What will Zenyatta do after the Lady's Secret?

[andtheyreoff]

I refuse to call it the Zenyatta.

And vote so that it's not what you want Zenyatta to do, but what you think she will do. Important difference it is.

[bisket]

they have said the classic is the target for a few months now. i think when rachel never really looked as if she was going to be a serious player they just decided to stay home and be as ready as possible for the classic.

[joanied]

I think she goes in the Classic. If all stay healthy & sound, IMO, this Classic is going to be a barn burner...it will for sure be her toughest race to win. I get nervous just thinking about it...and she won't be the only one coming from way out of it...Blame, for one, will be right there with her.
I really wish they'd picked another spot for her instead of a race named for her...that is just too wierd :faint:

[OntheRail]

they have said the classic is the target for a few months now. i think when rachel never really looked as if she was going to be a serious player they just decided to stay home and be as ready as possible for the classic.

Well THEY said they were going to do allot of thing this year... and did not do them.

I have a gut feeling they don't run in the BC this year... Oh they may fly in to save face but she'll have a sniffle or the track won't be to their liking (DIRT :eek: ) when they scratch all the Zoonies will say they where looking out for the horse. She'll fly home run one more at Hollywood for # 20 and hang up the shoes. I've seen nothing from them this year that says we're looking to challenge our Mare.

[cj]

they have said the classic is the target for a few months now. i think when rachel never really looked as if she was going to be a serious player they just decided to stay home and be as ready as possible for the classic.

They have said a lot of things, but few have actually come to pass.

[classhandicapper]

I think whether she runs in the Classic or not is going to depend on how she looks in her next start. I'm hoping there's some pace in the race so we get a clearer picture of where she is this year relative to last year.

Her first start this year was against weak horses. She had an eventful trip and the Beyer figure was clearly inflated. She ran slower than it looks, but she had a lot more in the tank. I don't think we learned much in that race.

The Apple Blossom came up weak when everyone else decided to call in sick. She ran slow but again had a lot more in the tank. I don't think we learned much in that race.

She looked more like the old Zenyatta against At Trinians when she had to do her best through the stretch and found another gear in the last 16th to win going away very late carrying a huge weight load. It as a very good effort.

He last race was an extremely slow paced affair. She swept very wide into the hottest part of the race and came home well, but not her best. I don't think we learned much one way or the other. She ran slow but the pace was ridiculous.

I "think" I understand the difference between her now and in 2008. In 2008 she was a little more aggressive early even though she would drop way behind. It appears to me she's not running as efficiently during the first quarter as she did back then and is leaving herself more to do in the middle when the race picks up. As a result she's more vulnerable to slow paces (which she keeps finding and overcoming).

Whether that's Smith, the horse, the training, or circumstances I do not know. She showed that tendency a bit last year also and lots of people incorrectly concluded she was over the top and on her way out. But then she fired another peak in the Classic.

This is another year though. I tend to give her the benefit of the doubt because I haven't seen anything that definitively suggests she's not as good as before, but I haven't seen enough to be sure she is either.

[tzipi]

I think if she runs well and stays healthy,the connections will goto the Classic for sure.

[classhandicapper]

I think if she runs well and stays healthy,the connections will goto the Classic for sure.

What happens if Rachel loses next week or is not as impressive at 10F and they decide to go in the Ladies Classic?

I am not entirely convinced she has recovered her best form either.

She was almost certainly short in her first two starts.

Her 3rd race was much more impressive but I'm a bit more convinced now than I was before that she raced over a speed biased surface that day.

Her last race was good, but not the Rachel I remember from mast year.

You know what would be funny (or not)?

Suppose they both go in the Ladies Classic, neither is the horse they were last year, and they both get beat by one or more horses.

[bisket]

I think she goes in the Classic. If all stay healthy & sound, IMO, this Classic is going to be a barn burner...it will for sure be her toughest race to win. I get nervous just thinking about it...and she won't be the only one coming from way out of it...Blame, for one, will be right there with her.
I really wish they'd picked another spot for her instead of a race named for her...that is just too wierd :faint:
blame runs the same race as summer bird. the whitney didn't look much different than the jockey club last year. i think quality ran a similar race in both races, and blame won in a similar fashion that summer did. although the distances were different. i think blame transfers a similar race to 1 1/4 miles. zen is faster.

[joanied]

I didn't mention which horse was faster...but, yeah...Zenny sure seems to be faster...at any rate, though, they both can close some ground:)

[tzipi]

What happens if Rachel loses next week or is not as impressive at 10F and they decide to go in the Ladies Classic?

I am not entirely convinced she has recovered her best form either.

She was almost certainly short in her first two starts.

Her 3rd race was much more impressive but I'm a bit more convinced now than I was before that she raced over a speed biased surface that day.

Her last race was good, but not the Rachel I remember from mast year.

You know what would be funny (or not)?

Suppose they both go in the Ladies Classic, neither is the horse they were last year, and they both get beat by one or more horses.

My post was about Zen not Rachel. I was just answering the poll about what Zenyatta will do. We'll see how Rach runs Sunday.

[bane]

...little off topic but I am not a fan of D Wayne however I was glad to hear when he got Azari. Why? The reason being is if there is one thing he will do is race her, we finally got to see what she had.

Zenyatta schedule is a total the other direction, she rarly races and it's sad. Granted you want to keep a horse fresh but she could have fit more races in her.

When she does retire..again, I will say she was a great horse and it's shame we really never got to see what she could do. Personal Ensign was known for this as well (granted she was hurt in the middle) although she backed up her legacy as a broodmare. Hopefully Zenyatta does well as a broodmare because it still feels like we really never got to see her but you can always make the arguement that it's better to leave wanting more than seeing too much.

I would love to have seen her ship more or see The Mosses make a leap of faith (The Classic was a leap but being at didn't make that leap so big) and throw her in some conditions with some cloud of doubt to test her.

[Jasonm921]

The better question is if it rains do they show up? Also don't want to turn this into a RA v Zen thread but Life at Ten is the best filly that either one of these two have faced in the past two years.

[horses4courses]

I refuse to call it the Zenyatta.



I refuse to vote......... :p

[classhandicapper]

My post was about Zen not Rachel. I was just answering the poll about what Zenyatta will do. We'll see how Rach runs Sunday.

Where Zenyatta runs might depend on where Rachel runs.

If Rachel runs in the Classic I feel certain Z's connections would rather face her at 10F in a field loaded with Grade 1 quality males to keep the pace honest. So if Z's doing well, Rachel looks good Sunday and goes to the Classic, they will both go to the Classic.

If Rachel loses or doesn't look that good Sunday, IMO there's no way they are going to put Rachel in against colts in the Classic at 10F and watch her get trounced.

That changes things.

Do Z's connections try the extremely difficult spot and go for all time everlasting and unique glory but risk a sound defeat?

Do that rationalize the easier spot in the Ladies Classic by saying they want to run against Rachel?

Do they simply avoid Rachel at 9F against fillies because a loss there would be more devastating than a decent effort in the Classic?

[Edward DeVere]

If Rachel runs on BC weekend, I think Zenyatta runs against her.

Although I believe that if all the main contenders make both races, Zenyatta's connections will be EXTREMELY tempted to discover a previously unnoticed hangnail.

I don't think for a second that Shirreffs wants to go against Quality Road, Blame, Rail Trip and Looking At Lucky.

