Beyer writes on Rachel and her Personal Ensign

[Grits]

http://www.drf.com/news/no-longer-rachel-alexandra-history

But the disappointments of her 2010 season do not in any way tarnish what Rachel Alexandra accomplished last year. She was as good as any American female racehorse ever - including the legendary Ruffian. Her poor showing Sunday doesn't mean that her achievements were in any way a fluke. Her loss only demonstrates that she is flesh and blood, not a running machine.

[andymays]

I agree with Beyer but far too many people don't, and I think the connections kind of hurt her legacy (or the perception of her legacy) by not retiring her earlier.

It's all water under the bridge now but I wished they had retired her earlier this year.

For me the year she had in 2009 was extraordinary and I'll always remember it.

[cnollfan]

Well said.

[rastajenk]

Retire her?!? Just think of all the message board material that wouldn't have happened if they had quit on her. It'd be all take-out and polycrap all the time. We need her to keep running, the rest of this year, next year, and beyond!! :jump:

[Charlie D]

I agree with rastajenk

[PaceAdvantage]

I agree with Beyer but far too many people don't, and I think the connections kind of hurt her legacy (or the perception of her legacy) by not retiring her earlier.A dumb dumb dumb dumb move, and one that only kills the game more in the long run.

They should be APPLAUDED for keeping her in training, she isn't running up the track...she's still as game and as competitive as she always has been...

[ArlJim78]

Keep her in training but please change the rider.

[andymays]

http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.com/west_points/2010/08/having-been-run-the-travers-remains-somewhat-confusing.html

Excerpt:

Here's the problem. The Saratoga surface Saturday was embarrassingly speed-biased. The first six races on the main track were all won by the early leader,


Excerpt:

Here's the other problem. The Saratoga surface seemed to slow down throughout the day.

Read more: http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.com/west_points/2010/08/having-been-run-the-travers-remains-somewhat-confusing.html#ixzz0y7Qfd4jB

[Tom]

Champions overcome tracks.

[andymays]

Champions overcome tracks.

My point in posting the excerpts was that the surface played more to her strength than against it.

[Java Gold@TFT]

I'm ecsatatic that they didn't retire Rachael after her great season last year and as far as this year goes - she hasn't done a thing to embarrass herself. She's been right there in the races she has lost. I certainly hope they stay on track for the Beldame and then go to Churchill. Maybe it will be the Distaff but right now that is shaping up to be a tough race. No, I don't think that she can beat Blame or Quality Road at 10F but then I don't think Zenyatta can either.

[Tom]

My point in posting the excerpts was that the surface played more to her strength than against it.

It sounded like they were saying it was favoring speed less as the day went on.

My bad.

[andymays]

It sounded like they were saying it was favoring speed less as the day went on.

My bad.

The author was saying that. I'm not sure how much it slowed down during the day or if it could still be considered speed favoring when Rachel ran. CJ would know better than anyone.

[nijinski]

Can't miss that wrap on her right rear ,guess she randown on that one.

The story and photo makes me sad , she is such an amazing filly if she
retires there will indeed be a void , but I'm sure they will do right by her.

[tzipi]

I agree with Beyer but far too many people don't, and I think the connections kind of hurt her legacy (or the perception of her legacy) by not retiring her earlier.

It's all water under the bridge now but I wished they had retired her earlier this year.

For me the year she had in 2009 was extraordinary and I'll always remember it.


So racing should just keep retiring superstars after a good year? And people wonder why no one can catches on to the sport anymore.
First everyone complains when a superstar who runs lights out gets retired early,now it's that superstars should be retired after a good year or a loss to save their legacy. :confused:
What if RA wins the Beldame and the BC? I guess horses today cannot lose a race or two. If they do,they're done.

Man,imagine how many great seasons we would've lost in history by some people retiring horses early to save their legacy and prevent loses. The games changed I guess.

[andymays]

So racing should just keep retiring superstars after a good year?

In some case yes and some cases no. In this case I think they should have retired her. Just my opinion.

[tzipi]

In some case yes and some cases no. In this case I think they should have retired her. Just my opinion.

It's your opinion and that's cool but imagine Skip Away was retired after his great 96 season and fisrt loses in 1997. He lost his first four starts in 97! He's not the same, he's done,retire him they would say today,no doubt. If they listened, we would've missed Skip Away winning 11 more races including 7 G1's!! Horses running hard and against the best do lose. She hasn't run worse than second! She's fine.
What about all the other great fillies and mares in history. Most lost multiple times and they are still greats in racings eyes.

In my opinion horse racing is about racing great horses who are sound,not retiring them or keeping them against lower horses. It's part of what has caused racing to disappear. No one gets to see them run more than a season anymore. Everyone's to afraid to run or lose.

[DeanT]

So racing should just keep retiring superstars after a good year? And people wonder why no one can catches on to the sport anymore.
First everyone complains when a superstar who runs lights out gets retired early,now it's that superstars should be retired after a good year or a loss to save their legacy. :confused:
What if RA wins the Beldame and the BC? I guess horses today cannot lose a race or two. If they do,they're done.

Man,imagine how many great seasons we would've lost in history by some people retiring horses early to save their legacy and prevent loses. The games changed I guess.

Two things - a horse who is not racing well usually is not feeling well. Sore leg, or whatever. You have a horse who gave her all for her owners and fans and laid it all on the track. An owner sometimes says "she's not right and racing her is not the thing to do." I have no quarrel with people who retire a horse who gave so many thrills to them, who is not enjoying racing any longer, and hurting. It's the honorable thing to do.

- second, a horse who was once great, who is no longer as good, is not what fans want to see. Funny Cide raced for quite awhile, but he did not win like he used to and did nothing for the sport. We are seeing that with Rachel this year. Check out this article on the attendance at Saratoga yesterday; this despite NYRA pulling out all the promo they could. http://leftatthegate.blogspot.com/2010/08/irrelevant-rachel.html

I guess it is like a boxer. When they lose their skills they are not watched by a lot of people, and it is not pretty, so the best thing to do is hang them up.

I know I posted back in April that I had hoped she called it quits. They tried her and she showed some lightning in a bottle too, when she ran a great race at CD. This time it might be different though - they are at the end of the year, she clearly shows she will not start in the Classic.... there seems to be less to grasp for now.

I do not know what will happen of course - and maybe if they take blood today (which I am sure they already have), and get her vetted and find something not quite right, perhaps she will crush in the Beldame. Who knows? But if they find no reason for her to run so poorly, I cant see them not thinking about calling it a day.

[andymays]

It's your opinion and that's cool but imagine Skip Away was retired after his great 96 season and fisrt loses in 1997. He lost his first four starts in 97! He's not the same, he's done,retire him they would say today,no doubt. If they listened, we would've missed Skip Away winning 11 more races including 7 G1's!! Horses running hard and against the best do lose. She hasn't run worse than second! She's fine.
What about all the other great fillies and mares in history. Most lost multiple times and they are still greats in racings eyes.

In my opinion horse racing is about racing great horses who are sound,not retiring them or keeping them against lower horses. It's part of what has caused racing to disappear. No one gets to see them run more than a season anymore. Everyone's to afraid to run or lose.

In my opinion her accomplishments in 2009 were too great and impossible to top. Nobody thought she was the same coming back and 2010 has been a dissapointment to me. I'm not accusing the connections of malpractice or anything like that for racing her it's just that for me, I would have preferred that they retired her.

[lamboguy]

A dumb dumb dumb dumb move, and one that only kills the game more in the long run.

They should be APPLAUDED for keeping her in training, she isn't running up the track...she's still as game and as competitive as she always has been...
thank you, she ran just ran the one the best mile and a quarter races of all time and people want to retire her off a great stellar performance. everyone compares rachel to zenyatta. they are 2 completely different horses. rachel has to battle up front every time she runs. how much faster do you want to go her first quarter in to put away the pletcher horse? the answer is she was overextended as it was and i thought at that point of the race she was destined to finish dead last. she finished second.

[tzipi]

Two things - a horse who is not racing well usually is not feeling well. Sore leg, or whatever. You have a horse who gave her all for her owners and fans and laid it all on the track. An owner sometimes says "she's not right and racing her is not the thing to do." I have no quarrel with people who retire a horse who is not enjoying racing, and hurting. It's the honorable thing to do.

- second, a horse who was once great, who is no longer as good, is not what fans want to see.

So Rachel running hard and winning and finishing second is her not enjoying racing? Anyone who says that last race was horrible is crazy. She went through hard fractions and the horse who went with her was 10+ lengths behind.

"Fans dont want to see a losing horse". Again you would've been one to retire Skip Away after his first 4 loses in 97 and cost the fans 11 more wins inclusing 7 G1's! Or forego after the end of his 75 season. So many examples of greats losing and winning. Thank God those people owned the past greats and not some people today. And you wonder why racing is not attracting fans.

Horses are allowed to lose and people today dont understand that.

[BluegrassProf]

Andy: I think your post needs some minor qualification:

In the current climate, I think they should have retired her.We're myopic and perspectivelss anymore, and it shows in spades. Your assessment re: the retirement option simply acknowledges this sad reality.

Now there's something to really be disappointed about.

[andymays]

Andy: I think your post needs some minor qualification:

We're myopic and perspectivelss anymore, and it shows in spades. Your assessment re: the retirement option simply acknowledges this sad reality.

Now there's something to really be disappionted about.

I guess. I just don't see how having an opinion on this subject rises to the level of importance where I would need an attorney. ;) :D

[tzipi]

In my opinion her accomplishments in 2009 were too great and impossible to top. Nobody thought she was the same coming back and 2010 has been a dissapointment to me. I'm not accusing the connections of malpractice or anything like that for racing her it's just that for me, I would have preferred that they retired her.

Again, I'm from old school of racing I guess. Horses topped great seasons all the time. How was Seattle Slew suppose to top his 77 season? I think he did just fine in his 78 season. Too many examples to list all of them. RA was a 3yo old not a 5 yr old. If she was older I could agree with you. JMO. We'll have to agree to disagree. :)

[Cardus]

Beyer's piece was reasonable.

[jelly]

R.A Is having a better season than 95% of the horses out there and people want to retire her.


What a Joke.


She's a 4 yr old filly I hope they run her next year.

[PhantomOnTour]

thank you, she ran just ran the one the best mile and a quarter races of all time and people want to retire her off a great stellar performance. everyone compares rachel to zenyatta. they are 2 completely different horses. rachel has to battle up front every time she runs. how much faster do you want to go her first quarter in to put away the pletcher horse? the answer is she was overextended as it was and i thought at that point of the race she was destined to finish dead last. she finished second.
Slow your roll. I think that's a bit exaggerated.

Don't retire her though! She isn't chucking it or looking disinterested.

[PaceAdvantage]

Two things - a horse who is not racing well usually is not feeling well. Sore leg, or whatever. You have a horse who gave her all for her owners and fans and laid it all on the track. An owner sometimes says "she's not right and racing her is not the thing to do." I have no quarrel with people who retire a horse who gave so many thrills to them, who is not enjoying racing any longer, and hurting. It's the honorable thing to do.

- second, a horse who was once great, who is no longer as good, is not what fans want to see. Funny Cide raced for quite awhile, but he did not win like he used to and did nothing for the sport. We are seeing that with Rachel this year. Check out this article on the attendance at Saratoga yesterday; this despite NYRA pulling out all the promo they could. http://leftatthegate.blogspot.com/2010/08/irrelevant-rachel.html

I guess it is like a boxer. When they lose their skills they are not watched by a lot of people, and it is not pretty, so the best thing to do is hang them up.

I know I posted back in April that I had hoped she called it quits. They tried her and she showed some lightning in a bottle too, when she ran a great race at CD. This time it might be different though - they are at the end of the year, she clearly shows she will not start in the Classic.... there seems to be less to grasp for now.

I do not know what will happen of course - and maybe if they take blood today (which I am sure they already have), and get her vetted and find something not quite right, perhaps she will crush in the Beldame. Who knows? But if they find no reason for her to run so poorly, I cant see them not thinking about calling it a day.It's funny...they cite the attendance number, but if you were watching the race on TVG like I was, there was a shot of the grandstand and it was literally WALL TO WALL people...there wasn't an empty spot on the apron at post time for the PE.

I love how Alan just glosses over the 30% increase in attendance year-over-year in that blog piece. Yeah, Rachel didn't draw anyone to the track Sunday...

[tzipi]

R.A Is having a better season than 95% of the horses out there and people want to retire her.

:ThmbUp: New game today. Dont ever lose a race and keep the best horses away from others.

[BluegrassProf]

I guess. I just don't see how having an opinion on this subject rises to the level of importance where I would need an attorney. ;) :D :D

Though I'm not an attorney, mind you (my area is criminology)...I offer no guidance, and I charge nothing for my constant pedantic soapboxing. ;)

Also, definitely note that I don't mean that you're perspectiveless - not in the least. The disease is epidemic to the game generally (the most absolutely disappointing thing), and I think your thoughts above simply reflect the current general thought process that goes into evaluating racehorses: yet again, ignorant of the glory days of racing and the thrilling and multidimensional campaigns held therein over centuries - you're either first or you're last, Ricky Bobby.

Tragic satire if ever I saw it.

[Cardus]

So Rachel running hard and winning and finishing second is her not enjoying racing? Anyone who says that last race was horrible is crazy. She went through hard fractions and the horse who went with her was 10+ lengths behind.

"Fans dont want to see a losing horse". Again you would've been one to retire Skip Away after his first 4 loses in 97 and cost the fans 11 more wins inclusing 7 G1's! Or forego after the end of his 75 season. So many examples of greats losing and winning. Thank God those people owned the past greats and not some people today. And you wonder why racing is not attracting fans.

Horses are allowed to lose and people today dont understand that.

Rachel Alexandra attracted 12,000+ to Monmouth. Zenyatta brought 12,000+ to Hollywood.

Yesterday, at historic Saratoga racecourse, 23,000+ turned out for Rachel. Twenty-three thousand?

The two biggest stars of 2009 -- one a history-making filly -- return to race in 2010 and they cannot draw people to the track.

I don't know that there has been a better situation for racing to attract fans recently, and track attendance for three of their races was anemic.

[Cardus]

:D

Though I'm not an attorney, mind you (my area is criminology)...I offer no guidance, and I charge nothing for my constant pedantic soapboxing. ;)

Also, definitely note that I don't mean that you're perspectiveless - not in the least. The disease is epidemic to the game generally (the most absolutely disappointing thing), and I think your thoughts above simply reflect the current general thought process that goes into evaluating racehorses: yet again, ignorant of the glory days of racing and the thrilling and multidimensional campaigns held therein over centuries - you're either first or you're last, Ricky Bobby.

Tragic satire if ever I saw it.

Your "area" is overwriting.

[tzipi]

Rachel Alexandra attracted 12,000+ to Monmouth. Zenyatta brought 12,000+ to Hollywood.

Yesterday, at historic Saratoga racecourse, 23,000+ turned out for Rachel. Twenty-three thousand?

The two biggest stars of 2009 -- one a history-making filly -- return to race in 2010 and they cannot draw people to the track.

I don't know that there has been a better situation for racing to attract fans recently, and track attendance for three of their races was anemic.

Saratoga was packed. You comparing old attendance to new. If Rachel doesn't run yesterday at Saratoga, you think they get 23,000+? If Zen doesn't run at Del Mar, you think they get the same attendance? No way.

These horses DO bring the fans to the tracks. Unfortunatly, there been too many years now of retiring horses early(all about breeding) and not running them like they used to,so fans have dipped because everyones favorites retire mostly after a year. Different game the last 2 decades and it's affected racing big time IMO.

