What are Zenyatta's chances of winning 2010 Breeders' Cup Classic?

[Pick6]

We are now 24 days away from the big race. Of course any estimates on Zenyatta's chances of winning will get better as we get closer to the race.

[thaskalos]

The mile and a quarter distance is the deciding factor, IMO.

If the race were to be run 100 times - against the expected starting lineup - I have Zenyatta winning 36 times.

[horses4courses]

On race day, Zenyatta will probably be no higher than 2-1 odds - maybe as low as even money. That does not reflect her chances of winning the race, as those odds, on average, would give her somewhere around a 40% chance of victory.

Realistically, her chances of winning are closer to twice those odds, assuming a full field of top quality dirt horses. Now I'm not saying she's going to get beat - she has amazed me so many times before - but she is going to be a lousy bet.

Luckily enough, I will be in Ireland next week, and I may take some of the 4-1 fixed odds available in the bookies futures over there.

There is no way on earth that Zenyatta will be 4-1 on Nov 6th.........

[Valuist]

No way she could be 4-1? Who has she beaten on real dirt? She's never run against the likes of a Blame or Quality Road on real dirt. Throw in several good 3YOs and a full field and she almost HAS to be no lower than that. I give her about a 15% chance of winning.

[horses4courses]

No way she could be 4-1? Who has she beaten on real dirt? She's never run against the likes of a Blame or Quality Road on real dirt. Throw in several good 3YOs and a full field and she almost HAS to be no lower than that. I give her about a 15% chance of winning.

I'll send you $1000 on Nov 7th if she goes off in the BCC at 4-1, or higher.

The odds she will be at post time will not reflect her chances of winning.

[keithw84]

Remove Zenyatta from the equation, and I think many people would agree or at least have similar ideas of the chances of the others in this field. Throw in Zenyatta, and the opinions are all over the place because of the knowledge that we do have and the knowledge that we don't have. I think 4-1 sounds about right.

[cpitt84]

No way she could be 4-1? Who has she beaten on real dirt? She's never run against the likes of a Blame or Quality Road on real dirt. Throw in several good 3YOs and a full field and she almost HAS to be no lower than that. I give her about a 15% chance of winning.


she will win and i hope to see your response after it. :)

[letswastemoney]

No way she could be 4-1? Who has she beaten on real dirt? She's never run against the likes of a Blame or Quality Road on real dirt. Throw in several good 3YOs and a full field and she almost HAS to be no lower than that. I give her about a 15% chance of winning.
The odds won't reflect your opinion. It will reflect who the most popular horse is.

Only one horse is popular enough that Breeders Cup decided to make her a website. With that kind of popularity, hard to believe she'll be higher than 4-1.

I'm going with the public making her 2-1.

[Valuist]

You guys (or women) are giving way too much credit to the Zenyatta fan club bettors with their $2 tickets. The big bettors won't touch her for that very reason (among others). Outside of California, nobody in the general public has any idea who she is. Yes, I wish racing was more popular also, but to Joe Public, unless they've won or run well in the Derby, Preakness or Belmont, they aren't known.

[letswastemoney]

You guys (or women) are giving way too much credit to the Zenyatta fan club bettors with their $2 tickets. The big bettors won't touch her for that very reason (among others). Outside of California, nobody in the general public has any idea who she is. Yes, I wish racing was more popular also, but to Joe Public, unless they've won or run well in the Derby, Preakness or Belmont, they aren't known.
lol she was the 5-2 favorite last year. You have a very strange view of what her odds will be.

It's not like California will be shut out from betting this race this year just because it's at Churchill. Everyone will be betting the BC. She's already being compared to Secretariat.

A few people on this forum even believe she's as good as Secretariat.

I don't like Zenyatta's handling or her connections. But I don't doubt her popularity. People will be betting her as if she is Secretariat.

[PaceAdvantage]

she will win and i hope to see your response after it. :)Why you gots to go and make it all personal like that?

[cpitt84]

Why you gots to go and make it all personal like that?

I am geniunely curious on his/her reaction to Zenyatta's win. That's all. :)

[BluegrassProf]

I am geniunely curious on his/her reaction to Zenyatta's win. That's all. :)Speaking of absolute, 110% curiosity: What if a reaction looked something like, "Wow! What a great race, and so unexpected! She's extraordinary! Damn shame we didn't see her do so much more in all the non-Breeder's Cup parts!"