And I don't think he's too enthusiastic, either, about facing Blind Luck, Rachel Alexandra, Life At Ten and Devil May Care.

[horses4courses]

If Rachel runs on BC weekend, I think Zenyatta runs against her.

Although I believe that if all the main contenders make both races, Zenyatta's connections will be EXTREMELY tempted to discover a previously unnoticed hangnail.

I don't think for a second that Shirreffs wants to go against Quality Road, Blame, Rail Trip and Looking At Lucky.

And I don't think he's too enthusiastic, either, about facing Blind Luck, Rachel Alexandra, Life At Ten and Devil May Care.


If Zenyatta does not go to post for the 2010 BC Classic, she's at home in California snug in her stall.
Anything less would be a joke.

[ronsmac]

She really does look like a lock in the classic, especially with the long churchill downs stretch. We haven't seen a main track closer that can finish like her in such a long time. She'll probably swallow those horses up late.

[Hanover1]

If your gonna take your last shot....make it a good one. She's been eased along for just this moment.

[joanied]

Zen will be there in the gate for the Classic...and once she wins it again, everything else that came before (except last years Classic) will be a footnote...unless Rachel wins huge in the Personal Ensign, I have doubts they'll run her in the Classic...but if they both face the colts..wooooieee:jump:

[Hanover1]

Zen will be there in the gate for the Classic...and once she wins it again, everything else that came before (except last years Classic) will be a footnote...unless Rachel wins huge in the Personal Ensign, I have doubts they'll run her in the Classic...but if they both face the colts..wooooieee:jump:

Wonder what rhetoric we will here from all the critics if she pulls it off.....

[BluegrassProf]

Wonder what rhetoric we will here from all the critics if she pulls it off.....Not sure how many times the same thing can be repeated...it'll be the same as it ever was, at least from where I and many other sit: "Fantastic race. Shame she got robbed of any number of truly great accomplishments for three straight years in the pursuit of something just completely mundane. Ah, what could've been. Ah well, pass the gravy boat."

Ask again, phrasing it a hundred different ways, and the answer'll be the same. The notion that "everything else is a footnote" is absurd - it all matters, as it very well should. I think we've all got a heck of a lot more perspective than that.

[letswastemoney]

Wonder what rhetoric we will here from all the critics if she pulls it off.....
The criticism would go away.

The main argument is that she shouldn't be ranked ahead of a list full of dirt horses with 2 wins against short fields on dirt.

There are greatest turf horses. Then there are the greatest dirt horses.

Then there are polls where Zenyatta is somehow lumped with dirt horses even though the dynamics of dirt and synth racing are just not the same, just as turf and dirt racing are not the same either. That's why there are separate polls for greatest turf horses in America.

A comparison to Nashoba's Key, maybe the 2nd greatest synthetic horse ever, would be better than comparing Zenyatta to great dirt fillies/mares like Ruffian, Go For Wand, etc.

We don't know if Zenyatta would be undefeated if synthetic tracks didn't exist. Not everyone assumes she'd be undefeated and be considered the best female ever.

Winning the Classic on dirt though would remove all doubt.

[Hanover1]

Not sure how many times the same thing can be repeated...it'll be the same as it ever was, at least from where I and many other sit: "Fantastic race. Shame she got robbed of any number of truly great accomplishments for three straight years in the pursuit of something just completely mundane. Ah, what could've been. Ah well, pass the gravy boat."

Ask again, phrasing it a hundred different ways, and the answer'll be the same. The notion that "everything else is a footnote" is absurd - it all matters, as it very well should. I think we've all got a heck of a lot more perspective than that.

My take on the whole matter is simple. Connections are doing as they please, and are reaping the fruits. It is a time for them to savor, and rightly so. The choices they make are for them alone, and I am confident that thought is given to each scenario as it unfolds. They owe us nothing. All this talk of ducking is just perspective from the gallery. More power to them. What might have been or should have been, or should be, is just speculation. Its amusing to me actually. Laugh all the way to the bank boys.......

[BluegrassProf]

We don't know if Zenyatta would be undefeated if synthetic tracks didn't exist. Not everyone assumes she'd be undefeated and be considered the best female ever.

Winning the Classic on dirt though would remove all doubt.Good grief, I absolutely disagree. :D

If Zenyatta wins the Classic, it most certainly does NOT mean that we can just "assume she'd be undefeated" (let alone be consider her "the best female ever") - such an idea is fairly bizarre, and presumptive to an almost curious degree. A win in the BCC would mean only a couple of very simple but very specific things: it would mean that Zenyatta has the ability to win on dirt against difficult competition, and that she simply wasn't campaigned to her ability, robbing us of (perhaps) years of watching greatness challenged, made manifest, and overcoming. But the idea that, in the case of a win, we throw up arms and cry, "BESTEVAR!" is silly - we're so much more reasonable than that, and each come to the table with far more perspective. Yet again, the crisiticsm stays precisely where it is: "It's a shame they didn't let her give us more. What might have been..." Sadly, no BC washes that reality away, try as one might to fluff up a race.

Again (and again and again): a win would certainly remove many doubts re: Zenyatta's ability (not all doubts - no single race can do that, as we all well know). What it does not remove is what's been, and what clearly could've been; it has no bearing on Zenyatta's career over time, nor on what it may well have been had decisions and aspirations been different...and that's a very real shame.

Hanover: C'mon now...you and I both know it's not about "owing anyone anything" or blaming a horse for its campaign or any other silly damned thing; I've never understood those defenses...of course the connections can do whatever the heck they want, and that's just dandy; of course career decisions are not Zen's to make. But the above critique absolutely stands: "what might have been" is hardly immaterial, and simply undeniable - it's like trying to deny the tornado in the room - and at the end of the day, one has no bearing on the other. The fruits of these decisions are soured with questions of motive, and of considerable potential frittered away in pursuit of notably less lofty goals than what we'd all reasonably expect. And again, that's just fine - it's their decision, of course - but don't expect it to sit well with a.) those who want to truly see the greatness they keep talking about, or b.) those who have to sit through all that talking.

It IS most certainly a simple matter: we either award greatness by accomplishment over time, or by default and/or myopic foci; we either maintain standards of greatness, or we shift the paradigm in favor of something more pasteurized and with perhaps less sparkle. To each his/her own, I suppose.

[Hanover1]

Good grief, I absolutely disagree. :D

If Zenyatta wins the Classic, it most certainly does NOT mean that we can just "assume she'd be undefeated" (let alone be consider her "the best female ever") - such an idea is fairly bizarre, and presumptive to an almost curious degree. A win in the BCC would mean only a couple of very simple but very specific things: it would mean that Zenyatta has the ability to win on dirt against difficult competition, and that she simply wasn't campaigned to her ability, robbing us of (perhaps) years of watching greatness challenged, made manifest, and overcoming. But the idea that, in the case of a win, we throw up arms and cry, "BESTEVAR!" is silly - we're so much more reasonable than that, and each come to the table with far more perspective. Yet again, the crisiticsm stays precisely where it is: "It's a shame they didn't let her give us more. What might have been..." Sadly, no BC washes that reality away, try as one might to fluff up a race.

Again (and again and again): a win would certainly remove many doubts re: Zenyatta's ability (not all doubts - no single race can do that, as we all well know). What it does not remove is what's been, and what clearly could've been; it has no bearing on Zenyatta's career over time, nor on what it may well have been had decisions and aspirations been different...and that's a very real shame.

