Was RA's 2009 The Last Grand Campaign?

[Edward DeVere]

Other than the very slim possibility of a 3-year-old classic winner campaigning and winning through the spring, summer and fall, was Rachel Alexandra's 2009 the last Grand (Semi-Grand?) Campaign we will see in American racing?

And, if so, where can I buy a stake to drive through the heart of the Breeders' Cup, which is an enabler to so many lily-livered *trainers?


*Trainers: Also known as "politicians, lawyers, stockbrokers, used car salesmen, mushroom growers"

[PaceAdvantage]

It just happened one year ago. Why would you think it would be the last?

As long as their are sporting owners like Jess Jackson in this world, then no, it won't be the last.

[MNslappy]

Curlin had one hell of a 2 year run too and that was just 2 or 3 years ago.

[redshift1]

Impossible to define Grand in your statement since Its subjectively variable. You might use: times, number of races won, total money won, number of grade stakes wins, etc.

Campaigning solely within the eastern theater detracts from her overall credentials but against modest competition she demonstrated some success as far as wins go.

[WinterTriangle]

Impossible to define Grand in your statement since Its subjectively variable. You might use: times, number of races won, total money won, number of grade stakes wins, etc.

redshift, I think I covered that in my post about tennis here:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71389

The greatest in tennis all comes down to what you are comparing them on: consistency, titles, grand slams, surface proficiency, versatility or dominance on one surface, time it took to rack up number of titles, and also, the problem of comparing across eras when training, equipment and so much stuff has changed.

when jess jackson proposed a 3 race series, ALL to take place on the surface his filly preferred, it would be no different than pitting Nadal, Federer, and Sampras against each other, but insisting it be on ONE surface that favors only one of them.

(I have always felt it to be an apt analogy, given there are 3 distinct surfaces in tennis, and each of the "greats" has a higher proficiency on one more than the others.)

Campaigning solely within the eastern theater

And then we are back to Zen won't come east and Rachel won't come west, .:bang:


There are blogs, columns and forums completely devoted to Jess Jackson being a bad sport, and conversely, Jerry Moss being a bad sport, depending on how different people "see it."

I have come to the point where I give them BOTH a pass, or not, simply because I expect neither trainer will agree to a scenario in which their horse is at a disadvantage, nor can I fault them for that. And so far, there IS no scenario that wouldn't impose that. whether it be surface, distance, shipping, timing, etc.

[cj]

when jess jackson proposed a 3 race series, ALL to take place on the surface his filly preferred, it would be no different than pitting Nadal, Federer, and Sampras against each other, but insisting it be on ONE surface that favors only one of them.



But, we all thought Zenyatta is better on dirt. That is what everyone keeps saying, her connections included. Why would Jackson want to challenge her on a surface both connections say is not the best of their horse?

Maybe Sampras would have challenged McEnroe on clay, wouldn't that be the same?

[classhandicapper]

Other than the very slim possibility of a 3-year-old classic winner campaigning and winning through the spring, summer and fall, was Rachel Alexandra's 2009 the last Grand (Semi-Grand?) Campaign we will see in American racing?

And, if so, where can I buy a stake to drive through the heart of the Breeders' Cup, which is an enabler to so many lily-livered *trainers?


*Trainers: Also known as "politicians, lawyers, stockbrokers, used car salesmen, mushroom growers"

I think if there is any downside to the Breeder's Cup it's that it has such enormous significance for breeding, HOTY honors, international prestige etc... (not to mention the big purses) that it has altered the way many horses are handled.

Many competent trainers that believe they have a potential BC horse design campaigns with the goal of making sure the horse is still fresh and able to fire a peak at the end of the year. That in turn means fewer starts, avoiding those really big challenges before fall, etc... It simply reinforces what has been going on all along anyway.

I think in order to get one of those really magnificent campaigns from the start of the year to the end you are going to have find an especially durable horse handled by an especially aggressive trainer that either doesn't care about having a peak horse for the BC, that has no intention of running in it, or that doesn't understand the downside risk of what he is doing.

[classhandicapper]

I have come to the point where I give them BOTH a pass, or not, simply because I expect neither trainer will agree to a scenario in which their horse is at a disadvantage, nor can I fault them for that. And so far, there IS no scenario that wouldn't impose that. whether it be surface, distance, shipping, timing, etc.

I think you summed it up perfectly.

It is their fiduciary responsibility to do what is in the best interests of the horse and ownership not to respond to the desires of forum malcontents.

There are very few scenarios that are fair to both because their primary surfaces are different, they have totally opposite running styles, are stabled 3000 miles away from each other, and there is no incentive to take on the other at any disadvantage.

That's why IMHO the best scenario is to meet in the Classic this year. It will be on dirt, but that will be offset by the 10F and the high probability that at least one colt one will create an honest pace for as talented a horse as RA because there are few fillies that can do that.

[Spalding No!]