[BluegrassProf]

Your "area" is overwriting.Zzzing! Fab jab, tuff stuff - way to stay on track! :ThmbUp:

Aaaanyway, re: attendance... :D

[Cardus]

Saratoga was packed. You comparing old attendance to new. If Rachel doesn't run yesterday at Saratoga, you think they get 23,000+? If Zen doesn't run at Del Mar, you think they get the same attendance? No way.

These horses DO bring the fans to the tracks. Unfortunatly, there been too many years now of retiring horses early(all about breeding) and not running them like they used to,so fans have dipped because everyones favorites retire mostly after a year. Different game the last 2 decades and it's affected racing big time IMO.

These are the attendance figures for Saturdays and Sundays this year (minus the 8/8 and 8/22 Giveaway days):

7/31: 28,682
8/1: 22,190
8/7: 36,658
8/14: 30,210
8/15: 20,980
8/21: 30,852

Twenty-three thousand for Rachel Alexandra must disappoint those who use on-track attendance as a barometer of racing's health. I don't agree with that, and those three attendance figures that I cited above discredit that notion, don't they?

[castaway01]

A dumb dumb dumb dumb move, and one that only kills the game more in the long run.

They should be APPLAUDED for keeping her in training, she isn't running up the track...she's still as game and as competitive as she always has been...

Agree...no one can take away her 2009. As I wrote when it happened, the next time a 3-year-old filly defeats older males in a Grade I race in the United States, let me know...I think I'll have a long wait.

Now she's merely mortal again, a very fast horse but not unbeatable. I'm glad they kept her running because we got to see a great champion compete more times than I thought she would.

[BluegrassProf]

Agree...no one can take away her 2009. As I wrote when it happened, the next time a 3-year-old filly defeats older males in a Grade I race in the United States, let me know...I think I'll have a long wait.

Now she's merely mortal again, a very fast horse but not unbeatable. I'm glad they kept her running because we got to see a great champion compete more times than I thought she would.Good gravy, makes so much sense it hurts. :ThmbUp:

+1.

[tzipi]

These are the attendance figures for Saturdays and Sundays this year (minus the 8/8 and 8/22 Giveaway days):

7/31: 28,682
8/1: 22,190
8/7: 36,658
8/14: 30,210
8/15: 20,980
8/21: 30,852

Twenty-three thousand for Rachel Alexandra must disappoint those who use on-track attendance as a barometer of racing's health. I don't agree with that, and those three attendance figures that I cited above discredit that notion, don't they?

You don't get it or what I'm saying. Racing as a whole doesn't attract like they used to. But these horses do bring out good crowds. Why are you jumping on one day,one crowd? These horses Like RA,Zen,etc get people to the track and catch none racing fans eyes. They shouldn't be retired if the are running great and are sound.
Go look up all RA and Zens races at tracks they ran at and see the attendance they brought in compared to other days at that track. Go check RA's Belmont attendances. Look up all their attendances,not just one days. They bring in crowds. That's all I'm saying. Good for the game.

[keithw84]

I'm glad they kept her running because we got to see a great champion compete more times than I thought she would.

Absolutely. Of course we wish she had gotten to the wire first, but it was great to be able to watch her compete. She wore out Life At Ten and was game - but not explosive - the rest of the way home.

[castaway01]

:D

Though I'm not an attorney, mind you (my area is criminology)...I offer no guidance, and I charge nothing for my constant pedantic soapboxing. ;)

Also, definitely note that I don't mean that you're perspectiveless - not in the least. The disease is epidemic to the game generally (the most absolutely disappointing thing), and I think your thoughts above simply reflect the current general thought process that goes into evaluating racehorses: yet again, ignorant of the glory days of racing and the thrilling and multidimensional campaigns held therein over centuries - you're either first or you're last, Ricky Bobby.

Tragic satire if ever I saw it.

Honestly, while obviously modern horses don't have the endurance the old ones did, people seem to think that stakes races 30 years ago were huge fields filled with Grade 1 winners. It is simply not the case, but it fits the mythological argument about how awful horses are now. People should do some research into the fields the old champions faced, but they won't.

[BluegrassProf]

People should do some research into the fields the old champions faced, but they won't.Agreed - as they should the orders of finish - and you're sadly right: they surely won't.

"Glory days" are about far more than wins and grades and all that; the myth has legitimate roots, to be sure - as they usually do.

Perspective = best eva.

[tzipi]

Agreed - as they should the orders of finish - and you're sadly right: they surely won't.

"Glory days" are about far more than wins and grades and all that; the myth has legitimate roots, to be sure - as they usually do.

Perspective = best eva.

Agree with you both. Different game today. Way better back then I think.

[Cardus]

You don't get it or what I'm saying. Racing as a whole doesn't attract like they used to. But these horses do bring out good crowds. Why are you jumping on one day,one crowd? These horses Like RA,Zen,etc get people to the track and catch none racing fans eyes. They shouldn't be retired if the are running great and are sound.
Go look up all RA and Zens races at tracks they ran at and see the attendance they brought in compared to other days at that track. Go check RA's Belmont attendances. Look up all their attendances,not just one days. They bring in crowds. That's all I'm saying. Good for the game.

I cited three days, not one.

Sunday's crowd was less than most of the days that I cited above, at the same track.

And with one exception, I attended all of the Sundays following Travers Day, so it is not as if everyone bolts following that Saturday.

I understand the relativity argument, but I would think that such transcedental horses would have brought out more people. I added that I do not believe in using racing attendance as a barometer. There are people, though -- here, particularly -- who believe that getting more people to the track (while not caring greatly for betting handle) is vital to racing's future.

[thaskalos]

Agreed - as they should the orders of finish - and you're sadly right: they surely won't.

Perspective = best eva.People who repeatedly use the term "best ever"...clearly suffer from memory problems.

[tzipi]

I cited three days, not one.

Sunday's crowd was less than most of the days that I cited above, at the same track.

And with one exception, I attended all of the Sundays following Travers Day, so it is not as if everyone bolts following that Saturday.

I understand the relativity argument, but I would think that such transcedental horses would have brought out more people. I added that I do not believe in using racing attendance as a barometer. There are people, though -- here, particularly -- who believe that getting more people to the track (while not caring greatly for betting handle) is vital to racing's future.

I said look at their attendance for all their races at the tracks they ran at, not just one race out of all of them compared to other weekends before it. RA and Zen have run like 20 times in last two years. Why just the one day talk? They ARE good for the sport and do bring out crowds. Go look up all their race attendances if you want.

[Grits]

Your "area" is overwriting.

KILLER GOOD ONE LINER, Cardus! :lol: :lol: :lol:

And BGP, recognized the humor as well. Can't ask for better responses on a messageboard, guys. I'm serious. Its good when things lighten up.

[BluegrassProf]

:D

Yes indeed...guilty as hell. Besides, what's the same ol' debate without zingers and levity? Damned boring, I'm thinkin'. :ThmbUp:

[bks]

I find it odd that Crist and Beyer are concerned to protect Rachel's achievements of 2009. Please name a single critic of any standing who has tried to diminish her achievements in 2009 because of her recent tailing off? You'd have to be an idiot.

Her 2009 campaign was flat monstrous. The only caveats one can possibly raise are the fact she only ran one race against open company, and the 3-y-o crop of males she beat up on was weak. But really: who is trying to "take it away" from her? Huge GI win after huge GI win as a 3-y-o filly against G1 males! A clearly deserving HOY, despite Zenyatta's perfection and dominant BC Classic win. Literally a once-in-a-generation year.

In trying to "protect" her 2009, I smell another agenda. I think there are many others like me who believe that while Rachel was the deserving 2009 HOY, Zenyatta was and is the better horse. I believe it now. I also realize I could have been wrong there for a few months last summer. Rachel was a monster. But in the vast majority of scenarios likely to confront top-quality horses going a classic or near-classic distance on dirt or synthetic, Zenyatta would have finished ahead of Rachel.

In defending Rachel's 2009 season, the conclusion these guys are really trying to ward off is that Zenyatta is (and was) the better horse. Ask yourselves why.
_______________

[jonnielu]

I agree with Beyer but far too many people don't, and I think the connections kind of hurt her legacy (or the perception of her legacy) by not retiring her earlier.

It's all water under the bridge now but I wished they had retired her earlier this year.

For me the year she had in 2009 was extraordinary and I'll always remember it.

It's weird, but I disagree with Beyer. And, if I were Jackson/Asmussen, I'd be highly insulted by him saying that Rachel Alexandra is mysteriously.... washed up.

There is nothing to lose, several weeks to train the horse, and I think the sporting thing to do would be to train the horse on how to use her speed at 10f, and give us a genuine horse race for the BCC.

Being a filly/mare should be an advantage at 10f.

jdl

[Cardus]

I don't believe that there is a hidden or secondary agenda in Beyer's column.

Yesterday's defeat was an appropriate time for this column; it is now clear that she is not as sharp as she was last year.

I suppose that people -- perhaps the poster above -- will look at the last paragraph and conclude that there is an ulterior agenda.

[ArlJim78]

thank you, she ran just ran the one the best mile and a quarter races of all time and people want to retire her off a great stellar performance. everyone compares rachel to zenyatta.
wait, what? It was a "great stellar performance", and one of the best 10 furlong races of all time? you can't be serious.
It wasn't even the best 10F race at Saratoga last weekend.

[Cardus]

It's weird, but I disagree with Beyer. And, if I were Jackson/Asmussen, I'd be highly insulted by him saying that Rachel Alexandra is mysteriously.... washed up.

There is nothing to lose, several weeks to train the horse, and I think the sporting thing to do would be to train the horse on how to use her speed at 10f, and give us a genuine horse race for the BCC.

Being a filly/mare should be an advantage at 10f.

jdl

Considering how many fillies and mares have won the race, I can see why you'd conclude this.

[speed]

Being a filly/mare should be an advantage at 10f.

jdl
I know better but why is it an advantage?

[andymays]

It's weird, but I disagree with Beyer. And, if I were Jackson/Asmussen, I'd be highly insulted by him saying that Rachel Alexandra is mysteriously.... washed up.

There is nothing to lose, several weeks to train the horse, and I think the sporting thing to do would be to train the horse on how to use her speed at 10f, and give us a genuine horse race for the BCC.

Being a filly/mare should be an advantage at 10f.

jdl

You really think she can compete in the Breeders' Cup Classic this year?

[lamboguy]

wait, what? It was a "great stellar performance", and one of the best 10 furlong races of all time? you can't be serious.
It wasn't even the best 10F race at Saratoga last weekend.
her fractions were 23 47 with a head to head battle from a good horse and she ran second. she lost the race because the trainer decided that the lead was the place to be, he underated the pletcher horse. despite that mistake she still held on for second money about 10 lengths in front of the third horse. how many mile and a quarter races for fillies and mares do you think have that pace, and for the ones that do how many do you think held on for second without going head to head for a half mile?

the bottom line is that she ran second, one position less than expected, if she won you would have churped how great she ran in such a tough pace.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Being as it was her first time at 10 panels,doesn't anyone think her next effort at such a distance will be even better??

I don't think they should hang it up on her.If the figure is the last nail in the coffin I'll just say I disagree with that.It might be that black and white.But I'd love to find out.A more stamina oriented training regimen could bolt her back into the big picture.Besides,a few more races will still not disgrace her accomplishments at all IMO.The funeral talk is premature.At least I hope it is.

[Cardus]

An interesting line in Beyer's column appears towards the end: "It would be beneath her dignity" to run in the Ladies' Classic if Zenyatta is entered in the Classic.

What is the alternative if Rachel Alexandra runs on Breeders' Cup weekend?

[chickenhead]

If anyone else feels the need to say "Ricky Bobby-ism" like it's a bad thing, I'll be on your head like a demon wolverine dropped from the sky.

[thaskalos]

her fractions were 23 47 with a head to head battle from a good horse and she ran second. she lost the race because the trainer decided that the lead was the place to be, he underated the pletcher horse. despite that mistake she still held on for second money about 10 lengths in front of the third horse. how many mile and a quarter races for fillies and mares do you think have that pace, and for the ones that do how many do you think held on for second without going head to head for a half mile?

the bottom line is that she ran second, one position less than expected, if she won you would have churped how great she ran in such a tough pace.Her fractions were 23.6, 47.8 Lambo...that's a 3 or 4 length difference. And it wasn't a "head to head battle"...Rachel had control on the inside, and she seemed well within herself.

It isn't exactly realistic to expect a "cruising" front running trip every time...these are Grade 1 races on dirt, after all.

To call it one of the best 1 1/4 races of all time, is an obvious exaggeration...considering that the race virtually collapsed, in the late going.

[GlenninOhio]

I found this an odd way to describe a filly who had finished 2nd in the G1 Frizette and 2nd in the G2 Matron and ran 5th beaten 5 lengths in the BC Juvenile Fillies.

"But then Persistently -- a filly who had never been in a stakes race before -- launched a strong move on the turn, took aim at the leader and ran her down to win by one length."

[Bruddah]

The truth is and has gone unsaid, Rachel is a great filly but she has distance limitations. It's written in her PP's and the races she has been asked to run by her connections. They knew it last year but hoped she would mature enough to get the Classic distance as a 4yo. Sadly, she has not.

I stick by assesment of last year. Up to 9fur, she would beat Zenyatta and most males. Beyond 9fur, Zenyatta and lesser males will beat her. The Preakness was her distance limit...period. It's in the PP's.

[Irish Boy]

It's funny...they cite the attendance number, but if you were watching the race on TVG like I was, there was a shot of the grandstand and it was literally WALL TO WALL people...there wasn't an empty spot on the apron at post time for the PE.

I love how Alan just glosses over the 30% increase in attendance year-over-year in that blog piece. Yeah, Rachel didn't draw anyone to the track Sunday...
It was night and day between Saturday and Sunday. I was honestly surprised about that. I'm not a partisan in the RA/Zenyatta argument one way or another, but things were pretty empty all day Sunday until the very end, and even then there were lots of empty seats in the clubhouse and plenty of space downstairs.

Also kind of weird--the on track crown on Sunday was significantly older than on Saturday. The median age on Saturday was probably about 30. Sunday, maybe 45. Huge difference.

Spin that whatever way you want. I think it's actually good for the sport. Once again, I don't care about the RA/Zenyatta debate and I don't dislike either one. I only went Sunday because RA was running.

[cpitt84]

The truth is and has gone unsaid, Rachel is a great filly but she has distance limitations. It's written in her PP's and the races she has been asked to run by her connections. They knew it last year but hoped she would mature enough to get the Classic distance as a 4yo. Sadly, she has not.

I stick by assesment of last year. Up to 9fur, she would beat Zenyatta and most males. Beyond 9fur, Zenyatta and lesser males will beat her. The Preakness was her distance limit...period. It's in the PP's.

I agree that the preakness is her limit but zenyatta would not get beat by rachel at 9fur. Zenyatta's win over st trinians has solidified my faith in her above all logic, really. St trinians should have won that race but zenyatta's long strides is unlike any other. It is why she is still undefeated.

[point given]

I found this an odd way to describe a filly who had finished 2nd in the G1 Frizette and 2nd in the G2 Matron and ran 5th beaten 5 lengths in the BC Juvenile Fillies.

"But then Persistently -- a filly who had never been in a stakes race before -- launched a strong move on the turn, took aim at the leader and ran her down to win by one length."

Good catch. I thought I had seen her pps with what you posted, but had deleted the pps and didnot want to post it with my memory.Suprised he missed it, will be an early edit correction.

[WinterTriangle]

Yesterday, at historic Saratoga racecourse, 23,000+ turned out for Rachel.