Hanover: C'mon now...you and I both know it's not about "owing anyone anything" or blaming a horse for its campaign or any other silly damned thing; I've never understood those defenses...of course the connections can do whatever the heck they want, and that's just dandy; of course career decisions are not Zen's to make. But the above critique absolutely stands: "what might have been" is hardly immaterial, and simply undeniable - it's like trying to deny the tornado in the room - and at the end of the day, one has no bearing on the other. The fruits of these decisions are soured with questions of motive, and of considerable potential frittered away in pursuit of notably less lofty goals than what we'd all reasonably expect. And again, that's just fine - it's their decision, of course - but don't expect it to sit well with a.) those who want to truly see the greatness they keep talking about, or b.) those who have to sit through all that talking.

It IS most certainly a simple matter: we either award greatness by accomplishment over time, or by default and/or myopic foci; we either maintain standards of greatness, or we shift the paradigm in favor of something more pasteurized and with perhaps less sparkle. To each his/her own, I suppose.

Soured in the eyes of the critics, but sweet to everyone involved with the mare. What WE expect IS meaningless. Armchair quarterbacks abound that have never played the game....I agree that had they tossed her on a van at every beck and call, she would probably be retired at this time, however that has not occured yet, and it is a direct reflection of the calls made thus far. Hard to critique a perfect record, yet there are those of us that will find flaws based on personal expectations. A case of outside looking in best describes this situation.

[keithw84]

I believe they will ship to CD. Surely the connections realize the "best ever" facade will fall if they don't even try to take on the best. Then again, I thought they would've realized how worthless her entire 2010 campaign has been so far at proving her true ability.

[Steve R]

Soured in the eyes of the critics, but sweet to everyone involved with the mare. What WE expect IS meaningless. Armchair quarterbacks abound that have never played the game....I agree that had they tossed her on a van at every beck and call, she would probably be retired at this time, however that has not occured yet, and it is a direct reflection of the calls made thus far. Hard to critique a perfect record, yet there are those of us that will find flaws based on personal expectations. A case of outside looking in best describes this situation.
Critiquing any record, perfect or otherwise, is not difficult if done in the context of how it was achieved. Alydar had a fine record (26 Starts: 14 - 9 - 1, $957,195), but had that identical record been achieved in the absence of Affirmed, Alydar would not be ranked anywhere near 27th among The Blood-Horse's top 100 of the 20th century. Races have names and grading designations, but those don't tell you anything about about the quality of any particular edition. Certainly there have been G1s unworthy of graded status and, on occasion, unlisted races worthy of G1 status. "X" wins in a row or "Y" G1 wins in a career does tell you something about Zenyatta, but probably not any more than the lifetime earnings record tells you about Curlin, a very nice but not great horse by any reasonable measure. I've been watching racing for half a century and been an owner from time to time. Having seen such as Secretariat, Dr. Fager, Damascus, Shuvee and Spectacular Bid race live, I simply can't rate Zenyatta anywhere near great. But that's just my opinion and differences of opinion are part of what makes racing so fascinating.

[FenceBored]

Soured in the eyes of the critics, but sweet to everyone involved with the mare. What WE expect IS meaningless. Armchair quarterbacks abound that have never played the game....I agree that had they tossed her on a van at every beck and call, she would probably be retired at this time, however that has not occured yet, and it is a direct reflection of the calls made thus far. Hard to critique a perfect record, yet there are those of us that will find flaws based on personal expectations. A case of outside looking in best describes this situation.

Of course, "it's sweet to everyone involved with the mare." Has anyone suggested that it isn't? No doubt Happy Ticket's success was sweet to Stewart Madison and everyone else invovled with her. The Funny Cide folks would certainly rate that whole rollercoaster ride as sweet. Have the Taylors ever hinted that owning Seattle Slew was a burden they would just as soon not have had?

[classhandicapper]

A comparison to Nashoba's Key, maybe the 2nd greatest synthetic horse ever, would be better than comparing Zenyatta to great dirt fillies/mares like Ruffian, Go For Wand, etc.



I agree, unless the attempt is to compare horses on a relative basis at their respective specialty.

I assume you mean 2nd greatest synthetic mare when you refer to Nashoba's Key?

I'm glad you brought her up because she was excellent and verified her synthetic form with a terrific effort on the BC on turf despite a rough trip and racing on the bad part of the course.

I also think the general impression that Hysterical Lady was a much better dirt horse came about in part because she lost to Nashoba's Key twice without properly considering the possibility that horses like Nahsoba's Key and Balance were damn good horses. (of course the speed figures are not comparable and that's the other reason these horses are underrated)

[Dahoss9698]

I also think the general impression that Hysterical Lady was a much better dirt horse came about in part because she lost to Nashoba's Key twice without properly considering the possibility that horses like Nahsoba's Key and Balance were damn good horses. (of course the speed figures are not comparable and that's the other reason these horses are underrated)

Or that impression came about because she was indeed a much better dirt horse. Her form validated this.

[classhandicapper]

Or that impression came about because she was indeed a much better dirt horse. Her form validated this.

That's the conventional wisdom but as often the case in these synthetic/dirt comparisons I disagree with conventional wisdom.

IMO she was only marginally better on dirt.

First numerically and then non numerically:

In only 6 starts on synthetic her top Beyers were 104 and 102.

In 17 starts on dirt her top Beyers were 110, 108 and 107, but she also had some lower figures.

The 102 on synth came against Zenyatta and followed a 103 against weaker on dirt. The 104 on synth came against Nashoba's Key and followed a 108 on dirt in strong field. Not much difference in back to back races when in form.

By randomness alone you'd expect more tops on dirt because she had more opportunities to run on it. But if you adjust the synthetic figures up for the norms on each surface (as Beyer subsequently did when he realized the problem with synthetic/dirt comparisons) there's is an even smaller difference.

A closer look at her non numeric form reveals that 3 of her losses on synthetic tracks came against Nashoba's Key and Zenyatta (two extraordinary synthetic mares) where she ran quite well in defeat.

A 4th loss came in the Ladies Classic that Zenyatta won. That was a very deep edition of the LC where she was 17-1 behind some very good fillies and mares. In that race they tried to rate her because the track was not favoring her style. She finished mid pack, but ahead of the other speeds. She finished where she figured to finish.

One loss was a dreadful performance in a sprint at 7F, but it was in her first start of the year after a layoff. Subsequent races on dirt and synthetic revealed she was a very short horse at that time. She slowly rounded into her best form later in the year on both dirt and synthetic.

The other loss was tough nose loss to Tough Tiz's Sis in a slow paced and slow figure affair in which she was rated on the lead and out gamed late despite finishing very strongly and in very good time. It wasn't a great effort on the surface, but it was good and typical of slow paced synthetic affairs. Tough Tiz's Sis was pretty good mare that ran well against Zenyatta on a few occasions and if memory serves me correctly, ran huge when she was shipped east.

Most people's opinions in these comparisons are based on figures that are not comparable across surfaces, an under appreciation of the fact that paces are slower and margins much tighter on synthetics, and by an under appreciation of CA horse that have tended to do very well when easterners shipped in and even better when they ship east to face the best there.

Put a gun to my head and I'd rather have Hysterical Ladies's speed on dirt. But remove Zenyatta and Nashoba's Key from the picture, adjust the figures etc... and I think she'd look very good on synthetic also.

