the other horses consume ground. I thought my statement: you can't physically over come too much ground that has been consumed be any others in conjunction with your young 7 year old accidental win clarified my position.



Losing ground at the start is always more detrimental, I am expanding now, because it could also cause unplanned early energy expenditure in attempting to compensate for the slower start resulting in not enough late energy. More bad outcomes are associated with bad starts, making bad starts in total more detrimental.

A bad start will rattle a jockey more then the horse... if the jockey keeps his head so will the horse.


In the real world Dad could run marathons and the 17 yr. old son could be a Wii/PS2 addict and the only exercise he get is L1.. L2 X O. But I'm trying to keep within your perimeters ;

Fair enough, but my parameters did say as a form of play, meaning through play your son was encouraged to be physically active by your good example and he continued in your wise ways.

Well we're Zig Zaggin' again cause you said pace was a big factor in it all. As I see it a step or two is similar to difference between post 1 and post 12.. at the start a step or two can be over come just like winning a sprit from the 12 hole. But that's racing and why eye witness testimony is unreliable cause we all see the same thing differently.

I guess I see why you think Zen's BC was so Great... because she over came a slow step out of the gate.

What must you think of Silky Sullivan...:eek:

Show Me the Wire
12-17-2009, 05:40 PM
I think what Cratos posted about the DRF article. I guess the article sums up my postion that dominant closers are rare, with or without poor starts and horses that win while setting the pace or near the pace are common.

tzipi
12-17-2009, 06:14 PM
The synthetics surfaces are TURF. Every trainer will tell you that. The footing is better because its more solid. It's a turf course and thats why turf horses run and win the "dirt" races. RAVENS PASS trainer said they would not have run him if the BC was on dirt! Hmm they know why. Look at the new post. Australia replacing their turf course with synthtics :D

So here's my point. Turf is set up for closers because of the footing. Why is it that no one cares when turf horses start slow. Because it really doesn't matter unless your a speed horse on turf and it's a closers game. There's plenty of time on turf footing. It's fine when Zenyatta steps out one step slow. She's a deep closer and running on "turf synthetics." It's not like dirt.

joanied
12-17-2009, 07:18 PM
The synthetics surfaces are TURF. Every trainer will tell you that. The footing is better because its more solid. It's a turf course and thats why turf horses run and win the "dirt" races. RAVENS PASS trainer said they would not have run him if the BC was on dirt! Hmm they know why. Look at the new post. Australia replacing their turf course with synthtics :D

So here's my point. Turf is set up for closers because of the footing. Why is it that no one cares when turf horses start slow. Because it really doesn't matter unless your a speed horse on turf and it's a closers game. There's plenty of time on turf footing. It's fine when Zenyatta steps out one step slow. She's a deep closer and running on "turf synthetics." It's not like dirt.

Makes sense to me:ThmbUp: ...
Australia must be nuts:D ...what are they thinkin'...have they not seen what is going on at SA :bang:

Show Me the Wire
12-18-2009, 04:07 PM
If anyone is interested in understanding what I mean, when I say the easiest way to win a race is going to the lead, just watch the replay of the 1st race at Hollywood today.

Jackal
12-18-2009, 05:32 PM
In the first 80 races on the pro-ride during the oak tree meet only three horses were able to wire the field. One could only conclude that the pro-ride favors closers. I doubt Zenyatta would be undefeated if she traveled like Rachel did.

I had a $600 horse go undefeated at Jefferson Downs (now defunct) one season. He won at all distances from 4 1/2f to 1 3/4 miles. No one claimed he was HOTY. I was scared to race him at FG. I knew if he got in speed duel with a classier horse he was toast. Moreover, he might not win again.

JM & JS handled Zenyatta the same way - just a larger stage. She was undefeated on the rug & scared of CD. How can anyone call her HOTY?

Show Me the Wire
12-18-2009, 07:08 PM
OntheRail:

Race 7 at Hollywood is the example, akin to the 17 year old son, of pressing the quicker and faster horse. Aquicksting's pressing had no effect on Red Sun.

There is no easier way to win a race than on the lead, if you are the quickest and fastest.

BTW the two races I cited today are the norm and not the exception, when one horse is quicker and faster than the rest.

OntheRail
12-18-2009, 10:43 PM
SMTW

So did you play them... or are we picking the fasted quickest after the fact? :faint:

So out of all the races run today... how many wired the field. I bet not that many. But the winners were the quickest and fastest in each race. :1:

Show Me the Wire
12-21-2009, 10:34 PM
OntheRail:

I said they were real horse race, examples of the very topic we have been discussing. The races I referred to illustrated the young son race and older son race examples.

The subject was not handicapping or teaching handicapping to select the quickest and fastest or what horses I wager on. All of those are different and unrelated subjects.

All I will say is I gave you hypothetical examples, days before the races transpired.