Oaklawn got 20,311 on opening day last year, on a Friday workday, in JANUARY. (after a week of brutually cold weather that closed the track for almost a week to training.)

Shame on NYer's for not getting to the track to support Rachel.

[horses4courses]

They should be APPLAUDED for keeping her in training, she isn't running up the track...she's still as game and as competitive as she always has been...


She's just not as fast........

[Dahoss9698]

Oaklawn got 20,311 on opening day last year, on a Friday workday, in JANUARY. (after a week of brutually cold weather that closed the track for almost a week to training.)

Shame on NYer's for not getting to the track to support Rachel.

You're comparing opening day of a meet to the day after the Travers? Why?

[Pick6]

A dumb dumb dumb dumb move, and one that only kills the game more in the long run.

They should be APPLAUDED for keeping her in training, she isn't running up the track...she's still as game and as competitive as she always has been...
So what do I make of this post:
Unless Rachel retires, she will race against Zenyatta. That's the bottom line.

To think otherwise is to think that Jess Jackson is racing Rachel for absolutely no reason. That would be beyond stupid.
Or this?
More absurdity. If she's not going to run against Zenyatta, then she might as well retire.

If she doesn't retire, then she is going to run against Zenyatta.

I really don't see a race where the two meet (unless Moss ducks BCC, highly unlikely), so is retirement indicated?

I did save some money with nobody taking me up on this:
Another prop bet: Rachel Alexandra never runs at 1 1/4 miles or further.
Let's wait and see how RA fares going forward. At this point I believe the connections would have just as soon preferred an easier setup, all things being equal.

[jonnielu]

You really think she can compete in the Breeders' Cup Classic this year?

If she can run without using up her speed early, yes. To answer another post also, usually females run more evenly, and the mad dash burst of speed is generally more a natural attribute of the male.

As a 3YO RA was blessed with an uncommon burst of speed that seems to be disappearing with maturity. If her natural early run is becoming more cool, and calm, perhaps she can be taught to run longer more evenly. Why not?

jdl

[PaceAdvantage]

In defending Rachel's 2009 season, the conclusion these guys are really trying to ward off is that Zenyatta is (and was) the better horse. Ask yourselves why.
_______________Don't tell me it's because you think people will stop using Beyer figures because Rachel lost? :lol:

Thus they (Beyer & Co.) have to get out in front of this for damage control?

Am I warm? :lol: :lol:

(I think there was a name given this kind of thinking a month or two ago..."Protecting Commercial Interests" I believe it was called...I was accused of doing just this as an explanation of my opinions on Zenyatta and Synthetic Surfaces... :lol: :lol: I couldn't POSSIBLY have these kinds of opinions on Zenyatta and/or synthetics without having an ulterior motive...GROUPTHINK at its worst :bang: )

[KingChas]

Don't tell me it's because you think people will stop using Beyer figures because Rachel lost? :lol:

Thus they have to get out in front of this for damage control?

Am I warm? :lol: :lol:

Funny Pace, after this race I may have to go back to...........
...... "Trainer's Intent"......Handicapping.............. :D

[WinterTriangle]

An interesting line in Beyer's column appears towards the end: "It would be beneath her dignity" to run in the Ladies' Classic if Zenyatta is entered in the Classic.

Maybe it was a typo and he meant to use a different pronoun.

Either that or he was purposely athropormorphizing?

[sandpit]

It was night and day between Saturday and Sunday. I was honestly surprised about that. I'm not a partisan in the RA/Zenyatta argument one way or another, but things were pretty empty all day Sunday until the very end, and even then there were lots of empty seats in the clubhouse and plenty of space downstairs.

Also kind of weird--the on track crown on Sunday was significantly older than on Saturday. The median age on Saturday was probably about 30. Sunday, maybe 45. Huge difference.

Spin that whatever way you want. I think it's actually good for the sport. Once again, I don't care about the RA/Zenyatta debate and I don't dislike either one. I only went Sunday because RA was running.

At least you showed up, Jess Jackson didn't...maybe he was ill, otherwise he should have been there.

[bks]

Originally Posted by bks
In defending Rachel's 2009 season, the conclusion these guys are really trying to ward off is that Zenyatta is (and was) the better horse. Ask yourselves why.

PA wrote:

Don't tell me it's because you think people will stop using Beyer figures because Rachel lost?

Thus they (Beyer & Co.) have to get out in front of this for damage control?

Am I warm?

No, that didn't enter my mind. I don't think Beyer figs are in danger of going unused. And I don't see Crist as a big apologist for Beyers the way, say, columnists like Dick Jerardi are. Having said that, it would be reasonable to conclude that Beyer at least, and perhaps Crist, would want to do some perception management, given that:

a. Beyer figures earned at distances shorter than Classic ones aren't very valuable in analyzing how a horse will run at Classic distances; and

b. Beyer doesn't want to admit that.

There's no need to go to the silly and extreme conclusion that you offered ("people will stop using Beyer figures because Rachel lost").

But I wasn't thinking any of that. My thinking was that there was no reason for spilling ink defending Rachel's 2009 year when no one has tried to seriously diminish it ( a premise you didn't challenge), and the likely reason was because they want to bolster the impression not only that Rachel had the better year (she did), but also the unstated premise that she was the better horse (she wasn't).

And KingChas: I don't think you want to defend the premise that trainer's intentions for the horse shouldn't affect handicapping.

[mountainman]

As good as Ruffian? Because she beat Mine that Bird? Puhleez. And pertaining to Rachel's disappointing season, horseracing is always about soundness. You can bet her decline is more mystifying to fans than to those tending her back at the barn.

[KingChas]

And KingChas: I don't think you want to defend the premise that trainer's intentions for the horse shouldn't affect handicapping.


Purely joking to the fact I ignored Shug in a big race at the Spa named after one of his greats.
Nothing more,nothing less.
My bad. ;)

[BluegrassProf]

...but also the unstated premise that she was the better horse (she wasn't)....this still being a fairly subjective assessment, dismissing actual (read: wholly historic, as is generally understood and echoed by your comments above) accomplishments on the ground - and indeed, on paper - in favor of largely tangential issues re: figures and primarily awarding accolades ex post facto (e.g. Rachel has lost form this season, so Zenyatta's improves in kind last season). I recognize that you're trying to balance your assessment as best as possible, but the core is what it is: subjective.

Of course, no matter the method of reaching for something to the contrary, what's done is done, set firmly in stone: from where I sit, it appears to me that Zenyatta did nothing - and woefully enough, continues to do nothing - to bolster the conclusion that she would've bested Rachel Alexandra v.2009 on classic dirt. Inherent in your conclusion is in fact a diminishing of RA's season and abilities in 2009, claiming that she was plainly the inferior horse - from numbers on paper and stopwatches to eyes watching rails and TV screens and hands figuring figures, you're pretty clearly tilting at a village of windmills.

Perhaps this year is a different story, but make no mistake: there is certainly no way to definitively qualify the point-blank conclusion that Zenyatta was the better horse last year, particularly given what we all saw in the really-real world of horseracing. That's certainly not to dismiss what Zen continues to do; more power to the girl, and to her connections' obvious goals...but that's not at issue here, and surely isn't wanting of debate elsewhere...

[bks]

Bluegrass Prof,

It's speculation, yeah. I wrote upthread that I recognize I could be wrong, because Rachel was monstrous for a few months there last summer.

No Rachel backer wants to hear about things like track presence or class. They see in Rachel a brilliant, feisty filly that buried males last year on one occasion, and defeated them on two others when she had significant obstacles to overcome. I get it.

But there are no grounds for believing Zenyatta is less effective doing what she does over dirt. Her 2008 Oaklawn number was very respectable, in her 4th career start, going shorter than her optimum trip. I understand it's better to make a horse prove it before assigning them any achievement, but in this case we have a horse that has overcome everything put before her and who has never bottomed out in a race they way, say, Rachel did in the Woodward. Never. There is always more in the tank, even at 1 1/4 miles against the top males in the world. Top class.

Here's a little thought experiment for you: forget the restrictions on races and choose any horse in training, giving them their preferred surface. Then ask yourself: would that horse - male or female - be 18 for 18 if that horse entered the same races against the same exact competition Zenyatta faced? You can take the "best version" of the horse and enter "it" every time if you like, but if you also take into consideration racing luck and other in-race variables, I think it's pretty clear that no other horse is 18-18. We can all agree Rachel isn't, that is for sure.

And yes, I'll be happy to answer the question in reverse for any horse you like. Name it.

[Robert Fischer]

Perhaps this year is a different story, but make no mistake: there is certainly no way to definitively qualify the point-blank conclusion that Zenyatta was the better horse last year...

"definitive subjectivity" is an oxymoron, unless of course I'm speaking in the 3rd person, and then simply "moron"!

[born2ride]

Bluegrass Prof,
But there are no grounds for believing Zenyatta is less effective doing what she does over dirt. Her 2008 Oaklawn number was very respectable, in her 4th career start, going shorter than her optimum trip. I understand it's better to make a horse prove it before assigning them any achievement, but in this case we have a horse that has overcome everything put before her and who has never bottomed out in a race they way, say, Rachel did in the Woodward. Never. There is always more in the tank, even at 1 1/4 miles against the top males in the world. Top class.

Here's a little thought experiment for you: forget the restrictions on races and choose any horse in training, giving them their preferred surface. Then ask yourself: would that horse - male or female - be 18 for 18 if that horse entered the same races against the same exact competition Zenyatta faced? You can take the "best version" of the horse and enter "it" every time if you like, but if you also take into consideration racing luck and other in-race variables, I think it's pretty clear that no other horse is 18-18. We can all agree Rachel isn't, that is for sure.

And yes, I'll be happy to answer the question in reverse for any horse you like. Name it.
Given the same races, yes I think other horses could have done what Zenyatta did and be 18 for 18 right now.

Now let's do this in reverse. Forgetting restrictions, do you think Zenyatta could have won the same races Rachel won last year? Coming back to win the Preakness on 2 weeks rest? Winning back to back races against males in the slop at the Haskell and against older males in the Woodward?

[DeanT]

Given the same races, yes I think other horses could have done what Zenyatta did and be 18 for 18 right now.

Now let's do this in reverse. Forgetting restrictions, do you think Zenyatta could have won the same races Rachel won last year? Coming back to win the Preakness on 2 weeks rest? Winning back to back races against males in the slop at the Haskell and against older males in the Woodward?

Not many horses can. That's why Rachel is a superstar in this sport.

Z as an older mare does what she does (race older mares in grade 1's). A 3YO sked and a 4YO and up sked is different, as we all know.

As for the tomato can talk, well the Mare div is not exactly deep most times. If Z raced yesterday at the PE, about 100 yards from home she would have probably been saying 'these east coast tomato cans are easier than the west coast tomato cans'.

It's like apples to oranges. Rachels 2009 was obviously impressive; so much so she won HOY and will go down as one of the greats. Z's 2008, 2009 and 2010 are impressive too, because (tomato cans or not) she wins grade 1's over and over and over again. Both horses are sure-fire 1st time HOF's. They dont do that that for crap horses.

[BluegrassProf]

It's speculation, yeah. I wrote upthread that I recognize I could be wrong, because Rachel was monstrous for a few months there last summer.

No Rachel backer wants to hear about things like track presence or class. They see in Rachel a brilliant, feisty filly that buried males last year on one occasion, and defeated them on two others when she had significant obstacles to overcome. I get it.

But there are no grounds for believing Zenyatta is less effective doing what she does over dirt. Her 2008 Oaklawn number was very respectable, in her 4th career start, going shorter than her optimum trip. I understand it's better to make a horse prove it before assigning them any achievement, but in this case we have a horse that has overcome everything put before her and who has never bottomed out in a race they way, say, Rachel did in the Woodward. Never. There is always more in the tank, even at 1 1/4 miles against the top males in the world. Top class.

Here's a little thought experiment for you: forget the restrictions on races and choose any horse in training, giving them their preferred surface. Then ask yourself: would that horse - male or female - be 18 for 18 if that horse entered the same races against the same exact competition Zenyatta faced? You can take the "best version" of the horse and enter "it" every time if you like, but if you also take into consideration racing luck and other in-race variables, I think it's pretty clear that no other horse is 18-18. We can all agree Rachel isn't, that is for sure.I understand your reasoning, but, as you've done with the '09 Classic where you neglect to acknowledge little things like ProRide, you simply cannot dismiss things like contextual variables - constructing the conclusion re: Z's superiority over RA by way of qualifiers like "more in the tank" and "top class" is only so useful when we absolutely must cede the realities extant in Zenyatta's races, from soft company (who even approaching Zenyatta's ability isn't top class in those groups?) to competitors on unpreferred surfaces (see BCC). We make those concessions just as we do with Rachel's '10 season, which are equally obvious: how do we know RA's lost form since last year? She's come up short in a campaign wholly comparable in relative weakness to that of her chief rival - or at least the horse "billed" as her chief rival ;) - who has yet to experience a place finish, which stands in stark contrast to the whole of her 2009 campaign and accomplishments on the track AND on paper. But as is plain as day: one has no bearing on the other - they are exactly what they are, and cannot be used to make arbitrarily ex post facto judgement calls.

Constructing hypotheticals is an exercise in futility: we'll never agree, and that's a-ok. But re: the 18/18 issue, because Zenyatta is an extraordinary horse, given the reality of the campaigns in question, the shock (and the thrill) of an undefeated record is only so considerable. It's fantastic and a career for the record books, to be sure - 18/18! - but hardly a reason to brush aside the many, many other tests of ability, many of which have clear tests on the ground, and many of which Zen's aforementioned chief rival took cleanly to task.

Noting the above, at the end of the day, you're still employing a subjective test of ability to reach your conclusion, which fundamentally a.) relies on little substantive evidence, and on a grander scale, b.) defeats the purpose of campaigning a horse at the highest level against substantive competition over time: we should base the award of "greatness" on an objective test of accompishment, nothing less. Rachel A. affirmed her superiority on the track objectively in 2009, giving us the most historic 3yo campaign in modern NA racing (on which you yourself comment), and no amount of lauding-in-reverse will unseat the matter of record. To that question, one must recognize that the races of tomorrow have very little bearing on the accomplishments of yesterday when those accomplishments are truly great - there was a time when that was understood, and it both shocks and disappoints that those days are behind us.

The record shows, from where I sit, the superior athlete and superior campaign of 2009 in Rachel v.2009. Now, it's a whole new year, and a whole new game; greatness comes in all shapes and forms - what a thrill it'd be to see more than one in such a short span. I can only hope that certain connections recognize the gift they've been given, and jump at the opportunity...plenty of time's been frittered away, despite promises; time to pony up. So to speak.

[BluegrassProf]

Fischer: Yes it is. :D

Rachels 2009 was obviously impressive; so much so she won HOY and will go down as one of the greats. Z's 2008, 2009 and 2010 are impressive too, because (tomato cans or not) she wins grade 1's over and over and over again. Both horses are sure-fire 1st time HOF's. They dont do that that for crap horses.
Agreed. I'm the first to admit that I get caught up in the back-n-forth, but at the end of it, you're right on - two HOF competitors in as many years: how on earth can you beat that?

That approach is far more palpable, and hopefully WAY less divisive. :ThmbUp:

[Nets]

I just don't get it. After watching endless cheap claimers and other nondescript horses, I have been thrilled to watch these two magnificent horses. This site has many very knowledgeable handicappers who have watched the same things I have for many years. Each year we keep hoping for THAT horse that will be one we will remember forever. Amazingly, we get blessed with 2 at the same time, and rather then enjoy our great good luck, we instead turn it into something so negative. How anyone who has watched racing for many years could not appreciate this escapes me. I have always and will continue to root my heart out for both these wonderful horses. And if they were to ever face each other I would hope for a stretch run for the ages. We are unlikely to see 2 like this at the same time ever again. Go Z.....Go RA. And thank you both.