As was the case last time, we'll have agree to disagree. ;)

[Hanover1]

Critiquing any record, perfect or otherwise, is not difficult if done in the context of how it was achieved. Alydar had a fine record (26 Starts: 14 - 9 - 1, $957,195), but had that identical record been achieved in the absence of Affirmed, Alydar would not be ranked anywhere near 27th among The Blood-Horse's top 100 of the 20th century. Races have names and grading designations, but those don't tell you anything about about the quality of any particular edition. Certainly there have been G1s unworthy of graded status and, on occasion, unlisted races worthy of G1 status. "X" wins in a row or "Y" G1 wins in a career does tell you something about Zenyatta, but probably not any more than the lifetime earnings record tells you about Curlin, a very nice but not great horse by any reasonable measure. I've been watching racing for half a century and been an owner from time to time. Having seen such as Secretariat, Dr. Fager, Damascus, Shuvee and Spectacular Bid race live, I simply can't rate Zenyatta anywhere near great. But that's just my opinion and differences of opinion are part of what makes racing so fascinating.

I myself have spent over 5 decades in the shed alone, and have owned a slice of the pie on occasion. Have trained some great trotters and pacers, and have dabbled in flats awhile as well. My experience as a trainer, and with an eye on how they go that is tuned to performance, I rate this mare quite highly on my list of greats-does it easy, and has a HUGE stride by measurement standards, combined with near flawless conformation where it counts most. Very efficient, easy way of going, while getting the job done. As we like to say: She does it easy......and that means tons. Let her take the BC again, and lets continue to critique the mare. I will once again be amused.

[Steve R]

I myself have spent over 5 decades in the shed alone, and have owned a slice of the pie on occasion. Have trained some great trotters and pacers, and have dabbled in flats awhile as well. My experience as a trainer, and with an eye on how they go that is tuned to performance, I rate this mare quite highly on my list of greats-does it easy, and has a HUGE stride by measurement standards, combined with near flawless conformation where it counts most. Very efficient, easy way of going, while getting the job done. As we like to say: She does it easy......and that means tons. Let her take the BC again, and lets continue to critique the mare. I will once again be amused.
Everyone applies their own criteria for greatness. Doing it easily with a long stride, an efficient way of going and top conformation is fine. Personally, I don't think she is fast enough to be included among the greats. Peppers Pride went undefeated even though incapable of running fast. Zenyatta runs much faster than that but still well below historical standards of greatness. It is virtually impossible to find an acknowledged "great" that didn't often run in or near record times. I've always found it interesting that world-class human runners (and swimmers, too) always have records in addition to winning as a primary goal. For reasons I don't quite get, many horseplayers couldn't care less about how fast a horse runs just as long as it wins. That's their preference, not mine. OTOH, if Zenyatta wins the BC Classic at CD in 1:59 and change while beating all the G1 three-year-olds and up by open lengths I'll jump right on board. I'd like to see at least one "performance for the ages" before she hangs it up. And, if she loses fair and square against the kind of ordinary handicappers running these days, I hope we won't be subjected to a barrage of excuses.

[Hanover1]

Everyone applies their own criteria for greatness. Doing it easily with a long stride, an efficient way of going and top conformation is fine. Personally, I don't think she is fast enough to be included among the greats. Peppers Pride went undefeated even though incapable of running fast. Zenyatta runs much faster than that but still well below historical standards of greatness. It is virtually impossible to find an acknowledged "great" that didn't often run in or near record times. I've always found it interesting that world-class human runners (and swimmers, too) always have records in addition to winning as a primary goal. For reasons I don't quite get, many horseplayers couldn't care less about how fast a horse runs just as long as it wins. That's their preference, not mine. OTOH, if Zenyatta wins the BC Classic at CD in 1:59 and change while beating all the G1 three-year-olds and up by open lengths I'll jump right on board. I'd like to see at least one "performance for the ages" before she hangs it up. And, if she loses fair and square against the kind of ordinary handicappers running these days, I hope we won't be subjected to a barrage of excuses.

There will be a ton of excuses if she loses, to be sure, but I prefer that it was because she just gets outran, sans the wizardry we often read about when expounding upon a race that has already been ran. Beyers, Sarin, biases and bumbles, keeping it simple arrives at the end much easier for me. Of course we have fun with the nuances of the pace scenarios, but in her case, I don't think we have seen the bottom yet imo, and IF (large if at this point) she pulls a BC outta the hat yet again, we may never see the bottom. Fast enough to win always worked for me. Since she's not a free runner like so many other greats of the past (give them their head and hang on), its a remarkable run to this point given that deep closers have more to overcome than worrying who is behind them. A win is a win, is a win.

[Dahoss9698]

That's the conventional wisdom but as often the case in these synthetic/dirt comparisons I disagree with conventional wisdom.

IMO she was only marginally better on dirt.

First numerically and then non numerically:

In only 6 starts on synthetic her top Beyers were 104 and 102.

In 17 starts on dirt her top Beyers were 110, 108 and 107, but she also had some lower figures.

The 102 on synth came against Zenyatta and followed a 103 against weaker on dirt. The 104 on synth came against Nashoba's Key and followed a 108 on dirt in strong field. Not much difference in back to back races when in form.

By randomness alone you'd expect more tops on dirt because she had more opportunities to run on it. But if you adjust the synthetic figures up for the norms on each surface (as Beyer subsequently did when he realized the problem with synthetic/dirt comparisons) there's is an even smaller difference.

A closer look at her non numeric form reveals that 3 of her losses on synthetic tracks came against Nashoba's Key and Zenyatta (two extraordinary synthetic mares) where she ran quite well in defeat.

A 4th loss came in the Ladies Classic that Zenyatta won. That was a very deep edition of the LC where she was 17-1 behind some very good fillies and mares. In that race they tried to rate her because the track was not favoring her style. She finished mid pack, but ahead of the other speeds. She finished where she figured to finish.

One loss was a dreadful performance in a sprint at 7F, but it was in her first start of the year after a layoff. Subsequent races on dirt and synthetic revealed she was a very short horse at that time. She slowly rounded into her best form later in the year on both dirt and synthetic.

The other loss was tough nose loss to Tough Tiz's Sis in a slow paced and slow figure affair in which she was rated on the lead and out gamed late despite finishing very strongly and in very good time. It wasn't a great effort on the surface, but it was good and typical of slow paced synthetic affairs. Tough Tiz's Sis was pretty good mare that ran well against Zenyatta on a few occasions and if memory serves me correctly, ran huge when she was shipped east.

Most people's opinions in these comparisons are based on figures that are not comparable across surfaces, an under appreciation of the fact that paces are slower and margins much tighter on synthetics, and by an under appreciation of CA horse that have tended to do very well when easterners shipped in and even better when they ship east to face the best there.

Put a gun to my head and I'd rather have Hysterical Ladies's speed on dirt. But remove Zenyatta and Nashoba's Key from the picture, adjust the figures etc... and I think she'd look very good on synthetic also.

As was the case last time, we'll have agree to disagree. ;)

As was the case last time, your entire arguement seems to be based more on what if's than actual facts.

For the record Hystericalady made 23 lifetime starts. On synthetics she was 0 for 6. On dirt she won 11 of 17 starts.

Tough Tiz's Sis was a mediocre filly that freaked one time in the mud at Belmont in an extremely weak race.

It's too bad Hystericalady didn't run in the Apple Blossom in 2008. She would have beaten Zenyatta on dirt.