Dahoss9698
12-21-2009, 10:46 PM
All I will say is I gave you hypothetical examples, days before the races transpired.

Days before the races transpired?

tzipi
12-21-2009, 10:53 PM
"First 80 races on pro-ride and only 3 horses went wire to wire"? That's shocking. I thought this stuff was supposedly fair dirt and everyone should run on it?! One trainer out there said this year he should start stocking his stable with closers. :D

Show Me the Wire
12-21-2009, 10:59 PM
tzipi;

My postings are discussing the easiest way to win for the quickest and fastest horse.

How does your above post relate to my post?

tzipi
12-21-2009, 11:07 PM
tzipi;

My postings are discussing the easiest way to win for the quickest and fastest horse.

How does your above post relate to my post?


No not true. There's alot of quick and fast horses that run everyday and end up dogging in in the stretch to lose. You have to be fast,quick and have STAMINA,if you're going to run on top levels and win. You just dont dart out and automatically beat the top fields. That's crazy.
Also speed is not the easiest way to win,when certain surfaces play to closers. ONLY 3 horses went wire to wire at Oak Tree in first 80 races and quickness and speed is the easiest way to win??

CincyHorseplayer
12-21-2009, 11:21 PM
Show Me The Wire.

Did you ever actually watch the Preakness?

That was not fast and easy by any means.

And are you penalizing a horse for being athletic and talented enough to not lose ground and avoid traffic??Really??

And in the midst of this you throw it out there and say you've never followed east coast racing so you didn't see her races??Yet have argued for over a month on thread after thread??


Well happy holiday!!!!That's the biggest LOL I've had this year.Cheers!!:lol:

Show Me the Wire
12-21-2009, 11:39 PM
CincyHorseplayer:

Yes, I watched the Preakness. However, the discussion involved into something more than a R.A. thread, into a general discussion about the easiest way to win for the fastest and quickest horse at the distance, regardless of surface, is on the lead. This particualr discsssion started in another thread and resumed in this one with OntheRail.

To me it is really not R.A. specific. No, I am not penalizing a horse for being more athletic and talented, I am doing the opposite. I am saying a horse like R.A. is more talented because she has the ability to win on the lead, against other horses, supposedly in her class.

Now lets look at Zenyatta types. She by no means is quicker than R.A. and in a match race history shows Zenyatta would most likely lose, because she is not as quick as R.A. Match races go to the quickest horse of two equally timed distance performers. Basically, that is what I am saying, the easiest way to win, for the quickest and fastest horse at the distance is on the lead.

Really, I don't understand all the fuss, over my comments, as match races over history have shown the advantage is to the quickest of the two and the quickest goes to the lead.

Happy Holidays to you and yours too.

Show Me the Wire
12-21-2009, 11:47 PM
No not true. There's alot of quick and fast horses that run everyday and end up dogging in in the stretch to lose. You have to be fast,quick and have STAMINA,if you're going to run on top levels and win. You just dont dart out and automatically beat the top fields. That's crazy.
Also speed is not the easiest way to win,when certain surfaces play to closers. ONLY 3 horses went wire to wire at Oak Tree in first 80 races and quickness and speed is the easiest way to win??

I see your posting is about your own interpretation of imaginery wording. In your world the quickest and fastest at the distance means to dart out, not have stamina and to be in an inappropriate class level. I understand now. :ThmbUp:

tzipi
12-22-2009, 12:07 AM
I see your posting is about your own interpretation of imaginery wording. In your world the quickest and fastest at the distance means to dart out, not have stamina and to be in an inappropriate class level. I understand now. :ThmbUp:

You saying the fastest and quickest wins,is not always true. It's def not true on the ride out West. Closers win the races on that stuff. I was just saying in racing usually the horses who are the fastest with high stamina win. That's what makes them top horses.

When did I say fastest and quickest,dart out and win?? I said you don't do that. I said it's more than just quickness. It doesn't have to always mean darting out.

Show Me the Wire
12-22-2009, 12:13 AM
tzipi:

What do you think "fastest at the distance", which I have written multiple times, in both threads means? Do you think fastest at the distance, means something else, than having the stamina to run a particular distance?

tzipi
12-22-2009, 12:15 AM
tzipi:

What do you think "fastest at the distance", which I have written multiple times, in both threads means? Do you think fastest at the distance, means something else, than having the stamina to run a particular distance?

No,fastest at the distance means a horse is the fastest at the distance. Whether on the lead or off it. He or she runs it the fastest. You think different? Unless we are talking about bottom claimers who just take turns trying to actually run from day to day.

Show Me the Wire
12-22-2009, 12:20 AM
No,fastest at the distance means a horse is the fastest at the distance. Whether on the lead or off it. He or she runs it the fastest. You think different? Unless we are talking about bottom claimers who just take turns trying to actually run from day to day.

True. But you have got to be kidding with this line of posting. :eek: You know I used the word and meaning the horse had to possess two qualities and not just one. Quick by itself is insufficient and fast at the distance by itself is insufficient.