[Nikki1997]

I just don't get it. After watching endless cheap claimers and other nondescript horses, I have been thrilled to watch these two magnificent horses. This site has many very knowledgeable handicappers who have watched the same things I have for many years. Each year we keep hoping for THAT horse that will be one we will remember forever. Amazingly, we get blessed with 2 at the same time, and rather then enjoy our great good luck, we instead turn it into something so negative. How anyone who has watched racing for many years could not appreciate this escapes me. I have always and will continue to root my heart out for both these wonderful horses. And if they were to ever face each other I would hope for a stretch run for the ages. We are unlikely to see 2 like this at the same time ever again. Go Z.....Go RA. And thank you both.

Very true--and it probably will go down as a once in a lfetime scenario that in 2009, the leading horses for HOY were both female .

Mikki

[senortout]

At least you showed up, Jess Jackson didn't...maybe he was ill, otherwise he should have been there.

Thats a hot one....you eyeballed the crowd and came up with an average age difference of 15 years between the two days?......

only on my everlovin' Paceadvantage!

ooops was not trying to quote your post, the one before yours was my intent, sorry....

[bks]

BluegrassProf wrote:

Noting the above, at the end of the day, you're still employing a subjective test of ability to reach your conclusion, which fundamentally a.) relies on little substantive evidence, and on a grander scale, b.) defeats the purpose of campaigning a horse at the highest level against substantive competition over time: we should base the award of "greatness" on an objective test of accompishment, nothing less. Rachel A. affirmed her superiority on the track objectively in 2009, giving us the most historic 3yo campaign in modern NA racing (on which you yourself comment), and no amount of lauding-in-reverse will unseat the matter of record.

And I think I understand your reasoning. I am obligated to point out a problem in your terminology, though. The strength of Rachel's campaign cannot be determined "objectively". In fact, our marveling at her performance is strongly influenced by the fact that she was a 3-y-o filly. A 4-y-o male running against the exact level of competition she faced would not have won HOY. It's because she was a 3-y-o filly that the still-solid-for-any-horse campaign she undertook will be considered an all-time-great campaign, and her achievement considered historic.

If I understand you correctly, all you're saying is that Rachel's campaign was more difficult than Zenyatta's, which I agree with.

[BluegrassProf]

And I think I understand your reasoning. I am obligated to point out a problem in your terminology, though. The strength of Rachel's campaign cannot be determined "objectively". In fact, our marveling at her performance is strongly influenced by the fact that she was a 3-y-o filly. A 4-y-o male running against the exact level of competition she faced would not have won HOY. It's because she was a 3-y-o filly that the still-solid-for-any-horse campaign she undertook will be considered an all-time-great campaign, and her achievement considered historic.

If I understand you correctly, all you're saying is that Rachel's campaign was more difficult than Zenyatta's, which I agree with.On the former: Rachel's age is an objective observation; it's appropriately weighed within the framework of her campaign and competition, and against comparable historic events/athletes, giving us the shared conclusion as noted above. That's objecive analysis, at least to the degree possible considering the unavoidable variables over large periods of time (horseracing has plenty, no doubt, which certainly makes the discussion interesting).

On the latter: Agreed, regarding the issue of '09 campaigns - however, given the above observations, it's my conclusion - fundamentally subjective but based upon the objectively observable events of 2009 - that Rachel v.2009 was the superior competitor on the track.

As always, disagreement is the spice of life, and objectivity will only extend so far under these particular circumstances (reconciling the zillion variables between these two, from tracks to travels, is tough indeed). But it's unacceptable to either a.) summarily dismiss clear and observable matters of record - particularly the really important ones - and to b.) authoritatively award ex post facto accolades, or any combination thereof.

But again, what is, is; this is 2010. Here's looking forward to the rest of a story or two, as we all surely are.

[tubesockshakur]

I just don't get it. After watching endless cheap claimers and other nondescript horses, I have been thrilled to watch these two magnificent horses. This site has many very knowledgeable handicappers who have watched the same things I have for many years. Each year we keep hoping for THAT horse that will be one we will remember forever. Amazingly, we get blessed with 2 at the same time, and rather then enjoy our great good luck, we instead turn it into something so negative. How anyone who has watched racing for many years could not appreciate this escapes me. I have always and will continue to root my heart out for both these wonderful horses. And if they were to ever face each other I would hope for a stretch run for the ages. We are unlikely to see 2 like this at the same time ever again. Go Z.....Go RA. And thank you both.
agree......the stuff written about both champions is fcking unbelievable. you would think they are both the worst ever

[WinterTriangle]

Beyer figures earned at distances shorter than Classic ones aren't very valuable in analyzing how a horse will run at Classic distances

My big (and actually, only) contention in anything I've ever said about BSFs.



And KingChas: I don't think you want to defend the premise that trainer's intentions for the horse shouldn't affect handicapping.

Esp. when the horse shows up in Personal Ensign's silks--- for a 10F race in New York with a New York-based HOF *distance* trainer. :)

JCGC, Travers, Belmont, BCC's Rescue Squad, Casablanca Smile, Easy Goer, Parading, Personal Ensign, Vanlandingham...Shug is awfully good conditioning horses to run long, IMHO.

[PaceAdvantage]

As for the tomato can talk, well the Mare div is not exactly deep most times. If Z raced yesterday at the PE, about 100 yards from home she would have probably been saying 'these east coast tomato cans are easier than the west coast tomato cans'.There is absolutely no way on Earth the Personal Ensign plays out the same way it did if Zenyatta is in the race.

The only reason it played out like it did was precisely because there were NO quality closers in the race.

[classhandicapper]

There is absolutely no way on Earth the Personal Ensign plays out the same way it did if Zenyatta is in the race.

The only reason it played out like it did was precisely because there were NO quality closers in the race.

Agree 100%.

I made the same point in another thread.

[cj]

Agree 100%.

I made the same point in another thread.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on those that claim the pace was moderate. It seems obvious to me, even without fractions or pace figures, it was fast to very fast. What do you think?

[DeanT]

There is absolutely no way on Earth the Personal Ensign plays out the same way it did if Zenyatta is in the race.

The only reason it played out like it did was precisely because there were NO quality closers in the race.
I completely realize that. Send them in 48.3 and 113.2 and 138.3 and the result is not a lot different from a Beyer perspective - maybe they come home in 26 or 25.2. It was a really bad race.

[Pick6]

Given the same races, yes I think other horses could have done what Zenyatta did and be 18 for 18 right now.

Now let's do this in reverse. Forgetting restrictions, do you think Zenyatta could have won the same races Rachel won last year? Coming back to win the Preakness on 2 weeks rest? Winning back to back races against males in the slop at the Haskell and against older males in the Woodward?
I'd enter Z in the Belmont Stakes and Travers. She wins both. And measured against the other 3 races Z comes out on top. Then I'd go in the BCC and win that too.

Of course Z was not a 3YO and all this is just fancy speculation.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I'd enter Z in the Belmont Stakes and Travers. She wins both. And measured against the other 3 races Z comes out on top. Then I'd go in the BCC and win that too.

Of course Z was not a 3YO and all this is just fancy speculation.

What about the NYC Marathon?

[Pick6]

What about the NYC Marathon?
Not enough crowd control.

[Cratos]

http://www.drf.com/news/no-longer-rachel-alexandra-history

I read Beyer’s DRF article and found it somewhat flawed with respect to history. He might be statistically correct as he wrote below and I am paraphrasing that he wrote that fillies 3yo performances don’t necessary translate into their 4yo performances, but to use, Genuine Risk and Winning Colors as examples to support his hypothesis is hollow at best when you have Lady’s Secret and Personal Ensign to refute it.

Additionally, to say “She (Rachel) was as good as any American female racehorse ever’ is whistling in the pines as I heard when I was growing up in the South. I agree and support his prerogative to say whatever, but to compare Rachel to Ruffian is farfetched. Comparing her to Go For Wand is a stretch.

Excerpts Ffrom Beyer's DRF Article
“There are only guesses and theories, but some history may be relevant to Rachel Alexandra's case. Racehorses often improve when they reach maturity as 4-year-olds; Triple Crown winners Seattle Slew and Affirmed were even more dominant at 4 than they were at 3. But many of the greatest 3-year-old fillies have failed to progress this way. The last two fillies to win the Kentucky Derby, Genuine Risk (1980) and Winning Colors (1988), did not win a race of consequence as 4-year-olds. Perhaps the demands of an ultra-strenuous campaign take more of a toll on fillies than on colts.”

“She was as good as any American female racehorse ever - including the legendary Ruffian. Her poor showing Sunday doesn't mean that her achievements were in any way a fluke. Her loss only demonstrates that she is flesh and blood, not a running machine.”

[cj]

I read Beyer’s DRF article and found it somewhat flawed with respect to history. He might be statistically correct as he wrote below and I am paraphrasing that he wrote that fillies 3yo performances don’t necessary translate into their 4yo performances, but to use, Genuine Risk and Winning Colors as examples to support his hypothesis is hollow at best when you have Lady’s Secret and Personal Ensign to refute it.

Additionally, to say “She (Rachel) was as good as any American female racehorse ever’ is whistling in the pines as I heard when I was growing up in the South. I agree and support his prerogative to say whatever, but to compare Rachel to Ruffian is farfetched. Comparing her to Go For Wand is a stretch.

Excerpts Ffrom Beyer's DRF Article
“There are only guesses and theories, but some history may be relevant to Rachel Alexandra's case. Racehorses often improve when they reach maturity as 4-year-olds; Triple Crown winners Seattle Slew and Affirmed were even more dominant at 4 than they were at 3. But many of the greatest 3-year-old fillies have failed to progress this way. The last two fillies to win the Kentucky Derby, Genuine Risk (1980) and Winning Colors (1988), did not win a race of consequence as 4-year-olds. Perhaps the demands of an ultra-strenuous campaign take more of a toll on fillies than on colts.”

“She was as good as any American female racehorse ever - including the legendary Ruffian. Her poor showing Sunday doesn't mean that her achievements were in any way a fluke. Her loss only demonstrates that she is flesh and blood, not a running machine.”

I think you are missing the point. Those two you mention didn't really accomplish things like Rachel and Risk until late in the 3yo seasons.

[Cratos]

I think you are missing the point. Those two you mention didn't really accomplish things like Rachel and Risk until late in the 3yo seasons.

Okay we both are making inferences about Beyer’s article and in all due respect I didn’t miss anything because Personal Ensign went undefeated for her career (Rachel will not) and Lady’s Secret became the first female horse in 86 years to win the Whitney Hcp and in the same year won the top BC race for females (Rachel has yet to do that)

[Cardus]

Maybe it was a typo and he meant to use a different pronoun.

Either that or he was purposely athropormorphizing?

You think that he meant to write, "his" dignity to refer to Rachel Alexandra?

[cj]

Okay we both are making inferences about Beyer’s article and in all due respect I didn’t miss anything because Personal Ensign went undefeated for her career (Rachel will not) and Lady’s Secret became the first female horse in 86 years to win the Whitney Hcp and in the same year won the top BC race for females (Rachel has yet to do that)

Thanks for the unnecessary history lesson!

Here is what you missed:

But many of the greatest 3-year-old fillies have failed to progress this way. The last two fillies to win the Kentucky Derby, Genuine Risk (1980) and Winning Colors (1988), did not win a race of consequence as 4-year-olds.

How could you read this and then use Personal Ensign and Lady's Secret as counter proof? Neither ran in the Derby, or the Oaks, or any of the early season big races for 3yo fillies or colts. He didn't even mention Rags to Riches, who won the Oaks and the Belmont but ran only once more.

Personal Ensign didn't even run at 3 until September after an injury. Lady's Secret didn't run in anything significant until the Test in August and then stretched out and won nice races.

As good as PE and LS were, I don't think anyone considers them among the greatest 3yo fillies. That is all I was saying, you were comparing apples to oranges in my opinion. Lady's Secret was a late bloomer, and Personal Ensign was delayed by a serious injury.

[DeanT]

It would have been interesting to see what Rags to Riches would have done if they brought her back to race. She had those Rachel like qualities of toughness. Quite the filly. Maybe the rest would have done her good and she would have had a great late 3YO and 4YO year.

[cj]

It would have been interesting to see what Rags to Riches would have done if they brought her back to race. She had those Rachel like qualities of toughness. Quite the filly. Maybe the rest would have done her good and she would have had a great late 3YO and 4YO year.

I should add Silverbulletday to the list. She was a brilliant 3yo filly, won the Oaks and was the pace setter in the Belmont. She went down to defeat as the favorite in the Distaff.

As a 4yo, she was 1 for 5 with a win in an ungraded stakes race and two losses at both the G2 and G3 level before retiring.

[andymays]

It would have been interesting to see what Rags to Riches would have done if they brought her back to race. She had those Rachel like qualities of toughness. Quite the filly. Maybe the rest would have done her good and she would have had a great late 3YO and 4YO year.

She was one of my favorites. After her race against Curlin she wasn't the same. She had to give a lot to win that day and I think it hurt her. That's what makes some of Rachels performances in 2009 all the more amazing.

[BombsAway Bob]

She was one of my favorites. After her race against Curlin she wasn't the same. She had to give a lot to win that day and I think it hurt her. That's what makes some of Rachels performances in 2009 all the more amazing.
i think there's your answer to 2010 Rachel v. 2009 Rachel
Maybe the Amplifier won't go to "11" anymore...

[PaceAdvantage]

Is it really that simple? One big effort (such as Rachel's Woodward or Rags' Belmont) and you're never the same?

I can see that happening if an injury was incurred while running that big effort. But if no injury is involved, why would a big winning effort like that completely alter a horse's ability? It doesn't make a lick of sense from an athletic perspective. Athletes get STRONGER when they push themselves, not weaker (again, barring injury).

What would be the physiological reasons behind such a phenomenon? Or is it purely psychological, and if so, why would that be? The horses in question WON their "big effort" races. And at least in Rachel's case, she has come back this year to WIN again after the Woodward...in fact, she has been tooth and nail competitive in each and every 2010 race, so psychology does not seem to hold the answer here.

I believe either we need to rethink this whole "one race knocked them out forever" business OR learn a little more of what went on behind the scenes after the "big win" (such as an unreported injury).

[DeanT]

Is it really that simple? One big effort (such as Rachel's Woodward or Rags' Belmont) and you're never the same?

Maybe Reid or someone can talk about it better, but if I can take a shot - they call it being cooked. A lot of times no one knows why a horse comes back like crap sometimes but a shrug of the shoulders and "I think I might have cooked him" is heard often. I had someone smart tell me it is the culmination of things - shipping, lasix, tough races, little things (sore hocks, splints, etc that happen throughout a racing year) and the horse is not quite the same.

When you read (if you did I am not sure) that article when Baffert, Mott and a few others were interviewed about cooked horses they did not have answers, they just wondered out loud. I think when you see SA being asked he looks the same. I dont think anyone has any idea why she aint the same. If they did they would fix it I would think.

JMO on the above.

PS: I think it is aggravating for them (trainers) too. I had a trainer friend who had a cooked horse. He struggled and worked and worked 100's of hours trying to find out why. He even sent the bloods to Australia for someone to look at it that specialized in a certain blood reading with the liver. It was all futile. He never found out what was bugging him.

[Java Gold@TFT]

When it comes to horse psychology we will never know. I never understood why Sham quit on the game after the Belmont. It's not like he wa abd horse but everyone said that Secretariat took his heart away.