[thaskalos]

It's too bad Hystericalady didn't run in the Apple Blossom in 2008. She would have beaten Zenyatta on dirt.My natural inclination is to argue with you on this...but - after your performance against Only11 - I am reluctant to get into a handicapping argument with you.

[Dahoss9698]

My natural inclination is to argue with you on this...but - after your performance against Only11 - I am reluctant to get into a handicapping argument with you.

At the very least it would have been a good race. I'm not saying Hystericalady would have beaten her every time. but she would have gotten her at least once on dirt.

[cj]

My natural inclination is to argue with you on this...but - after your performance against Only11 - I am reluctant to get into a handicapping argument with you.

I warned you.

[classhandicapper]

As was the case last time, your entire arguement seems to be based more on what if's than actual facts.

For the record Hystericalady made 23 lifetime starts. On synthetics she was 0 for 6. On dirt she won 11 of 17 starts.

Tough Tiz's Sis was a mediocre filly that freaked one time in the mud at Belmont in an extremely weak race.

It's too bad Hystericalady didn't run in the Apple Blossom in 2008. She would have beaten Zenyatta on dirt.

My argument is based on the evidence any good handicapper with an understanding of both surfaces and the associated speed figure/margin issues would use in a subjective analysis of her performances (but including more objective speed figure data).

There is a relationship between a horse's record on a surface and its ability, but then again Alydar had a much better record when Affirmed wasn't in the race without it meaning anything. So I guess that idea has some issues.

She was better on dirt but not by much.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree, as handicapper often do.

[Dahoss9698]

My argument is based on the evidence any good handicapper with an understanding of both surfaces and the associated speed figure/margin issues would use in a subjective analysis of her performances (but including more objective speed figure data).

There is a relationship between a horse's record on a surface and its ability, but then again Alydar had a much better record when Affirmed wasn't in the race without it meaning anything. So I guess that idea has some issues.

She was better on dirt but not by much.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree, as handicapper often do.

Again, you are the one discussing figures, I am not. Your arguement seems to be "delete the names Zenyatta and Nashoba's Key and look at her record." Any good handicapper with an understanding of surfaces knows you just can't do that.

Hystericalady is the classic example of a horse that was hampered by running on synth. A comparison of her races on dirt and synthetic really hammers this point home. I'm glad some want to fight this. Creates more opportunities for those who get it.

[DeanT]

I have been out of the Zenyatta news cycle loop for a bit lately. Forgive me if this has been mentioned.

I notice on the TC site a couple of commenters were not thrilled with the way Z looked and say they have concern.

http://www.thoroughbredchampionshipinsider.com/tci-closer-look-bc-ladies-classic/1809/

Anybody else heard or read anything on this, or watched her themselves after her last race?

[cj]

I have been out of the Zenyatta news cycle loop for a bit lately. Forgive me if this has been mentioned.

I notice on the TC site a couple of commenters were not thrilled with the way Z looked and say they have concern.

http://www.thoroughbredchampionshipinsider.com/tci-closer-look-bc-ladies-classic/1809/

Anybody else heard or read anything on this, or watched her themselves after her last race?

I've been saying it for a few months. She just doesn't look the same to me.

[DeanT]

I agree, but I have seen her look dog tired after her races, and that she seems to have a little less pop in them to me. I just have never seen her take a sore step, so the soreness comments kind of surprised me.

[PaceAdvantage]

She's nowhere near as good as her hype...or if she is, she has yet to actually prove it on the track against the BEST currently in training ON THEIR SURFACE.

She didn't face any monster synthetic horses in the BC Classic, but she did face dirt and turf horses who were NOT running on THEIR BEST SURFACE.

Thus, she has never faced the BEST OUT THERE on THEIR BEST surface, so how can anyone come to any type of conclusion about Zenyatta?

The factual evidence we DO have still points to her being rather slow for a supposed all-time great, but fortunate to run against slugs and/or horses hampered by the surface.

It's unfortunate that as the time fast approaches where she WILL be facing the BEST OUT THERE on THEIR preferred surface (BC Classic @ Churchill), we are starting to hear these anecdotal reports of her "not being what she once was," whatever that means...

I guess that will be the excuse should she lose...or perhaps her connections will retire her soon and attempt to retain the inflated glory for all time.

[classhandicapper]

Again, you are the one discussing figures, I am not. Your arguement seems to be "delete the names Zenyatta and Nashoba's Key and look at her record." Any good handicapper with an understanding of surfaces knows you just can't do that.

Hystericalady is the classic example of a horse that was hampered by running on synth. A comparison of her races on dirt and synthetic really hammers this point home. I'm glad some want to fight this. Creates more opportunities for those who get it.

I am looking at figures because they are objective evidence of the quality of a division, specific race, etc...

However, everyone that makes figures agrees that synthetic figures (just like turf figures) are compressed and thus lower at the top of the scale than dirt. So you need to consider that when you use them. The details of any figure can also be debated because of the impact of extreme paces, trips, bias, accuracy issues etc...

On that objective basis, IMO she was mildly better on dirt (probably because her speed was more valuable on dirt), but it was a narrow difference.

I am not saying you can simply delete the names of Zenyatta and Nashoba's Key to get a line on Hysterical Lady. I am saying that they are two best of the synthetic mares we've seen and even their biggest critics acknowledge their quality on that surface. It's difficult to compile a good record when 4 of 6 of your starts on that surface were against the two best mares that ever raced on that surface. IMO a deeper look at the quality of those races and her performances within them would lead one to a similar conclusion as the speed figures, but you have to understand the nuances of the surface and how that impacts margins and race developments etc.... IMO her speed wasn't as valuable on synthetic tracks, but she was still very good on that surface.

You are free to reject the objective evidence and my more subjective interpretations of individual races and I'll be happy to compete against you at the windows too.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

She's 6.

She's a huge mare which usually leads to loss of longevity due to most big horses being hard on themselves.

The thought that she could possibly hold her form this long coupled with the fact she wins every race she's in is just incredible.

Maybe when she's 9, she can fire a career best number.

[classhandicapper]

I have been out of the Zenyatta news cycle loop for a bit lately. Forgive me if this has been mentioned.

I notice on the TC site a couple of commenters were not thrilled with the way Z looked and say they have concern.

http://www.thoroughbredchampionshipinsider.com/tci-closer-look-bc-ladies-classic/1809/

Anybody else heard or read anything on this, or watched her themselves after her last race?

Any time the calendar turns, you never know if you are going to get back the same horse the following year.

I can tell you this. She hasn't been working as fast this year as she has in prior years when she fired some of her biggest races. There were also stories of her not looking right before the the St Trinians race. That was one reason I thought she might be a little vulnerable to St Trinians (who I thought was underrated at the time).

The complication with synthetic racing is that very slow paces are fairly common and they compromise the final times of races (especially for this horse because she's a deep closer.) That makes it difficult to evaluate where she is at any given time.

Many thought she was losing a step last year because of two slow races in very slow paced races, but then she ran a new top in the Classic that others foresaw coming.

Right now I think it virtually impossible to tell where she is.

She's had four starts.

Two were in very weak fields where she won with plenty in reserve. One was in a ridiculously slow paced race that IMO is borderline indecipherable, and the other was a good performance carrying 129 against St Trinians where she finished as well as I have ever seen, but didn't duplicate her best figs.

My view is that there is some risk that she's now over the top and past her peak, but I don't think there is clear evidence of that. It's a risk.