CincyHorseplayer
12-22-2009, 12:20 AM
Here's another one to chew on about the surface.

Some people say it's not about the surface.


Zenyatta would have never happened in California without this surface.


And that's all the reality we need.We have these 3 year old surfaces in the game that have never been used or believed to be a surface as a test of champions.Now were supposed to accept the notion that it's not relevant??

Yeah!!!!!

And some sit there saying it's an east coast bias.


This is a west coast bias if there ever was one.California has ripped the rug out from under the feet of the horseplayer in every way,shape,and form.But there they sit.Unable to, but knowing better than,that they should philosophically give it up,but they like their pretty little racetracks,and are hanging on to every stitch of "The glory of what once was",and now they have their poster child horse!!!

I have loved watching Zen run.But you guys are out of your minds with the venom towards this "Eastcoast" horse.And this is from a midwesterner,so I have no bias:cool:

tzipi
12-22-2009, 12:24 AM
True. But you have got to be kidding with this line of posting. :eek: You know I used the word and meaning the horse had to possess two qualities and not just one. Quick by itself is insufficient and fast at the distance by itself is insufficient.

No I understand what you meant. I'm just saying fastest wins in top levels. Look Zenyatta let the girls walk sloooow on her one race and she still got up to beat them because she's fastest. RA blasted fast fractions and still got there first because she was fastest. But whatever,you get my opinion on fastest horse. JMO

I'm tired SHOW,good talking. Have a great night and great tomorrow :ThmbUp:

OntheRail
12-22-2009, 01:43 AM
OntheRail:

Race 7 at Hollywood is the example, akin to the 17 year old son, of pressing the quicker and faster horse. Aquicksting's pressing had no effect on Red Sun.

There is no easier way to win a race than on the lead, if you are the quickest and fastest.

BTW the two races I cited today are the norm and not the exception, when one horse is quicker and faster than the rest.

Well look at the CashCall and the Starlet again at Hollywood... both of those were won by the horse that passed the front runner on the stretch... in the same fashion that I mentioned.

Were not Looking At Lucky and Blind Luck not the quickest and fasted it their races... and won with ease? And I see way more wins along this line then the W2W wins.

The subject was not handicapping or teaching handicapping to select the quickest and fastest or what horses I wager on. All of those are different and unrelated subjects.
I beg to differ in the end it's all about handicapping... be it for fun or thrill. Furthering ones ability and understanding to single out the horses is the point.

Anyway Merry Christmas and a Thrilling New Year to ALL. :jump:

OntheRail... :)

born2ride
12-27-2009, 06:38 PM
Pace it's been done.
There it a link to a list on here somewhere... I think andymay posted it.

Here is a part of it.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5078
I know that the whole link to both is around here someplace.

The spreadsheet as is contains errors.

Afleet Deceit's second entry is incorrect, it should be identical to her first.
Mine That Bird has 1 SW.
Luv Gov has 11 starts, not 10.
Malibu Prayer has 5 SP, not 4.
Macho Again has 4 GSP and 4 GP, not 2.
Bullsbay has 6 SP, not 5.
It's a Bird has 3 wins, not 2. 3 GSP and 3 GW.
Bunker Hill's earnings have a typo, they are $185,442 not $145,442.

Bing-Bang-BOOOOOOM
01-12-2011, 10:31 PM
LOL - How's Rachel working out for you fools???


I must say, that was a #$%@ing excellent representative for Horse of the Year !!!

The funny thing is, she actually performed better in 2010 than she had in 2009, and didn't duck Zenyatta quite as many times during 2010 either.

So all in all, what a worthy steed she was.


Would have been nice had she done something more than, say, win a Grade 2 stakes during 2010.

Next time you clowns come up with one, at least bring something with at least a little bit of punch to it.

Sericm
01-12-2011, 10:43 PM
Rachel Beat the Ky Derby winner, fair and square, when that runner was at the height of his game and she beat him on his best surface. Add up all the Grade 1 winners that Mine that Bird beat in the Derby and add that to Rachel's totals.

Mine that Bird was at the height of his game?????
What a joke that is! Except for one race in the slop that he won on a dream trip he never had a game!

Tom
01-12-2011, 10:50 PM
Double posts - stuttering, or alzheimer's?

keithw84
01-12-2011, 10:52 PM
While we're at it, what about Curlin? How can you win HOTY in 2007 AND 2008 and not even run in 2009 or 2010?

What about Saint Liam? Seriously? HE was voted HOTY? He certainly hasn't done much since! (R.I.P.)

:bang:

Learned Hand35
01-12-2011, 11:03 PM
Worst resurrection of a dead thread evah. :ThmbDown:

NJ Stinks
01-12-2011, 11:49 PM
LOL - How's Rachel working out for you fools???


Are you referring to the Horse of the Year in 2009, Boomer?