There are very few scenarios that are fair to both because their primary surfaces are different, they have totally opposite running styles, are stabled 3000 miles away from each other, and there is no incentive to take on the other at any disadvantage.

That's why at the beginning of the year, there was talk about having a 2 or 3 race series of meetings between Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta. Clearly that's not going to happen now, but at the time it should have quelled the sort of excuses you just rattled off. You got 2 potentially great horses, great horses overcome obstacles, put them out there.

Honestly, I don't particularly blame Jess Jackson for his flip-flopping this year, his filly hasn't look the part this year. This is also the reason why the Rachel Alexandra-Zenyatta matchup (or matchups) are moot at this point. Maybe if Rachel Alexandra can rattle off another monstrous effort against better horses will it mean something again.

Team Zenyatta on the other hand, has ducked and dived on issues beyond facing Rachel Alexandra. They wanted to campaign her for fans throughout the country. They wanted to take on males. They wanted to travel. They wanted to do something different. Dare to dream.

That's why IMHO the best scenario is to meet in the Classic this year. It will be on dirt, but that will be offset by the 10F and the high probability that at least one colt one will create an honest pace for as talented a horse as RA because there are few fillies that can do that.

Awesome. So you want the race to be 10f and have a fast pace.

That doesn't favor either of the two, does it?

[redshift1]

redshift, I think I covered that in my post about tennis here:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71389

The greatest in tennis all comes down to what you are comparing them on: consistency, titles, grand slams, surface proficiency, versatility or dominance on one surface, time it took to rack up number of titles, and also, the problem of comparing across eras when training, equipment and so much stuff has changed.

when jess jackson proposed a 3 race series, ALL to take place on the surface his filly preferred, it would be no different than pitting Nadal, Federer, and Sampras against each other, but insisting it be on ONE surface that favors only one of them.

(I have always felt it to be an apt analogy, given there are 3 distinct surfaces in tennis, and each of the "greats" has a higher proficiency on one more than the others.)



And then we are back to Zen won't come east and Rachel won't come west, .:bang:


There are blogs, columns and forums completely devoted to Jess Jackson being a bad sport, and conversely, Jerry Moss being a bad sport, depending on how different people "see it."

I have come to the point where I give them BOTH a pass, or not, simply because I expect neither trainer will agree to a scenario in which their horse is at a disadvantage, nor can I fault them for that. And so far, there IS no scenario that wouldn't impose that. whether it be surface, distance, shipping, timing, etc.

If I remember correctly the East/West camps have bickered long before synthetics, looking through the PP's of historical champions many were campaigned primarily on one coast or the other.

[Pick6]

Other than the very slim possibility of a 3-year-old classic winner campaigning and winning through the spring, summer and fall, was Rachel Alexandra's 2009 the last Grand (Semi-Grand?) Campaign we will see in American racing?
RA did not campaign in the Fall of 2009.

[castaway01]

Other than the very slim possibility of a 3-year-old classic winner campaigning and winning through the spring, summer and fall, was Rachel Alexandra's 2009 the last Grand (Semi-Grand?) Campaign we will see in American racing?

And, if so, where can I buy a stake to drive through the heart of the Breeders' Cup, which is an enabler to so many lily-livered *trainers?


*Trainers: Also known as "politicians, lawyers, stockbrokers, used car salesmen, mushroom growers"

How could anyone possibly make that statement? Did anyone expect Rachel to do what she did before she did it last year? There won't be a ton of "grand campaigns", just by the definition of them, but of course there could be more.

[Robert Fischer]

It was a nice campaign, but moreso if it is considered that she was a Filly.

There are some nice horses world wide right now that are racing in multiple major multi-million dollar races in different countries. Some of those may be cherry-picked high purse events, while others are "classics".

[WinterTriangle]

Maybe Sampras would have challenged McEnroe on clay, wouldn't that be the same?

But it would solve nothing. CJ, the debate on the greatest tennis player is alive and well. :) And, like horseracing, it all depends on what criteria is used.

For me it goes beyond # of grand slam titles, beyond distributing successes on one surface, beyond statistics, trophies and awards, and quality of opposition on one or even multiple surfaces.
Because you have to consider their *game*. There is no number that measures those *killer cards* because it consists of intangibles.

Sampras' mental toughness---(what drove McEnroe crazy) unmeasurable, but like nothing I've ever seen. His unplayable serve. McEnroe on grass in his prime would have presented huge problems for Ferderer. Could Federer win against McEnroe in his prime? Perhaps, but NOT from the baseline.


I have never spoken to anyone who really understood the game, including jr. circuit players who play the game, who could tell you who was the greatest, nor who could compare across eras, with anymore than "an opinion" but even they admit it is open to interpretation.

I lean toward the flexible athete, whether it be horse or person. One who can develop whatever weapons are needed in order to win, and change their game depending on their competition and surface.

IMHO, Zenyatta has the aforementioned "intangibles" in spades. :) Try and quantify or reduce to a number, can't be done.