[classhandicapper]

She's nowhere near as good as her hype...or if she is, she has yet to actually prove it on the track against the BEST currently in training ON THEIR SURFACE.

She didn't face any monster synthetic horses in the BC Classic, but she did face dirt and turf horses who were NOT running on THEIR BEST SURFACE.

Thus, she has never faced the BEST OUT THERE on THEIR BEST surface, so how can anyone come to any type of conclusion about Zenyatta?

The factual evidence we DO have still points to her being rather slow for a supposed all-time great, but fortunate to run against slugs and/or horses hampered by the surface.

It's unfortunate that as the time fast approaches where she WILL be facing the BEST OUT THERE on THEIR preferred surface (BC Classic @ Churchill), we are starting to hear these anecdotal reports of her "not being what she once was," whatever that means...

I guess that will be the excuse should she lose...or perhaps her connections will retire her soon and attempt to retain the inflated glory for all time.

You should at least clarify this by saying you choose to ignore the mountains of objective data and subjective analysis I have provided that demonstrates that many of her competitors not only were equal on synthetic, but actually preferred it.

[BluegrassProf]

She's nowhere near as good as her hype...or if she is, she has yet to actually prove it on the track against the BEST currently in training ON THEIR SURFACE.

She didn't face any monster synthetic horses in the BC Classic, but she did face dirt and turf horses who were NOT running on THEIR BEST SURFACE.

Thus, she has never faced the BEST OUT THERE on THEIR BEST surface, so how can anyone come to any type of conclusion about Zenyatta?

The factual evidence we DO have still points to her being rather slow for a supposed all-time great, but fortunate to run against slugs and/or horses hampered by the surface.

It's unfortunate that as the time fast approaches where she WILL be facing the BEST OUT THERE on THEIR preferred surface (BC Classic @ Churchill), we are starting to hear these anecdotal reports of her "not being what she once was," whatever that means...

I guess that will be the excuse should she lose...or perhaps her connections will retire her soon and attempt to retain the inflated glory for all time.And again, I feel compelled to reiterate: as fantastic as a Zen win in the Classic would be, were it to come to pass, we're still talking about one single race. That's not a "downgrading of ability" or "hatin'" or any other ridiculous damned thing one of these nutters might toos my way; it's a plain, simple, clear as day fact.

The complexion of this year's BCC is such that it stands absolutely alone in Zenyatta's career, wherein she'd be facing the best on their preferred surface. Thrilling as a win might be, in my estimation - and this is entirely irrespective of the horse in question - a single race does not greatness endow. Never has, never will, never should.

Make no mistake: it'd perhaps tell us something about Zenyatta's abilities on dirt, but further than that - though the race itself might be great - is little more than arbitrary, an exercise in rhetorical ex post facto labeling and short memories. The tangible reality of record is simply grossly insufficient, and that's a real shame.

[classhandicapper]

Here's another opinion that's consistent with my views on synthetic/dirt/turf comparisons.

Rail Trip has campaigned exclusively on synthetic tracks in CA. His form has been the model of consistency 12-8-3-1.

Since he reached his best stride, his Beyer figures have fluctuated from a lowly 98 and 100 to a 111 (one of the highest ever earned in a route on a synthetic track and not bad for a dirt horse either). His last figure was a 100.

I am essentially clueless as to whether Rail Trip will like dirt as much as he likes synthetic. Predicting surface preference is one area of the game where I know I don't have a strong opinion. However, I will say I think Rail Trip is one of the best horses in the country on a relative basis (despite those lowly 98 and 100 figs) and may be every bit as good or better than Blame, Quality Road, and Musket Man etc... I think if he handles the dirt, he will regularly run figures near the top of his synthetic range and will eventually run a new top. He could very well even be the horse to beat in the Classic. Dirt is a big question mark, but I feel certain this a very good horse.

[classhandicapper]

And again, I feel compelled to reiterate: as fantastic as a Zen win in the Classic would be, were it to come to pass, we're still talking about one single race. That's not a "downgrading of ability" or "hatin'" or any other ridiculous damned thing one of these nutters might toos my way; it's a plain, simple, clear as day fact.

The complexion of this year's BCC is such that it stands absolutely alone in Zenyatta's career, wherein she'd be facing the best on their preferred surface. Thrilling as a win might be, in my estimation - and this is entirely irrespective of the horse in question - a single race does not greatness endow. Never has, never will, never should.

Make no mistake: it'd perhaps tell us something about Zenyatta's abilities on dirt, but further than that - though the race itself might be great - is little more than arbitrary, an exercise in rhetorical ex post facto labeling and short memories. The tangible reality of record is simply grossly insufficient, and that's a real shame.

If you are talking specifically about all time greatness on dirt relative to colts, I agree with you.

But you seem to be totally disregarding the fact that she's a mare. No mare in history has won the Classic on dirt. All the modern greats beat up on their own sex (including in many weak spots), 3YOs, or selectively tried older males when they could find a good spot. Others never even tried. In fact, Bayakoa, Personal Ensign, Go for Wand and quite a few other all time great fillies/mares were never even in consideration for the Classic. It was considered an almost preposterous idea. A win in the Classic (which I consider unlikely) would be an almost legendary accomplishment for a mare, especially in light of the rest of her career.

[Dahoss9698]

You are free to reject the objective evidence and my more subjective interpretations of individual races and I'll be happy to compete against you at the windows too.

This is essentially the crux of your entire arguement. Next time, save everyone the time of yet another long winded, self serving post and just say this.

Apparently your take is correct, because in your mind you offer up subjective interpretations. If someone sees it a different way, they are rejecting objective evidence. Good to know.

[classhandicapper]

This is essentially the crux of your entire arguement. Next time, save everyone the time of yet another long winded, self serving post and just say this.

Apparently your take is correct, because in your mind you offer up subjective interpretations. If someone sees it a different way, they are rejecting objective evidence. Good to know.

Quite the contrary the very reason I also offered objective data like figures and the well understood issues with the comparing dirt and synthetic numbers was because subjective comparisons are so difficult to assess. When it comes to subjective things, at best, all you can do is shoot some holes in the thinking (which I did when it came to record).

It's you that chooses to reject the objective data also.

I am fine with that. So let's move on.

[Dahoss9698]

Quite the contrary the very reason I also offered objective data like figures and the well understood issues with the comparing dirt and synthetic numbers was because subjective comparisons are so difficult to assess. When it comes to subjective things, at best, all you can do is shoot some holes in the thinking (which I did when it came to record).

It's you that chooses to reject the objective data also.

I am fine with that. So let's move on.


As long as you are backing your misunderstandings up at the window all is well here. Yes, let's move on.

[cj]

Quite the contrary the very reason I also offered objective data like figures and the well understood issues with the comparing dirt and synthetic numbers was because subjective comparisons are so difficult to assess. When it comes to subjective things, at best, all you can do is shoot some holes in the thinking (which I did when it came to record).

It's you that chooses to reject the objective data also.

I am fine with that. So let's move on.

It seems a little odd to keep mentioning his betting when he just demolished another guy with a very impressive ROI over 120 races.

[classhandicapper]

As long as you are backing your misunderstandings up at the window all is well here. Yes, let's move on.

My supposed misunderstandings keep leading to profits and fairly accurate projections of future figures when versatile horses switch surfaces. So I am quite comfortable with them. But I'm not so arrogant to think that I can't learn from other people.

[Dahoss9698]

My supposed misunderstandings keep leading to profits and fairly accurate projections of future figures when versatile horses switch surfaces. So I am quite comfortable with them. But I'm not so arrogant to think that I can't learn from other people.