I don't think any horse has taken Rachel's heart away in tight defeats. I only hope they run her in the Beldame and then take a hard look at which BC race would be best for her.

[classhandicapper]

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on those that claim the pace was moderate. It seems obvious to me, even without fractions or pace figures, it was fast to very fast. What do you think?

I thought it was very fast, but I'm reluctant to put a number on it because it was a 10F race and the only 2 turner of the day.

In fact, I suspect that several of the other horses made middle moves to get into contention that were too fast. That's why the the whole race fell apart (other than the winner).

I may be wrong about this, but I think the winner actually ran fairly well. The horses that made similar moves died. Perhaps the others were all just bad, but perhaps she's getting better.

[classhandicapper]

Thanks for the unnecessary history lesson!

Here is what you missed:



How could you read this and then use Personal Ensign and Lady's Secret as counter proof? Neither ran in the Derby, or the Oaks, or any of the early season big races for 3yo fillies or colts. He didn't even mention Rags to Riches, who won the Oaks and the Belmont but ran only once more.

Personal Ensign didn't even run at 3 until September after an injury. Lady's Secret didn't run in anything significant until the Test in August and then stretched out and won nice races.

As good as PE and LS were, I don't think anyone considers them among the greatest 3yo fillies. That is all I was saying, you were comparing apples to oranges in my opinion. Lady's Secret was a late bloomer, and Personal Ensign was delayed by a serious injury.

I'd like to make one point on the development of 3YO fillies.

Most people won't remember this, but before the season started I predicted we had already seen the best of RA. The reason I expected that is because I've done some research that leads me to believe that fillies mature earlier than colts. Over and above that, it seems fairly difficult to hold any horse together for a real long time. Minor injuries accumulate etc..

We are used to seeing colts develop straight through their 3YO campaign and sometimes right into their 4YO year. But I think fillies peak earlier.

That's why quite a few of them have been competitive in the Triple Crown preps and even the Triple Crown races, but very few have been competitive later on against Grade 1 older horses. The 3YO males keep developing and eventually leave the 3YO fillies in the dust (even some exceptional ones).

The few exceptions to beat older males have been spectacular fillies and in most cases the connections were very careful to find a single soft spot or two to tackle older male horses. They avoided spots like the BC Classic where the field will be deep and of extremely high quality.

[depalma113]

I'd like to make one point on the development of 3YO fillies.

Most people won't remember this, but before the season started I predicted we had already seen the best of RA. The reason I expected that is because I've done some research that leads me to believe that fillies mature earlier than colts. Over and above that, it seems fairly difficult to hold any horse together for a real long time. Minor injuries accumulate etc..

We are used to seeing colts develop straight through their 3YO campaign and sometimes right into their 4YO year. But I think fillies peak earlier.

That's why quite a few of them have been competitive in the Triple Crown preps and even the Triple Crown races, but very few have been competitive later on against Grade 1 older horses. The 3YO males keep developing and eventually leave the 3YO fillies in the dust (even some exceptional ones).

The few exceptions to beat older males have been spectacular fillies and in most cases the connections were very careful to find a single soft spot or two to tackle older male horses. They avoided spots like the BC Classic where the field will be deep and of extremely high quality.

There is nothing this year that indicates she can't go out and demolish a field at a mile and a sixteenth to a mile and an eighth. So it is rather presumptious to believe that we have seen the best of her. What we have found out is that a mile and a quarter without the right setup is probably going to be hard for her to win.

[46zilzal]

When it comes to horse psychology we will never know. I never understood why Sham quit on the game after the Belmont. It's not like he was and horse but everyone said that Secretariat took his heart away.

.
Well he lost several teeth in a gate accident in Baltimore that could account for part of that

[classhandicapper]

There is nothing this year that indicates she can't go out and demolish a field at a mile and a sixteenth to a mile and an eighth. So it is rather presumptious to believe that we have seen the best of her. What we have found out is that a mile and a quarter without the right setup is probably going to be hard for her to win.

This is what I meant.

In human terms, she was already a mature woman last year. The 3YO colts she was beating were still teenagers/early twenties.

[PaceAdvantage]

Fillies maturing faster than colts is a fairly well known concept, isn't it? But as with most everything in life, each case is a little bit different, and some of us were hoping this wouldn't apply in Rachel's case...winning the Woodward against OLDER, established males gave some serious hope to that notion.

This year has not...thus far.

[cj]

Fillies maturing faster than colts is a fairly well known concept, isn't it? But as with most everything in life, each case is a little bit different, and some of us were hoping this wouldn't apply in Rachel's case...winning the Woodward against OLDER, established males gave some serious hope to that notion.

This year has not...thus far.

It is certainly a more generic rule. Lady's Secret was a prime example of a horse maturing later. Azeri was similar too, and there are countless others.

[willphorse]

Rachel is in no way shape or form worse than last yr. She just can't handle that long of a distance. She wasn't bred for it. Straight from Lauren Sitch's....Who called Rachel's loss 2 days before the race...

http://www.gradeoneracing.com/stich.htm?read=25

[cj]

Rachel is in no way shape or form worse than last yr.

Lets just start here. When has Rachel run a race this year on par with those of last year? She hasn't on my numbers, or anyone else's that I have seen.

[Dahoss9698]

Lauren Stich should stick to pedigree analysis. I'll defer to the experts like CJ when assessing pace.

[classhandicapper]

Fillies maturing faster than colts is a fairly well known concept, isn't it? But as with most everything in life, each case is a little bit different, and some of us were hoping this wouldn't apply in Rachel's case...winning the Woodward against OLDER, established males gave some serious hope to that notion.

This year has not...thus far.

If it is, I have never seen it discussed by handicappers or horseman as part of an evaluation of race results, accomplishments etc..

It more or less seems like horsemen occasionally take a shot against colts with their very good 2YO fillies and spring 3YO fillies because they seem to fit in on figures etc... but they rarely take a shot against older horses because by then the males have moved past them. If the do, they tend to look for softer spots (always have).

No discussion of why that's the case.

I also think there are two types of development that you have to distinguish.

A lightly raced 3YO filly might develop as a 4YO as part of the seasoning process, but without developing much physically. I think you will rarely see a 3YO filly that was already very good early in her 3YO season be even better at 4. It happens fairly often with colts.

[Charlie D]

The splits for the Personal Ensign are *the* telling point here. They were average – even slow –and definitely were not taxing for 1 ¼ Miles – 23.66; 47.73; 1:12.02; 1:37.54 and final time of 2:04.49. The quarter-mile times were 24.07; 24.29; 25.52



Please show the horses that have those fractions and the Position 1-1-1-2(beaten around 1 length) at 10f.

[willphorse]

Don't hate me guys... I just posted it straight off Lauren's page... I personally think the rigorous campaign of last yr still has her not so much sore, but def. beaten up.

[Robert Goren]

Last year she would have run off and hid from that bunch of horses. Last year she didn't need excuses. She is still very good filly, but I am kind of wondering which BC race she will try.

[Charlie D]

Ah! i see willp. No link, no text in quotes made me think they were your thoughts.

[Grits]

Don't hate me guys... I just posted it straight off Lauren's page... I personally think the rigorous campaign of last yr still has her not so much sore, but def. beaten up.

I didn't realize this was not your own opinion.

As Stich's opinion, because she follows pedigree so closely, and someone has indicated, she knows nothing about pace--how would her opinion be considered more valid? Simply because its based on breeding? How many horses have outrun their breeding?

[cj]

I didn't realize this was not your own opinion.

As Stich's opinion, because she follows pedigree so closely, and someone has indicated, she knows nothing about pace--how would her opinion be considered more valid? Simply because its based on breeding? How many horses have outrun their breeding?

Well, the winner did for one.

[classhandicapper]

Last year she would have run off and hid from that bunch of horses. Last year she didn't need excuses. She is still very good filly, but I am kind of wondering which BC race she will try.

IMO if she runs in the Classic she will be off the board. Even if she reaches her best form from last year she'll be off the board. I've been waiting all year to play against her in the Classic and was upset by the loss for that reason.

There's a huge difference between being able to "get 10F" and 10F being optimal.

There's a huge difference between coping with a Grade 1 mare early then holding off other marginal mares vs coping with multiple Grade 1 older colts like Quality Road, Rail Trip etc... and then holding off Blame, Musket Man, Zenyatta and the best peaking 3YOs.

The problem is that if they choose the Ladies, it will seem beneath her because of her HOTY honors from last year and the fact that Zenyatta is going in the Classic if she runs well next out.

[Charlie D]

There is no shame in being beaten by better on the day. Ouija Board. Pride, Goldikova have all been beaten, but no one can tell me these horses were not and are not TOP Class.

[Pick6]

......in fact, she has been tooth and nail competitive in each and every 2010 race, so psychology does not seem to hold the answer here.
I would not call a 14 second final 1/8 "competitive".

[cj]

I would not call a 14 second final 1/8 "competitive".

Yes, that is a stellar way to handicap. Just bet the horses that run the best last 1/8. Good luck with that strategy.

[Charlie D]

Yes, that is a stellar way to handicap. Just bet the horses that run the best last 1/8. Good luck with that strategy.


Shhh CJ, the opportunities will dry up. :)

[Pick6]

I should add Silverbulletday to the list. She was a brilliant 3yo filly, won the Oaks and was the pace setter in the Belmont. She went down to defeat as the favorite in the Distaff.

As a 4yo, she was 1 for 5 with a win in an ungraded stakes race and two losses at both the G2 and G3 level before retiring.
It works the other way too:
Susan's Girl
Life's Magic
Desert Vixen
Waya
...

Horses do not all mature the same, obviously. And some lose their competitive spirit over time, not just 3YO fillies. Even greats such as Affirmed and Citation had their bouts of competitive ineffectiveness.

[Pick6]

Yes, that is a stellar way to handicap. Just bet the horses that run the best last 1/8. Good luck with that strategy.
What are we talking about: competitiveness or handicapping?

Do you target horses coming back from a 14 second final 1/8?

14 second final 1/8 was not competitive. This explains why an optional claimer who could only muster a 13 2/5 final 1/8 was able to win.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Yes, that is a stellar way to handicap. Just bet the horses that run the best last 1/8. Good luck with that strategy.


I think you're letting the source of the point color your objectivity. I don't think he claimed the final 1/8 could or should be used to handicap races (unless he did it in prior posts); he used it to address her competitive spirit. I'm not sure why so many people are going through mental gymnastics to defend RA. I could not have been happier when she was named HOY last yr - well, well deserved. I thought she had a decent chance of progressing this yr and running 112 to 118 Beyers on a consistent basis. I think most RA fans who use Beyers would have shared that hope. Either's something wrong with her (and Asmussen and his vets haven't found it--possible, not faulting them) or she peaked last yr. In any case, I was WRONG about her 2010 campaign and so were most of her backers on this board.

[GaryG]

And some lose their competitive spirit over time, not just 3YO fillies. Even greats such as Affirmed and Citation had their bouts of competitive ineffectiveness.Citation had the best 3yo season ever....bar none. His "competitive ineffectiveness" was due to serious injuries and being campaigned for too long in search of $1 mil.

[Pick6]

Citation had the best 3yo season ever....bar none. His "competitive ineffectiveness" was due to serious injuries and being campaigned for too long in search of $1 mil.
Agreed. But even after he regained his health he never regained his competitive form.

[Tom]

What are we talking about: competitiveness or handicapping?

Do you target horses coming back from a 14 second final 1/8?

14 second final 1/8 was not competitive. This explains why an optional claimer who could only muster a 13 2/5 final 1/8 was able to win.

13-2/5?
O, that horse is better than Discreet Whoever who wont he King's Bishop, right? He came home slower at at only 7 the day before.

No one target 14 second horse, but you evaluate the race and the other races and then you use a variant to put the 14 into perspective. What was the fastest last 1/8th Saturday or Sunday?

[GaryG]

Agreed. But even after he regained his health he never regained his competitive form.Of course, the osselet and bowed tendon may have had something to do with it.....troll on.

[cj]

What are we talking about: competitiveness or handicapping?

Do you target horses coming back from a 14 second final 1/8?

14 second final 1/8 was not competitive. This explains why an optional claimer who could only muster a 13 2/5 final 1/8 was able to win.

Yes, I often bet horses that run awful last 8ths and even quarters if they did enough work early. They are among the best bets in racing.

[Pick6]

Of course, the osselet and bowed tendon may have had something to do with it.....troll on.
He did set a world record at 5 if that means anything...

[Nikki1997]

Well, the winner did for one.

No she did not .

If you only looked at Smoke Glacken you may have assumed that, but she has enough Classic influences in her pedigree through Northern Dancer and Mr. Prospector to balance that .

They are both Brilliant but also Classic influences

And Smoke Glacken is not yet a Chef-de -Race of speed .

Her dosage numbers indicate classic distance capabilities as well as brilliant influences , and more than suggest that she had the stuff for ten furlongs .

Her DP is a 3, and her CD is a 1.

Mikki.

[cj]

No she did not .

If you only looked at Smoke Glacken you may have assumed that, but she has enough Classic influences in her pedigree through Northern Dancer and Mr. Prospector to balance that .

They are both Brilliant but also Classic influences

And Smoke Glacken is not yet a Chef-de -Race of speed .

Her dosage numbers indicate classic distance capabilities as well as brilliant influences , and more than suggest that she had the stuff for ten furlongs .

Her DP is a 3, and her CD is a 1.

Mikki.

You can dig up info on any horse and come up with a reason they can or cannot get a distance. I think astrology is probably more accurate.

[Pick6]

Yes, I often bet horses that run awful last 8ths and even quarters if they did enough work early. They are among the best bets in racing.
Fair enough. If a horse is not competitive in a given race, I can see how they might bounce back given a better situation.

[cj]

Fair enough. If a horse is not competitive in a given race, I can see how they might bounce back given a better situation.

Who said they weren't competitive? Don't put words in my mouth to try to push your agenda.

[Nikki1997]

You can dig up info on any horse and come up with a reason they can or cannot get a distance. I think astrology is probably more accurate.

Just another set of numbers .

They are only valid in the eye of the beholder .

[Pick6]

Who said they weren't competitive? Don't put words in my mouth to try to push your agenda.
I did. 14 second final 1/8 against top stakes horses in my book is not "competitive", i.e. not projecting a winning effort. A top stakes horse would have probably finished around <2:03, which puts RA at least 8 lengths back, probably much more.

You have your way at looking at her performance, and I have mine. It could not beat an optional claimer, and it would have absolutely no chance against a top stakes horse at the distance, e.g. Blame. I'm not pushing any "agenda" on anybody. If you think RA will be competitive with this pace scenario against BCC horses such as Z or Blame, tell me what price you want.

[Grits]

Just another set of numbers .

They are only valid in the eye of the beholder .

No, not really. More like only valid to those that know how to read and use them.

[Charlie D]

Yes, I often bet horses that run awful last 8ths and even quarters if they did enough work early. They are among the best bets in racing.

:eek:


Ssshhhhhhushhhh

[Nikki1997]

No, not really. More like only valid to those that know how to read and use them.


Exactly what I was saying to the OP .

Depends on the reader/ beholder .

[Grits]

Exactly what I was saying to the OP .

Depends on the reader/ beholder .

;)

[cj]

If you think RA will be competitive with this pace scenario against BCC horses such as Z or Blame, tell me what price you want.

Where have I ever said that? I've pretty much said the opposite. Feel free to keep making things up though.

[Pick6]

Where have I ever said that? I've pretty much said the opposite. Feel free to keep making things up though.
A 14 second final 1/8 does not project a winning effort against top stakes competition, thus it is not competitive against that level of competition.