So much for moving on.

[BluegrassProf]

If you are talking specifically about all time greatness on dirt relative to colts, I agree with you.

But you seem to be totally disregarding the fact that she's a mare. No mare in history has won the Classic on dirt. All the modern greats beat up on their own sex (including in many weak spots), 3YOs, or selectively tried older males when they could find a good spot. Others never even tried. In fact, Bayakoa, Personal Ensign, Go for Wand and quite a few other all time great fillies/mares were never even in consideration for the Classic. It was considered an almost preposterous idea. A win in the Classic (which I consider unlikely) would be an almost legendary accomplishment for a mare, especially in light of the rest of her career.Nossir, for almost the hundred-thousandth time, I'm not disregarding what's represented by a potential BCC win. It'd be a spectacular, historic victory; it'd be written in the damned stars. But rest assured: no matter what sorts of ridiculous hype you see thrown around, no matter what banners and bobbles might say, no matter what the zealots and horseyheads demand, no single race is a test of greatness. Not now, not ever.

The issue at hand makes the race no less historic (or at least potentially-so) - but for the record: a single race does not greatness endow. This is particularly true in the case sub judice, where context most certainly matters.

Now, make no mistake, a single race couched within a particularly historic campaign could be considered a "test of greatness" (based on all sorts of variables), but that's certainly a non-issue in this case; we've seen middling from A to Y, and a big ol' Z isn't making all those letters disappear. What's important is context, and on this note, given your comment here:...especially in light of the rest of her careerwe'll simply have to agree to disagree to the point of virtual hilarity. And ya know what? That's a-ok. ;)

[thaskalos]

Nossir, for almost the hundred-thousandth time, I'm not disregarding what's represented by a potential BCC win. It'd be a spectacular, historic victory; it'd be written in the damned stars. But rest assured: no matter what sorts of ridiculous hype you see thrown around, no matter what banners and bobbles might say, no matter what the zealots and horseyheads demand, no single race is a test of greatness. Not now, not ever.

The issue at hand makes the race no less historic (or at least potentially-so) - but for the record: a single race does not greatness endow. This is particularly true in the case sub judice, where context most certainly matters.

Now, make no mistake, a single race couched within a particularly historic campaign could be considered a "test of greatness" (based on all sorts of variables), but that's certainly a non-issue in this case; we've seen middling from A to Y, and a big ol' Z isn't making all those letters disappear. What's important is context, and on this note, given your comment here:we'll simply have to agree to disagree to the point of virtual hilarity. :DHow would YOU define a "great" mare, Professor?

Let's assume that Zenyatta wins the BC Classic, in impressive fashion...and earns a "Beyer" of 115 in the process.

Yes...she lacks the resume to be included among the immortals of the sport...but where should she rate among the great mares in this country's history?

I agree with you that one or two great races, do not a great career make...but haven't ALL of our sport's great mares taken very selective "shots" at their male counterparts?

The big argument against Zenyatta is the fact that she has remained almost exclusively on the dreaded "plastic" surface. People have questioned her ability on the dirt...against "top" male competition.

Won't an impressive win, in fast time, in the BC Classic, establish that she is equally adept on the dirt?

Two BC Classic victories, on two different surfaces, one of which would be on the dirt, against unquestionably the best horses this country currently has to offer...on top of an undefeated lifetime campaign.

What more does a mare have to do, in order to establish herself as the best of her kind?

[BluegrassProf]

What more does a mare have to do, to establish herself as the best of her kind?Why bother to ask a question to which the answer is as plain as day? Plain, plain, plain, man. Talked about into the earth, summarized and extrapolated and everything in between. In very short:

Run outside of California and on something other than synthetics. Run against top-level competition. And by gawd, do it with a least a fraction of the consistency your talent might well justify.

Give us a season - even part of a season, for cryin' out loud - to hang our historic hats on. But hey, it's neither here nor there...that ship has sailed. The record is what it is; the time-honed racing annuls will no doubt take care of the legacy it's sure to inspire.

If you want to award greatness by ex post facto default (e.g. "she wins on dirt in the BCC after a cupcakey campaign so, by default, she'd regularly win on dirt no matter how difficult the campaign"), that's just dandy, big guy; by all means, have at it...it's not my place.

Don't expect it from me, not for one second. Greatness - true, historic greatness - is awarded by actions alone, not by inferrences. And that's how it'll very likely stay.

[thaskalos]

If an impressive victory by Zenyatta in the BC Classic - against THIS year's field - is not enough to impress you (I believe you said that you would be 3% impressed, in another thread)...then, IMO, your criticism of her is grossly unfair.

The "Greats" of our sport, should not be such an exclusive club, as to exclude a horse like Zenyatta...if she wins this year's Classic.

[PaceAdvantage]

You should at least clarify this by saying you choose to ignore the mountains of objective data and subjective analysis I have provided that demonstrates that many of her competitors not only were equal on synthetic, but actually preferred it.Many of her competitors, sure, I agree. But I specifically qualified my comments by saying the BEST OUT THERE, meaning the best horse or horses in training at the moment.

One of the keys to immortality for a mare is beating the very best (usually males) around, and since the advent of synthetics, another qualifier must be thrown into the mix - on their PREFERRED surface.

Has this ever happened in Zenyatta's case? I believe the answer to that question is no.

Only one time has Zenyatta faced the best horses in training...the 2009 Breeders' Cup Classic. Yes, she won the race, but the two or three best horses in the race (Gio Ponti, Summer Bird & Rip Van Winkle) were all not running on the surface that was responsible for making them some of THE BEST horses in the land.

It's really that simple. No speed figures necessary.

[PaceAdvantage]

If an impressive victory by Zenyatta in the BC Classic - against THIS year's field - is not enough to impress you (I believe you said that you would be 3% impressed, in another thread)...then, IMO, your criticism of her is grossly unfair.

The "Greats" of our sport, should not be such an exclusive club, as to exclude a horse like Zenyatta...if she wins this year's Classic.No doubt I will be much more impressed than our good Professor friend here...whatever that's worth...

[thaskalos]

No doubt I will be much more impressed than our good Professor friend here...whatever that's worth...The Professor is obviously not easily impressed.

I weep for his students...:)

[BluegrassProf]

If an impressive victory by Zenyatta in the BC Classic - against THIS year's field - is not enough to impress you (I believe you said that you would be 3% impressed, in another thread)...then, IMO, your criticism of her is grossly unfair.

The "Greats" of our sport, should not be such an exclusive club, as to exclude a horse like Zenyatta...if she wins this year's Classic.The previous comment was made in the context of the same discussion we're having here (re: greatness vs. the win itself, specifically as a climax of the uninspired the season at hand) - yet again, as it always somehow seems to, context matters. And even then, I apologized for my insensible hyperbole...for the hundred-and-one-thousandth time, a win in the BC....... ;)

My criticisms are perfectly valid, as you know they are, and echoed by a significant many (even right here on ol' PA). I'm far from alone on this island...your disagreement hardly invalidates them, and hardly delegitimizes those who critique the obvious. Disagree and carry on.

Any "club of greatness" is exclusive by design, and by necessity...to think otherwise defeats the purpose inherent in that classification. It happens to be that the doorman at our club takes into account both a.) hundreds of years of racing and the perspective those years provide, and b.) the various factors - competition, travel, record, etc. - relevant to a horse's campaign(s) as to justify entrance. The Classic may well answer some questions re: Zenyatta's abilities, of that there is no doubt. A win would provide a race for the books, and boy oh boy, would it ever spur some heated, productive debate.