An easier spot (either against minor horses with a favorable pace, or shorter distance) is fine. Then she becomes competitive. This is what I've said all along.

[cj]

A 14 second final 1/8 does not project a winning effort against top stakes competition, thus it is not competitive against that level of competition.

An easier spot (either against minor horses with a favorable pace, or shorter distance) is fine. Then she becomes competitive. This is what I've said all along.

Of course it doesn't, but she also doesn't project to run that slow late if she goes slower early. It isn't as simple as looking at the final eighth and assuming that is what she or any horse will always run.

[cj]

Exactly what I was saying to the OP .

Depends on the reader/ beholder .

I certainly know plenty about pedigree and am familiar with all the numbers. I just know over time, betting on it is generally a losing proposition. Sure, you can catch lightning once in a while.

That said, I'm trying to find all the "pedigree" experts that picked that winner before the race. I've seen one, maybe two, on this board, and that is about it.

[Charlie D]

A 14 second final 1/8 does not project a winning effort against top stakes competition, thus it is not competitive against that level of competition.
.


Sorry to butt in to your head to head, but i must inform you, the race starts when the gate opens and not at the final 1/8 pole.


Think - Cause and effect.


Hope this helps.

[Pick6]

Of course it doesn't, but she also doesn't project to run that slow late if she goes slower early. It isn't as simple as looking at the final eighth and assuming that is what she or any horse will always run.
Which is probably why I said this:

If you think RA will be competitive with this pace scenario against BCC horses such as Z or Blame, tell me what price you want.
Do we expect some slow down pace scenario just to favor RA? I doubt it. And that is barely enough to get her past an optional claimer. She will need a huge front end boost to improve 8+ lengths and beat top stakes competition. And probably a fallen rider or two.

[Pick6]

Sorry to butt in to your head to head, but i must inform you, the race starts when the gate opens and not at the final 1/8 pole.


Think - Cause and effect.


Hope this helps.
Please read #146. It should address your concerns.

[cj]

Which is probably why I said this:

Do we expect some slow down pace scenario just to favor RA? I doubt it. And that is barely enough to get her past an optional claimer. She will need a huge front end boost to improve 8+ lengths and beat top stakes competition. And probably a fallen rider or two.

I have never thought she had a chance in the the Classic.

[Pick6]

I have never thought she had a chance in the the Classic.
And this is what I mean when I state she is not "competitive". She has basically no chance against top stakes horses at 1 1/4, thus not "competitive" at that level.

1 1/16, certainly. 1 1/8, questionably.

[Charlie D]

Do we expect some slow down pace scenario just to favor RA? I doubt it. And that is barely enough to get her past an optional claimer. She will need a huge front end boost to improve 8+ lengths and beat top stakes competition. And probably a fallen rider or two.



You seem to be presuming Rachel will be up front.


Well, if connections have not learnt anything from PE, Woodward Preakness, they all need to pack in the game.

[cj]

And this is what I mean when I state she is not "competitive". She has basically no chance against top stakes horses at 1 1/4, thus not "competitive" at that level.

1 1/16, certainly. 1 1/8, questionably.

If you mean males, sure. Females, you are dead wrong.

[letswastemoney]

Life At Ten should be embarrassed she lost to a filly who people say should be retired

[Pick6]

Life At Ten should be embarrassed she lost to a filly who people say should be retired

PA said that if RA's connections are not pointing to a meeting against Z, RA should be retired.

I did not say that.

[Pick6]

If you mean males, sure. Females, you are dead wrong.
Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know because there are no remaining 1 1/4 races left on the calendar for F&M, other than on turf of course.

I don't see how this race benefitted RA, perhaps other than convincing her camp that BCC is out.

[Nikki1997]

I certainly know plenty about pedigree and am familiar with all the numbers. I just know over time, betting on it is generally a losing proposition. Sure, you can catch lightning once in a while.

That said, I'm trying to find all the "pedigree" experts that picked that winner before the race. I've seen one, maybe two, on this board, and that is about it.


I originally was addressing the remark you made that the winner outran her pedigree .

We were not discussing pedigree experts or who bet using pedigree info exclusively or with other stats to wager .

If you know plenty about pedigrees, you would have known she did not outrun her pedigree or the numbers that indicated an aptitude to get the distance.

Pedigree info is simply a reference of art and science, like all other numbers.

Mikki

[Charlie D]

I did. 14 second final 1/8 against top stakes horses in my book is not "competitive", i.e. not projecting a winning effort. A top stakes horse would have probably finished around <2:03, which puts RA at least 8 lengths back, probably much more.

You have your way at looking at her performance, and I have mine. It could not beat an optional claimer, and it would have absolutely no chance against a top stakes horse at the distance, e.g. Blame. I'm not pushing any "agenda" on anybody. If you think RA will be competitive with this pace scenario against BCC horses such as Z or Blame, tell me what price you want.



Yep, thats twice i read it now.


Now you read mine.


What happens in FR1 has an effect on what happens in FR2 and what happens in the previous Fractions has a MASSIVE impact on Fr3 and the subsequent time, lengths beaten and final positions in the race.


Hope this helps.

[Nikki1997]

Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know because there are no remaining 1 1/4 races left on the calendar for F&M, other than on turf of course.

I don't see how this race benefitted RA, perhaps other than convincing her camp that BCC is out.


Since Asmussen suggested that the race was a sort of test, I believe that is exactly what it served the connections to be convinced of .

[Pick6]

Yep, thats twice i read it now.


Now you read mine.


What happens in FR1 has an effect on what happens in FR2 and what happens in the previous Fractions has a MASSIVE impact on Fr3 and the subsequent time, lengths beaten and final positions in the race.


Hope this helps.
Since you read it I have no idea why you are posting this. Carry on.

[Charlie D]

Since you read it I have no idea why you are posting this. Carry on.


Sorry, can't help you anymore than the description in last post.

[born2ride]

No she did not .

If you only looked at Smoke Glacken you may have assumed that, but she has enough Classic influences in her pedigree through Northern Dancer and Mr. Prospector to balance that .

They are both Brilliant but also Classic influences

And Smoke Glacken is not yet a Chef-de -Race of speed .

Her dosage numbers indicate classic distance capabilities as well as brilliant influences , and more than suggest that she had the stuff for ten furlongs .

Her DP is a 3, and her CD is a 1.

Mikki.

She absolutely did outrun her pedigree. She has 3 times the influence of speed to stamina, and a CD of 1 puts her pedigree best distance at less than 1 1/4.

[Cratos]

Thanks for the unnecessary history lesson!

Here is what you missed:



How could you read this and then use Personal Ensign and Lady's Secret as counter proof? Neither ran in the Derby, or the Oaks, or any of the early season big races for 3yo fillies or colts. He didn't even mention Rags to Riches, who won the Oaks and the Belmont but ran only once more.

Personal Ensign didn't even run at 3 until September after an injury. Lady's Secret didn't run in anything significant until the Test in August and then stretched out and won nice races.

As good as PE and LS were, I don't think anyone considers them among the greatest 3yo fillies. That is all I was saying, you were comparing apples to oranges in my opinion. Lady's Secret was a late bloomer, and Personal Ensign was delayed by a serious injury.

First and foremost you either didn’t understand Beyer’s thesis or you ignored it. Secondly, if you read my post comprehensively you would understand that I never contested Beyer’s postulation about the maturity and development of 3yo fillies versus 3yo males moving to the 4yo racing age group.

What Beyer said and I am paraphrasing was that 3yo males historically carry their form to their 4yo racing year better than 3yo fillies and he buffered his assertion with examples of Genuine Risk and Winning Colors.

In my post I retorted by saying that statistically he might be right with his assertion because inferentially I don’t know one way or another and I was willing to give him benefit of the doubt.

However his justification with Genuine Risk and Winning Colors brought forth my refutation with the example of Personal Ensign and Lady’s Secret. He could have written the corollary as: “an exception to that hypothesis was Personal Ensign and Lady’s Secret”; but he didn’t.

However you went off the farm so to speak with obnoxious rhetoric about Personal Ensign injury, the greatest 3yo fillies, and Lady’s Secret being a late bloomer.

None of that remotely or contextually identified with what Beyer was indicating in his thesis statement and again it was “that 3yo males historically carry their form to their 4yo racing year better than 3yo fillies.”

You can either support that hypotheses or dispute it; my original post did neither, it only showed an exception.

[Nikki1997]

She absolutely did outrun her pedigree. She has 3 times the influence of speed to stamina, and a CD of 1 puts her pedigree best distance at less than 1 1/4.


Wrong .

The center of distribution is a blend of speed to stamina on a continuum .

A perfect balance is in the middle and the number would be 0 .

The categories range from the fastest--Brilliant, Intermediate, Classic, Solid, and Professional .

She does NOT have three times the speed--if I rememember her profile is

1-8-6-1-0 .

She would have one sprinting, one intermediate--up to 9f, 6 classic, 10f, and one solid,12f approximately.

The upward cutoff for classic may be a little more than ten--this is from memory

If she had 3x the speed influnece the DI would be a much higher number .

Horses deemed appropriate by dosage to have the capability to win the 10 furlong Kentucky Derby are preferred to have the DI of under 4 .

I believe you have miscalculated.

Both DI and CID represent aptitude, but CID alone does not tell you what the best distance is , only the blend of speed to stamina horses .

Secretariat's pedigree is almost like hers DI3, and CID .90.

To be exact, her pedigree reflect the ability to get the distance, but also indicates she is not a plodder .

[born2ride]

Wrong .

The center of distribution is a blend of speed to stamina on a continuum .

A perfect balance is in the middle and the number would be 0 .

The categories range from the fastest--Brilliant, Intermediate, Classic, Solid, and Professional .

She does NOT have three times the speed--if I rememember her profile is

1-8-6-1-0 .

She would have one sprinting, one intermediate--up to 9f, 6 classic, 10f, and one solid,12f approximately.

The upward cutoff for classic may be a little more than ten--this is from memory

If she had 3x the speed influnece the DI would be a much higher number .

Horses deemed appropriate by dosage to have the capability to win the 10 furlong Kentucky Derby are preferred to have the DI of under 4 .

I believe you have miscalculated.

Both DI and CID represent aptitude, but CID alone does not tell you what the best distance is , only the blend of speed to stamina horses .

Secretariat's pedigree is almost like hers DI3, and CID .90.

To be exact, her pedigree reflect the ability to get the distance, but also indicates she is not a plodder .

Her DP is 8-1-6-1-0. For speed Persistently has 8+1+3 (1/2 the Classic) which is 12. For stamina she has 3 (1/2 the Classic)+1 which 4. The DI ratio, speed to stamina, is 12/4 =3. She has 3 times the speed dosage as she does stamina dosage.

DI is indicative of the pedigree balance between speed and stamina, a DI of 1 would mean a perfect balance between speed and stamina, not 0. Values over 1 indicate more speed than stamina, values less than 1 indicate more stamina than speed.

Her CD of 1.0 tells us where on the scale of DP she falls given the total combined dosage of all chef's. A value of 1 puts her squarely on Intermediate which is shorter than Classic which is 0.

So going on basic chef de race CD and DI, Persistently very much outran her pedigree. I take this stuff with a grain of salt though, as I firmly believe that the dam throws more stamina than the sire. In Persistently's case, her dam's side is loaded is stamina, far more so than her sires. So if you believe this, then she probably ran closer to her pedigree.

[cj]

None of that remotely or contextually identified with what Beyer was indicating in his thesis statement and again it was “that 3yo males historically carry their form to their 4yo racing year better than 3yo fillies.”

You can either support that hypotheses or dispute it; my original post did neither, it only showed an exception.

We'll just have to agree that we read the article and took away two different meanings. Maybe when I have time I'll explain it to you in a PM, but I wouldn't check your box too often.

[Bullet Plane]

As usual Andy Beyer nailed this topic with his usual aplomb. Many 3 year olds, such as MTB and Funny Cide, as well as the fillies he mentioned in his article- don't go on to excell at 4. Z for instance wasn't sqat at three.

Cigar is my favorite racehorse, but at three , he stunk. Horse have their peaks. Like the female Olymic swimmer who excel at 14, then flame out.

Many champions of the grand National are 12 years old. Stamina increases over the years, but speed peters out.

Rachel was a great 3 year old- she is still a very tough Grade 1 four year old- but not a great 4 year old. It's the nature of the game. She hooked up with multiple graded stakes winner Life at Ten and they went after it harmmer and tong. Fourteen lenghts ahead of the crew. She put the mighty L at T away and just got nipped at the wire by a closer. AS someone here mentioned a la Cigar, when he went down in flames to Dare and Go.
It was a very memorable performance, one of her greatest moments, in my opinion- she didn't garner a great speed figure, but she sure did show the critics what game means.
Nuff said.

[Nikki1997]

Her DP is 8-1-6-1-0. For speed Persistently has 8+1+3 (1/2 the Classic) which is 12. For stamina she has 3 (1/2 the Classic)+1 which 4. The DI ratio, speed to stamina, is 12/4 =3. She has 3 times the speed dosage as she does stamina dosage.

DI is indicative of the pedigree balance between speed and stamina, a DI of 1 would mean a perfect balance between speed and stamina, not 0. Values over 1 indicate more speed than stamina, values less than 1 indicate more stamina than speed.

Her CD of 1.0 tells us where on the scale of DP she falls given the total combined dosage of all chef's. A value of 1 puts her squarely on Intermediate which is shorter than Classic which is 0.

So going on basic chef de race CD and DI, Persistently very much outran her pedigree. I take this stuff with a grain of salt though, as I firmly believe that the dam throws more stamina than the sire. In Persistently's case, her dam's side is loaded is stamina, far more so than her sires. So if you believe this, then she probably ran closer to her pedigree.

Sorry but you got it all turned around

I said the CD was a balance of speed and stamina, and 0 was right in the middle, the DI doesn't work like that, though you got the math right.

The Profile is nothing more than the number of CDRs in each aptitudinal category, and you reversed the first two .

You got her dosage profile wrong---it is 1-8-6-1-0, NOT 8-1-6-1-0---makes a big difference , and is incorrect.

She has only ONE brilliant , SIX intermediate.

Formula for calculating Index from Profile is such:

Add B plus I plus 1/2 C--that is 12.

Divide by i/2C plus S plus P---3 plus 1 plus 0==4.

4 into 12 =3 . BUT the 3 does NOT mean she has less stamina than speed--that is your misconception--you got the number right but the idea wrong .

The three can not mean she has three times the speed influences as even if the numbers were reversed as you shoed, she would have 9 CDR from sprinting to 9f, and 7 CDRS for 10f to 12 f .

Your interpretation is all wrong

A horse with 8-1-6-1-0 profile would have the same DI number as a horse with 1-8-6-1-0, but the former would have a different CID because the profile tilts toward speed with 8 in the Brilliant category, rather than 8 in the Intermediate ( up to furlongs)..

The 1-8-6-1-0 horse ( Persistently) shows the preponderance of 9-10 furlong horses, with 1 horse Brilliant and one horse Solid .

Here is what a CD of 0 looks like-- 2-4-6-4-2--like a mirror or heart shaped .

The CD should be self explanatory, in that the distribution of Chef-de -races from ALL categories create the center, but you are incorrect that 1 is less than Classic aptitude, as the formula is yet another one that is not 1:1..

I am too tired to look it up, but it is so.

There are fractional deviations from the ideal 0, so much that pure sprinting types can have one something CDs

For example, a mare I am riding is a pure sprinting type , indbred to Olympia 2x and Nasrullah 2x with a Raise a Native sireline .

Here is her Dosage Profile or DP--15-7-4-0-0.

Here is her Dosage Index--12.00

But her Center of Distribution is 1.42--only .42 off Persistently and .52 off Secretariat, which also shared a DI of 3.

You might want to rethink your idea of it., and check how all are calculated again .

Kentucky Derby hopefuls are considered aptitudinally appropriate for 10 furlongs with a DI of under 4 . Surely you have read all that over the years come the first Saturday in May .

Persistently has the correct dosage to be aptitudinally appropriate for 10 furlongs--it is not what I wish to believe, it follows the correct theory and math .

[PaceAdvantage]

What are we talking about: competitiveness or handicapping?

Do you target horses coming back from a 14 second final 1/8?

14 second final 1/8 was not competitive. This explains why an optional claimer who could only muster a 13 2/5 final 1/8 was able to win.I love how you continually throw around the "optional claimer" pejorative.

Have you forgotten that an optional claimer just ran Zenyatta to within a neck of her first loss ever? Yeah, I know Zenyatta won and Rachel lost, but Z IS supposed to be the best horse in the world.

So you might want to rethink your opinion on "optional claimers."

[born2ride]

Sorry but you got it all turned around

I said the CD was a balance of speed and stamina, and 0 was right in the middle, the DI doesn't work like that, though you got the math right.

The Profile is nothing more than the number of CDRs in each aptitudinal category, and you reversed the first two .

You got her dosage profile wrong---it is 1-8-6-1-0, NOT 8-1-6-1-0---makes a big difference , and is incorrect.

She has only ONE brilliant , SIX intermediate.

Formula for calculating Index from Profile is such:

Add B plus I plus 1/2 C--that is 12.

Divide by i/2C plus S plus P---3 plus 1 plus 0==4.

4 into 12 =3 . BUT the 3 does NOT mean she has less stamina than speed--that is your misconception--you got the number right but the idea wrong .

The three can not mean she has three times the speed influences as even if the numbers were reversed as you shoed, she would have 9 CDR from sprinting to 9f, and 7 CDRS for 10f to 12 f .

Your interpretation is all wrong

A horse with 8-1-6-1-0 profile would have the same DI number as a horse with 1-8-6-1-0, but the former would have a different CID because the profile tilts toward speed with 8 in the Brilliant category, rather than 8 in the Intermediate ( up to furlongs)..

The 1-8-6-1-0 horse ( Persistently) shows the preponderance of 9-10 furlong horses, with 1 horse Brilliant and one horse Solid .

Here is what a CD of 0 looks like-- 2-4-6-4-2--like a mirror or heart shaped .

The CD should be self explanatory, in that the distribution of Chef-de -races from ALL categories create the center, but you are incorrect that 1 is less than Classic aptitude, as the formula is yet another one that is not 1:1..

I am too tired to look it up, but it is so.

There are fractional deviations from the ideal 0, so much that pure sprinting types can have one something CDs

For example, a mare I am riding is a pure sprinting type , indbred to Olympia 2x and Nasrullah 2x with a Raise a Native sireline .

Here is her Dosage Profile or DP--15-7-4-0-0.

Here is her Dosage Index--12.00

But her Center of Distribution is 1.42--only .42 off Persistently and .52 off Secretariat, which also shared a DI of 3.

You might want to rethink your idea of it., and check how all are calculated again .

Kentucky Derby hopefuls are considered aptitudinally appropriate for 10 furlongs with a DI of under 4 . Surely you have read all that over the years come the first Saturday in May .

Persistently has the correct dosage to be aptitudinally appropriate for 10 furlongs--it is not what I wish to believe, it follows the correct theory and math .

No, her DP as I wrote it is what is listed by brisnet as well as pedigreequery.

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/fc_display.cgi?userfile=P67169172224116

If her DP were 1-8-6-1-0, her CD would be ((2*Brilliant)+Intermediate-Solid-(2*Professional)) divided by DP = ((2*1)+8-1-0)/16 = 0.5625. Since we agree her CD is 1, you must have her Brilliant and Intermediate mixed up.

A CD of 1 puts her squarely in Intermediate, which is less than 10f. Again, she outran her pedigree.

[cj]

I love how you continually throw around the "optional claimer" pejorative.

Have you forgotten that an optional claimer just ran Zenyatta to within a neck of her first loss ever? Yeah, I know Zenyatta won and Rachel lost, but Z IS supposed to be the best horse in the world.

So you might want to rethink your opinion on "optional claimers."

Not only is is funny, it is dead wrong. She was G1/G2 placed. I don't know many that refer to that type horse as an optional claimer. She had also won two allowance races. He is just trolling.

[RXB]

Persistently is an allowance horse who was in a very fortunate spot and was in good enough form to take advantage of it.

After needing several attempts to bust N2X she basically ran to the N3X par on Sunday and was rewarded with a Grade 1 win.

[cj]

Persistently is an allowance horse who was in a very fortunate spot and was in good enough form to take advantage of it.

After needing several attempts to bust N2X she basically ran to the N3X par on Sunday and was rewarded with a Grade 1 win.

If she had run similar to figure wise to her previous races she still would have lost. I don't think she is a legit G1 horse, but she has a 1st and a 2nd in three tries now, and the poor one was on rubber.

[Steve R]

Honestly, while obviously modern horses don't have the endurance the old ones did, people seem to think that stakes races 30 years ago were huge fields filled with Grade 1 winners. It is simply not the case, but it fits the mythological argument about how awful horses are now. People should do some research into the fields the old champions faced, but they won't.
OTOH, can you name a single race since then with the depth of quality of the 1973 Marlboro Cup which had five champions among its seven starters? Has there been a race since 1967 with three starters comparable to Damascus, Dr. Fager and Buckpasser? There are a finite number of G1 races available, so the number of G1 winners is limited. And G1 is simply a classification that may or may not correlate with how good a horse really is. I'm fairly sure there are plenty of non-G1 winners superior to many that won G1 races. More important than the number of G1 winners in a field is the quality and depth of the competition, and having watched races for 50 years I have no problem saying that high end fields 30 and 40 years ago were routinely filled with more legitimate high quality runners than you are likely to find in recent years.

[Cratos]

We'll just have to agree that we read the article and took away two different meanings. Maybe when I have time I'll explain it to you in a PM, but I wouldn't check your box too often.

I appreciate you warning me, but I rarely ever open my PMs

[Pick6]

I love how you continually throw around the "optional claimer" pejorative.

Have you forgotten that an optional claimer just ran Zenyatta to within a neck of her first loss ever? Yeah, I know Zenyatta won and Rachel lost, but Z IS supposed to be the best horse in the world.

So you might want to rethink your opinion on "optional claimers."
I don't see anything surprising on how Z wins her races. She obviously runs to her level of competition, and if I were her trainier that is about as easy as it gets.

If she beats BCC fields by a neck, or whatever, and beats optional claimers by a neck, or whatever, what does that mean to you?

And why is Z "supposed" to be the best horse in the world? Do you believe that? From your posts I tend to doubt it.

[Pick6]

Sorry, can't help you anymore than the description in last post.
And I guess that fairly characterizes my ability to help with yours.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't see anything surprising on how Z wins her races. She obviously runs to her level of competition, and if I were her trainier that is about as easy as it gets.

If she beats BCC fields by a neck, or whatever, and beats optional claimers by a neck, or whatever, what does that mean to you?

And why is Z "supposed" to be the best horse in the world? Do you believe that? From your posts I tend to doubt it.Happy to enlighten you about the world of optional claimers. You can thank me later.

[gm10]

I read Beyer’s DRF article and found it somewhat flawed with respect to history. He might be statistically correct as he wrote below and I am paraphrasing that he wrote that fillies 3yo performances don’t necessary translate into their 4yo performances, but to use, Genuine Risk and Winning Colors as examples to support his hypothesis is hollow at best when you have Lady’s Secret and Personal Ensign to refute it.



You could also mention Goldikova and Ouija Board who both managed to maintain their 3yo form throughout their 4yo and 5yo season.

[cj]

You could also mention Goldikova and Ouija Board who both managed to maintain their 3yo form throughout their 4yo and 5yo season.

Turf is a different ballgame than dirt, but you know that.

[gm10]

Turf is a different ballgame than dirt, but you know that.

What does that have to do with anything. Clearly, some great 3yo's fillies managed to maintain their form later in their career.
Beyer didn't make the distinction between dirt and turf, neither did you. Bit late to start saying they don't count.

[cj]

What does that have to do with anything. Clearly, some great 3yo's fillies managed to maintain their form later in their career.
Beyer didn't make the distinction between dirt and turf, neither did you. Bit late to start saying they don't count.

He was talking about dirt racing and dirt horses, even if not spelled out specifically. It is much easier to race on turf, and I know that you are aware of that fact. He was also talking about US racing, which is much different than racing in Europe, another fact I'm sure of which you are aware.

[gm10]

He was talking about dirt racing and dirt horses, even if not spelled out specifically. It is much easier to race on turf, and I know that you are aware of that fact. He was also talking about US racing, which is much different than racing in Europe, another fact I'm sure of which you are aware.

That's one extra specification plus one extra assumption. And still very little evidence.

What makes you believe that turf is easier anyway?? I would think it's more difficult. Field size bigger, more sophisticated jockey tactics required, the horse needs to taught how to rate and then kick at the right time. There are plenty of jockey's who win a lot on the dirt but they can't seem to get it right on the turf.

[Cratos]

You could also mention Goldikova and Ouija Board who both managed to maintain their 3yo form throughout their 4yo and 5yo season.

You are correct and I believe that Beyer might have been idiomatic when he mentioned Genuine Risk and Winning Colors as references in his discourse.

[cj]

That's one extra specification plus one extra assumption. And still very little evidence.

What makes you believe that turf is easier anyway?? I would think it's more difficult. Field size bigger, more sophisticated jockey tactics required, the horse needs to taught how to rate and then kick at the right time. There are plenty of jockey's who win a lot on the dirt but they can't seem to get it right on the turf.

Beyer is the best writer we have. I don't think he needs to spell out every little detail. Some is left to the reader to use common sense.

As for turf, it is obvious. The races are more tactical and the pace slower, much slower. They become sprints to the finish. Horses give more overall effort in dirt races than on turf. On dirt they go fast from the start and hang on. There is obviously a lot less left in the tank.

I personally prefer to bet horse racing, not jockeys.

How'd that Vineyard Haven run?

[Cardus]

Beyer is the best writer we have. I don't think he needs to spell out every little detail. Some is left to the reader to use common sense.

As for turf, it is obvious. The races are more tactical and the pace slower, much slower. They become sprints to the finish. Horses give more overall effort in dirt races than on turf. On dirt they go fast from the start and hang on. There is obviously a lot less left in the tank.

I personally prefer to bet horse racing, not jockeys.

How'd that Vineyard Haven run?

Because his speed figures have become such a lightning rod, the quality of his writing is often overlooked in Internet Land.

He is a sensational columnist. (As is Steve Crist, by the way. Hovdey has discredited himself with some of his Zenyatta columns, unfortunately.)

[FenceBored]

You are correct and I believe that Beyer might have been idiomatic when he mentioned Genuine Risk and Winning Colors as references in his discourse.

Or, here's a thought, he restricted his thesis to dirt horses when he says: "Few filly dirt runners have ever faced the challenges that Rachel Alexandra did in 2009, beating males in Grade 1 company three times."

[Cratos]

Because his speed figures have become such a lightning rod, the quality of his writing is often overlooked in Internet Land.

He is a sensational columnist. (As is Steve Crist, by the way. Hovdey has discredited himself with some of his Zenyatta columns, unfortunately.)

Please explain your comments because you can have a well written document that lacks content and substance or you can have a poorly written document that has substance and content.

Additionally, I don’t see the relationship in this discussion between Beyer’s Speed Figures and his writing. Thus far there hasn’t been any criticism about either, but there is a difference of opinion about the support he gave for his assumptions.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Even those who think Beyer's speed figures are overhyped or crap should concede he's a world-class writer. He could write about tree bark and make it interesting.

[Cratos]

Even those who think Beyer's speed figures are overhyped or crap should concede he's a world-class writer. He could write about tree bark and make it interesting.

Again, who is calling Beyer a bad writer; I don’t get it? In terms of columnists writing about horseracing, the late Jim Murray and the late Red Smith were as good as they get.

One thing that set Beyer apart from today’s other sports columnists when it comes to writing articles about horseracing is his intimate knowledge of horseracing

[Saratoga_Mike]

Again, who is calling Beyer a bad writer; I don’t get it? In terms of columnists writing about horseracing, the late Jim Murray and the late Red Smith were as good as they get.

One thing that set Beyer apart from today’s other sports columnists when it comes to writing articles about horseracing is his intimate knowledge of horseracing

Where did I say anyone called him a bad writer (but give a certain poster time and I'm sure it will happen)? I suggested he's a world-class writer. It isn't provable, though.

[cj]

Or, here's a thought, he restricted his thesis to dirt horses when he says: "Few filly dirt runners have ever faced the challenges that Rachel Alexandra did in 2009, beating males in Grade 1 company three times."

I should have known. I didn't go back and read it again, but I knew it implied (or in this case specified) dirt horses. GM10 wrong again...shocker. It is uncanny how he is wrong pretty much every time about every subject.

Of course Cratos jumps on the bandwagon because he automatically takes the other side of every thing I post.

You are correct and I believe that Beyer might have been idiomatic when he mentioned Genuine Risk and Winning Colors as references in his discourse.

[Cratos]

I should have known. I didn't go back and read it again, but I knew it implied (or in this case specified) dirt horses. GM10 wrong again...shocker. It is uncanny how he is wrong pretty much every time about every subject.

Of course Cratos jumps on the bandwagon because he automatically takes the other side of every thing I post.

What bandwagon? You give yourself much too much credit. When I read your posts and I agree with them I will readily admit to it. My ego is not too big to admit that other forum posters have valid and correct comments.

However if I disagree, I will also admit to that also because I don’t subscribe to the dogma doctrine.

[cj]

What bandwagon? You give yourself much too much credit. When I read your posts and I agree with them I will readily admit to it. My ego is not too big to admit that other forum posters have valid and correct comments.

However if I disagree, I will also admit to that also because I don’t subscribe to the dogma doctrine.

It just seemed odd you right away agreed gm10 was right about two European turf horses. The article stated dirt horses.

I can see where some might not conclude Beyer was talking about females that were successful early at 3, though I think it was the intent of the statements and not all females. I could be wrong. But there is no wrong about the dirt part.

[Cratos]

It just seemed odd you right away agreed gm10 was right about two European turf horses. The article stated dirt horses.

I can see where some might not conclude Beyer was talking about females that were successful early at 3, though I think it was the intent of the statements and not all females. I could be wrong. But there is no wrong about the dirt part.


Okay you make a valid point since Beyer’s article was about a “dirt horse,” Rachel Alexandra which makes any extrapolation of Beyer’s point to be North American “dirt horses.”

[gm10]

I should have known. I didn't go back and read it again, but I knew it implied (or in this case specified) dirt horses. GM10 wrong again...shocker. It is uncanny how he is wrong pretty much every time about every subject.

Of course Cratos jumps on the bandwagon because he automatically takes the other side of every thing I post.

I am really a bit tired of your tendency to call people 'wrong' when they disagree with you. Why do you do that? What is the point of discussing then?

The theory did not specify dirt horses, simple as. Maybe it is what Beyer had in mind, but that is conjecture, indeed an extrapolation of the dirt fillies mentioned. To call someone wrong on the basis of conjecture is, well, wrong.