But greatness is so much more than whiz-bang BC wins and collectible jerseys. It's about proving greatness by overcoming - or at least meeting head-on - those many factors, by challenging boundaries consistently over seasonal campaigns, and by reminding us beyond a shadow of a doubt what greatness looks like.

It's a shame we weren't allowed the chance to see Zenyatta become the great horse so many think her to be. Believe it or not, that's a disappointment to me - we all want to see greatness in our lifetimes; I'm no exception.

Call me bitter.

[tucker6]

The previous comment was made in the context of the same discussion we're having here (re: greatness vs. the win itself, specifically as a climax of the uninspired the season at hand) - yet again, as it always somehow seems to, context matters. And even then, I apologized for my insensible hyperbole...for the hundred-and-one-thousandth time, a win in the BC....... ;)

My criticisms are perfectly valid, as you know they are, and echoed by a significant many (even right here on ol' PA). I'm far from alone on this island...your disagreement hardly invalidates them, and hardly delegitimizes those who critique the obvious. Disagree and carry on.

Any "club of greatness" is exclusive by design, and by necessity...to think otherwise defeats the purpose inherent in that classification. It happens to be that the doorman at our club takes into account both a.) hundreds of years of racing and the perspective those years provide, and b.) the various factors - competition, travel, record, etc. - relevant to a horse's campaign(s) as to justify entrance. The Classic may well answer some questions re: Zenyatta's abilities, of that there is no doubt. A win would provide a race for the books, and boy oh boy, would it ever spur some heated, productive debate.

But greatness is so much more than whiz-bang BC wins and collectible jerseys. It's about proving greatness by overcoming - or at least meeting head-on - those many factors, by challenging boundaries consistently over seasonal campaigns, and by reminding us beyond a shadow of a doubt what greatness looks like.

It's a shame we weren't allowed the chance to see Zenyatta become the great horse so many think her to be. Believe it or not, that's a disappointment to me - we all want to see greatness in our lifetimes; I'm no exception.

Call me bitter.
Excellent post Professor. I've been looking for the word that describes my feelings about Zenyatta, and moreso her handlers. It's bitter, and for the reasons you state. What a shame the Mosses care so little about the game that they would do this to Zenyatta and the sport.

[keithw84]

Excellent post Professor. I've been looking for the word that describes my feelings about Zenyatta, and moreso her handlers. It's bitter, and for the reasons you state. What a shame the Mosses care so little about the game that they would do this to Zenyatta and the sport.

I agree. As her owners, it is their right to campaign her however they want, but if they are going to insist on calling her the "Best Ever" and sulk over not getting HOTY, they either owed us a more dynamic campaign or they need to accept the disregard and backlash they are getting.

As it stands, we really don't know what to compare her to. Just consider the posts on these message boards... Her name has been tossed around in comparison to Pepper's Pride, Personal Ensign, Secretariat (!), Rachel Alexandra (exhaustively), and tons of others. I realize that disagreement and subjectivity are part of the game, but her campaign has increased these factors exponentially - because we just don't know... and with Santa Anita returning to dirt, the window for us to ever find a good comparison is coming to an end. If we see a decline in synthetic tracks, then I think we will be looking back at Zenyatta's campaign in 20 or 30 years and adding a big "BUT" after we talk about her accomplishments.

[joanied]

I agree. As her owners, it is their right to campaign her however they want, but if they are going to insist on calling her the "Best Ever" and sulk over not getting HOTY, they either owed us a more dynamic campaign or they need to accept the disregard and backlash they are getting.

As it stands, we really don't know what to compare her to. Just consider the posts on these message boards... Her name has been tossed around in comparison to Pepper's Pride, Personal Ensign, Secretariat (!), Rachel Alexandra (exhaustively), and tons of others. I realize that disagreement and subjectivity are part of the game, but her campaign has increased these factors exponentially - because we just don't know... and with Santa Anita returning to dirt, the window for us to ever find a good comparison is coming to an end. If we see a decline in synthetic tracks, then I think we will be looking back at Zenyatta's campaign in 20 or 30 years and adding a big "BUT" after we talk about her accomplishments.

Well said.
The damned synthetic things is going to really screw up the Zenyatta Legacy...it's going to screw up a lot of race results from the years SA had this crappy stuff...including 2 BC years...will there be an asterik beside the names of every horse that won a big stakes race at SA while they had rubber?
There will be a lot of 'what if's' & 'but' to ponder...her legacy will always be one shrouded in doubt...and that her connections couldn't see fit to send her to a couple of dirt races this year, is such a shame...no, a crime, IMO.
The only way I can see for Zen to really establish herself in the history books and all time great's lists will be for her to win the BC Classic, and win it in excellent time...she's gonna have to kick ass in the Classic...otherwise, she may go down as a synthetic specialist, and that, IMO, would be really sad...she IS a great mare...and she would deserve better, if only her owners had some courage:faint:

[tucker6]

Well said.
The damned synthetic things is going to really screw up the Zenyatta Legacy...it's going to screw up a lot of race results from the years SA had this crappy stuff...including 2 BC years...will there be an asterik beside the names of every horse that won a big stakes race at SA while they had rubber?
There will be a lot of 'what if's' & 'but' to ponder...her legacy will always be one shrouded in doubt...and that her connections couldn't see fit to send her to a couple of dirt races this year, is such a shame...no, a crime, IMO.
The only way I can see for Zen to really establish herself in the history books and all time great's lists will be for her to win the BC Classic, and win it in excellent time...she's gonna have to kick ass in the Classic...otherwise, she may go down as a synthetic specialist, and that, IMO, would be really sad...she IS a great mare...and she would deserve better, if only her owners had some courage:faint: Great post Joanie. Now get off the computer and go pick me some crops. I'm thirsty for a beer. :)

[joanied]

Great post Joanie. Now get off the computer and go pick me some crops. I'm thirsty for a beer. :)

:D was just gonna shut down, then saw this post, tucker...we hauled in all the malt barley...we are done with that harvest:jump: :ThmbUp: :jump: ...Budweiser is happy...now, tuck...go have that cold Bud...have 2 or 3, hell, have a six'er...
remember, this Bud IS for you:cool:

[letswastemoney]

I don't think she has to win the dirt BC Classic in excellent time.

She just has to win it.

But saying that, the BC Classic traditionally has fast early fractions, which always sets up for an excellent time for whoever wins.

[cpitt84]

found an interesting article about zenyatta's strides:

http://community.tvg.com/t5/TVG-Viewer-Mailbox/ZENYATTA-TALE-OF-THE-TAPE/m-p/216883

[BluegrassProf]

found an interesting article about zenyatta's strides:

http://community.tvg.com/t5/TVG-Viewer-Mailbox/ZENYATTA-TALE-OF-THE-TAPE/m-p/216883 :D

*facepalm*

[joanied]

found an interesting article about zenyatta's strides:

http://community.tvg.com/t5/TVG-Viewer-Mailbox/ZENYATTA-TALE-OF-THE-TAPE/m-p/216883

I've been wondering about the length of her stride for sometime...so thanks for posting this very interesting bit of info.
He stated he did same for Rachel...do you happen to know how long he measured her stride?

Thanks:ThmbUp: Nice find!