"What has happened to her from 2009 to 2010? There are only guesses and theories, but some history may be relevant to Rachel Alexandra's case. Racehorses often improve when they reach maturity as 4-year-olds; Triple Crown winners Seattle Slew and Affirmed were even more dominant at 4 than they were at 3. But many of the greatest 3-year-old fillies have failed to progress this way. The last two fillies to win the Kentucky Derby, Genuine Risk (1980) and Winning Colors (1988), did not win a race of consequence as 4-year-olds. Perhaps the demands of an ultra-strenuous campaign take more of a toll on fillies than on colts."


Finally, the point remains that the evidence for this theory isn't overwhelming, even for dirt fillies. I have my doubts.

[gm10]

Beyer is the best writer we have. I don't think he needs to spell out every little detail. Some is left to the reader to use common sense.

As for turf, it is obvious. The races are more tactical and the pace slower, much slower. They become sprints to the finish. Horses give more overall effort in dirt races than on turf. On dirt they go fast from the start and hang on. There is obviously a lot less left in the tank.

I personally prefer to bet horse racing, not jockeys.

How'd that Vineyard Haven run?

Better than Bribon, but that wasn't difficult.

Completely disagree with your view on turf racing. Yes it is kinder to horses, and maybe it is easier to be a dominant turf horse in the US, because the competition isn't very deep, but it's not the the case in the rest of the world. Being dominant on turf at 3 AND 4 is as difficult as it is on the dirt. Not many horses manage it.

Turf racing requires a bit more intelligence from horse, jockey and trainer. If you are not handicapping all three when it comes to turf racing, I think you are missing a few pieces of the puzzle. Plenty of high winning % jockey's and trainers are out of their depth on the turf. No speed or pace figures are going to come your rescue in those cases.

[cj]

I am really a bit tired of your tendency to call people 'wrong' when they disagree with you. Why do you do that? What is the point of discussing then?

The theory did not specify dirt horses, simple as. Maybe it is what Beyer had in mind, but that is conjecture, indeed an extrapolation of the dirt fillies mentioned. To call someone wrong on the basis of conjecture is, well, wrong.


"What has happened to her from 2009 to 2010? There are only guesses and theories, but some history may be relevant to Rachel Alexandra's case. Racehorses often improve when they reach maturity as 4-year-olds; Triple Crown winners Seattle Slew and Affirmed were even more dominant at 4 than they were at 3. But many of the greatest 3-year-old fillies have failed to progress this way. The last two fillies to win the Kentucky Derby, Genuine Risk (1980) and Winning Colors (1988), did not win a race of consequence as 4-year-olds. Perhaps the demands of an ultra-strenuous campaign take more of a toll on fillies than on colts."


Finally, the point remains that the evidence for this theory isn't overwhelming, even for dirt fillies. I have my doubts.

Better than Bribon, but that wasn't difficult.

Completely disagree with your view on turf racing. Yes it is kinder to horses, and maybe it is easier to be a dominant turf horse in the US, because the competition isn't very deep, but it's not the the case in the rest of the world. Being dominant on turf at 3 AND 4 is as difficult as it is on the dirt. Not many horses manage it.

Turf racing requires a bit more intelligence from horse, jockey and trainer. If you are not handicapping all three when it comes to turf racing, I think you are missing a few pieces of the puzzle. Plenty of high winning % jockey's and trainers are out of their depth on the turf. No speed or pace figures are going to come your rescue in those cases.

It absolutely did specify dirt:
Few filly dirt runners have ever faced the challenges that Rachel Alexandra did in 2009

When a US horse racing writer writes about racing, why would you think he is including foreign racing? He also clearly mentions fillies that were racing in the Triple Crown series, and no others. The implication is clear that those are the type horses he was talking about, not just any fillies.

Intelligence by horse? Are you serious? Smarter horses win on turf, that is absolutely hilarious. I guess I'll make a killing with my new Equine IQ ratings.

As for Vineyard Haven, he ran better than Bribon, but certainly not Big Drama. He was even money and he was mediocre at best. That was my only real opinion on the race and I did fine.

Nice try on the pace and speed figures, but they do just fine on turf for me. I know you don't have any customers, but I don't remember many refund requests on my end.

[gm10]

It absolutely did specify dirt:


When a US horse racing writer writes about racing, why would you think he is including foreign racing? He also clearly mentions fillies that were racing in the Triple Crown series, and no others. The implication is clear that those are the type horses he was talking about, not just any fillies.

Intelligence by horse? Are you serious? Smarter horses win on turf, that is absolutely hilarious. I guess I'll make a killing with my new Equine IQ ratings.

As for Vineyard Haven, he ran better than Bribon, but certainly not Big Drama. He was even money and he was mediocre at best. That was my only real opinion on the race and I did fine.

Nice try on the pace and speed figures, but they do just fine on turf for me. I know you don't have any customers, but I don't remember many refund requests on my end.

RA is a dirt fillie, I think we all agree on that. Maybe you can speak for Beyer, and maybe you're right in your assumption that it implies dirt, but there are three surface types in the US, so it's hard for me to judge what he meant. Regardless, I kind of disagree, although in the case of RA, I suspect her hard 3yo campaign is actually partially to blame.

We have opposite opinions on turf racing - which isn't a bad thing. No, turf horses aren't more intelligent, that is another one of your conclusions that could have been avoided if you had given it some thought. My underlying assumption (and not mine alone) is that 'unintelligent' horses are much harder to train for turf races, especially routes. This doesn't mean that great dirt horses are less intelligent. Conformation and other factors such as jockey skills and training methods will obviously play a major role as well.

Why do you think that a trainer like Dave Jacobson is three-four times less successful on turf that on dirt? Bad luck?

Finally, Bribon got injured. I guess you didn't know that.

[DeanT]

Interesting points regarding dirt racing and turf racing, and the possible longevity of horses who partake in them being made here, imo.

I do not have the database for it, but anecotally it seems many turf horses in Europe are non-blinkered. Almost all seem to be open. Whereas an American trainer for dirt will train some horses to be a quarterhorse and sprint right away covered up and running like a scared cat, it seems over there the main concern is that they are eased into racing to race relaxed and be able to settle (like turf horses are over here).

If a horse is taught to be easy on himself/herself early in his/her career, it has to bode well for a longer career, imo. Some of those Euro's look so sound and happy racing on the lawn, it looks like they could race until they are about ten, imo. Maybe it is why we see so few classic distance horses over here nowadays, and few who seems to last.

[cj]

RA is a dirt fillie, I think we all agree on that. Maybe you can speak for Beyer, and maybe you're right in your assumption that it implies dirt, but there are three surface types in the US, so it's hard for me to judge what he meant. Regardless, I kind of disagree, although in the case of RA, I suspect her hard 3yo campaign is actually partially to blame.



It doesn't imply dirt. It specifically says DIRT.

[Saratoga_Mike]

It doesn't imply dirt. It specifically says DIRT.

Please try to keep facts out of this discussion.

[gm10]

It doesn't imply dirt. It specifically says DIRT.

It said RA had a dirt campaign, not that he is restricting his theory to dirt. You are assuming that he is, and perhaps not unreasonably. Anyway, doesn't matter. It's an interesting theory, as you would expect from a man of his caliber.

[Charlie D]

From article



Few filly dirt runners have ever faced the challenges that Rachel Alexandra did in 2009




(enlarged so people can see it better)

[Charlie D]

What has happened to her from 2009 to 2010? There are only guesses and theories, but some history may be relevant to Rachel Alexandra's case. Racehorses often improve when they reach maturity as 4-year-olds; Triple Crown winners Seattle Slew and Affirmed were even more dominant at 4 than they were at 3. But many of the greatest 3-year-old fillies have failed to progress this way. The last two fillies to win the Kentucky Derby, Genuine Risk (1980) and Winning Colors (1988), did not win a race of consequence as 4-year-olds. Perhaps the demands of an ultra-strenuous campaign take more of a toll on fillies than on colts.





In bolded part he implies it is "Dirt" runners he is talking about and then he goes on to confirm this, with the part i just quoted.


Some people around here need to learn to read in my humble opinion.

[PaceAdvantage]

From bolded part he implies "Dirt" and then he goes on to confirm this, with the part i just quoted.


Some people around here need to learn to read in my humble opinion.It's incredible that gm10 continues to miss exactly what was written in the Beyer article, is it not? Right there...in black and white...no implications or assumptions are needed.

Makes one wonder if his intentions are simply to cause strife in every single thread, or is he truly impaired when it comes to reading comprehension.

[Charlie D]

I'm guessing. Earlier encouters with CJ and TLG have probably pushed him over edge PA

[Cratos]

You could also mention Goldikova and Ouija Board who both managed to maintain their 3yo form throughout their 4yo and 5yo season.


GM10, in my earlier post I agreed with you stating that Goldikova and Ouija Board were exceptions to Andy Beyer’s DRF article concerning Rachel Alexandra’s performance in the recent Personal Ensign stakes.

However after reading the article again (and you should also) you will see the following declaration by Beyer at the beginning of the 8th paragraph of the article: “Few filly dirt runners have ever faced the challenges that Rachel Alexandra did in 2009, beating males in Grade 1 company three times….”

Therefore it would be nebulous and asinine to argue against Beyer’s written words that he wasn’t referring to fillies that run on dirt.

[Charlie D]

I don't think i'm as old as some around here and i certainly know i'm not as good as some around here regarding US racing history. So don't know if KD has ever been run on turf or synthetic :) but when someone refers to Kentucky Derby surely it is obvious he means he is refering to DIRT.

[gm10]

GM10, in my earlier post I agreed with you stating that Goldikova and Ouija Board were exceptions to Andy Beyer’s DRF article concerning Rachel Alexandra’s performance in the recent Personal Ensign stakes.

However after reading the article again (and you should also) you will see the following declaration by Beyer at the beginning of the 8th paragraph of the article: “Few filly dirt runners have ever faced the challenges that Rachel Alexandra did in 2009, beating males in Grade 1 company three times….”

Therefore it would be nebulous and asinine to argue against Beyer’s written words that he wasn’t referring to fillies that run on dirt.

Yes, as I already wrote, it is a reasonable assumption. It wasn't clear to me whether he was stating a dirt theory or illustrating a general theory by means of dirt fillies, but given your post and all the genuine comments earlier, I will gladly accept that the theory should be interpreted as applying to dirt only.

As for the theory itself, it is an interesting one. It is tempting to believe that it is true, but then again, our perception of history is very much coloured by the present and most recent past. On the other hand - how many of the recent KD winning colts managed to win a race of consequence as a 4yo? As far as I remember ...

Super Saver - doubtful
Mine That Bird - no
Big Brown - hah
Street Sense - sadly not
Barbaro -
Giacomo - no (San Diego Handicap doesn't count I'm sure)
Smarty Jones - no
Funny Cide - yes
War Emblem - no
Monarchos - no

That's one out of ten - although most didn't even make it to the track at 4.

Although I think Beyer's theory certainly applies to some fillies (and colts), I think it is also down to other factors, such as (to give just a few possible explanations) training and riding styles needing to be different as the horse matures, and the fact that a lot of 'great' 3yo's build a significant part of their reputation in races restricted to 3yo's. As grueling and important as the classic 3yo races are, they are disputed in a relatively small pond (in any country).

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes, as I already wrote, it is a reasonable assumption. It wasn't clear to me whether he was stating a dirt theory or illustrating a general theory by means of dirt fillies, but given your post and all the genuine comments earlier, I will gladly accept that the theory should be interpreted as applying to dirt only. You can believe the world is against you all you wish, and that Cratos is the only one worth replying to, however this does not change the simple fact that there is no assumption required and no interpreting necessary. Beyer actually writes that it is a dirt theory.

I will do a little assuming of my own that you are operating as a vision impaired adult, which is certainly nothing to be ashamed about.

[gm10]

You can believe the world is against you all you wish, and that Cratos is the only one worth replying to, however this does not change the simple fact that there is no assumption required and no interpreting necessary. Beyer actually writes that it is a dirt theory.

I will do a little assuming of my own that you are operating as a vision impaired adult, which is certainly nothing to be ashamed about.

Nice. I shall definitely pay more attention to your contributions from now on.

[Charlie D]

Gm10, either PA is correct regarding your vision or your just unwilling to admit you were wrong.

[born2ride]

What has happened to her from 2009 to 2010? There are only guesses and theories, but some history may be relevant to Rachel Alexandra's case. Racehorses often improve when they reach maturity as 4-year-olds; Triple Crown winners Seattle Slew and Affirmed were even more dominant at 4 than they were at 3. But many of the greatest 3-year-old fillies have failed to progress this way. The last two fillies to win the Kentucky Derby, Genuine Risk (1980) and Winning Colors (1988), did not win a race of consequence as 4-year-olds. Perhaps the demands of an ultra-strenuous campaign take more of a toll on fillies than on colts.

The last two 3 yo fillies to win HOY - Twilight Tear and Busher failed to have a dominant year as 4 year olds. TT was retired after a breathing issue and Busher didn't race at 4, but was retired after one race at 5 after failing to place.

In the context of how the best 3 year old fillies have failed to maintain their form as a 4 year old, Rachel has exceeded historical expectations. Of course, expectations were high for her this year given the year she had in '09, and by most accounts she has fallen short.

I only wish I had a barn full of has-beens like Rachel that win a G2 and an ungraded stakes and place in a G1, G2 and an ungraded stakes winning over $500k so far for the year. :D

[Tom]

That's one out of ten - although most didn't even make it to the track at 4.

Then add Secretariat to your list.
If a horse did not start at 4, probably due to breeding money, what the Hell is the point of putting them on a list like this?

Do you have a list of people who climbed Mt Everest and never climbed that high again?

Or people that walked on the moon and never did again?

[PaceAdvantage]

Nice. I shall definitely pay more attention to your contributions from now on.Are you saying my assumption is incorrect? What else could account for you completely missing what was written despite being shown multiple times by multiple contributors?

Believe it or not, I don't relish being stuck in the minutia with you like this...

[CincyHorseplayer]

The last two 3 yo fillies to win HOY - Twilight Tear and Busher failed to have a dominant year as 4 year olds. TT was retired after a breathing issue and Busher didn't race at 4, but was retired after one race at 5 after failing to place.

In the context of how the best 3 year old fillies have failed to maintain their form as a 4 year old, Rachel has exceeded historical expectations. Of course, expectations were high for her this year given the year she had in '09, and by most accounts she has fallen short.

I only wish I had a barn full of has-beens like Rachel that win a G2 and an ungraded stakes and place in a G1, G2 and an ungraded stakes winning over $500k so far for the year. :D


That's why you're one in a million.

[WinterTriangle]

The last two 3 yo fillies to win HOY - Twilight Tear and Busher failed to have a dominant year as 4 year olds.

And as a result, they are not exactly household names either. The public has a short attention span, although I'm sure they were the talk of the town during the year they won.

[gm10]

Then add Secretariat to your list.
If a horse did not start at 4, probably due to breeding money, what the Hell is the point of putting them on a list like this?

Do you have a list of people who climbed Mt Everest and never climbed that high again?

Or people that walked on the moon and never did again?

OK allow me to rephrase, what exactly are we comparing the 3yo fillies with? Based on recent history, colts who dominate at 3 and 4 don't seem to exist in great abundance either (for whatever reason).

[DeanT]

Ernie's stuff is always well done. He's a huge Rachel fan. This is not for everyone perhaps, but I thought this was kind of cool.

http://www.breederscup360.com/archives/2010/rachel-fans-unconditionally/

[TheFlagIsUp]

I think rachel ran fairly well for going 10 panels in a speed duel. She absolutely buried he rival and simply got passed late after pretty snappy fractions. Wrong distance, poor training and bad planning. She is still a great horse, just not a 10 F horse.