Honestly: do you *personally* find the above comment reasonable? Is it a fair reaction? Or is it somehow unfair to recognize ability, but to critique a campaign (a campaign that perhaps framed that ability in a certain way)?

[thaskalos]

Speaking of absolute, 110% curiosity: What if a reaction looked something like, "Wow! What a great race, and so unexpected! She's extraordinary! Damn shame we didn't see her do so much more in all the non-Breeder's Cup parts!"

Honestly: do you *personally* find the above comment reasonable? Is it a fair reaction? Or is it somehow unfair to recognize ability, but to critique a campaign (a campaign that perhaps framed that ability in a certain way)?Yes professor...this IS a fair reaction.

But it is a lot more impressive (not to mention a lot more profitable), to recognize ability BEFORE the race, rather than after the fact.

[depalma113]

You guys (or women) are giving way too much credit to the Zenyatta fan club bettors with their $2 tickets. The big bettors won't touch her for that very reason (among others). Outside of California, nobody in the general public has any idea who she is. Yes, I wish racing was more popular also, but to Joe Public, unless they've won or run well in the Derby, Preakness or Belmont, they aren't known.

Everyone betting the Breeders Cup knows who she is. The casual bettor is going to see 19-0 and it simply won't matter to them where she earned that record. Undefeated is undefeated.

Besides there are an awful lot of big bettors who aren't as skeptical as you want to believe.

[FenceBored]

Where's my 100% option? I'm on record saying 100% and I wanted to double down, but had to settle for the wishy washy "50% or better" option.

[BluegrassProf]

But it is a lot more impressive (not to mention a lot more profitable), to recognize ability BEFORE the race, rather than after the fact.Well, certainly, at the most basic - but are we talking about the same thing?

I, for one, see an enormous difference between "I think she can handle the surface - take my money!" or "Wow, those cupcakey plasti-races really let her something in the tank - glad I dropped a deuce on her today..." and something like, say, "SHE SECRETARIAT JR.!! RAAAAAAAAR!!"

Not to mention the line between cautiously optimistic and hopelessly hopeful... :D

Fact is, questions still abound...and if I had to make an easy one, I'll betcha they probably always will. There are questions about ability, certainly; the BC will answer to a point, but that answer is to me only so satisfying: if she wins, thrilling though it may surely be, it'll be fairly bittersweet, since we absolutely have to ask what that ability might look like on that same BC day if she had been placed in more challenging spots over the course of the year...to not do so would be pitifully silly. And of course, if she does not, comparable questions certainly apply.

But more importantly - at least from where I sit - is that ability is only part of the picture. Ability not made manifest (through either deliberate control or unfortunate circumstance) is potential, and that is what we've seen from Zenyatta in spades over the course of a career. And while one might feel dead-certain of her ability, it's quickly approaching delusional to simply award the gift of greatness by inferrence, by default. "Greatness" is the product of equal parts the gift of ability and the ways that ability is challenged, called-upon, and tested - so far, we've seen only a shadow of the former, and even on BC day, we still cannot possibly know how the latter would have looked over the last two years or so. This is precisely where I take issue, to the illogical but wholly vocal dismay of FAR too many.

We have exactly what we have, nothing more. If you're satisfied with it, excellent; good for you. But many of us aren't - and you need to live with it.

[Valuist]

lol she was the 5-2 favorite last year. You have a very strange view of what her odds will be.

It's not like California will be shut out from betting this race this year just because it's at Churchill. Everyone will be betting the BC. She's already being compared to Secretariat.

A few people on this forum even believe she's as good as Secretariat.

I don't like Zenyatta's handling or her connections. But I don't doubt her popularity. People will be betting her as if she is Secretariat.

Who is comparing her to Secretariat? They are on crack if they do. Pepper's Pride won something like 16 races in a row against weak competition.....was she the female Secretariat?

Zenyatta was 5-2 last year ON A SYNTHETIC SURFACE. She has won two times on real dirt, and the most recent was a race so slow it would not win a classified allowance race in NY or other top level circuits. Her chances of winning last year on her preferred surface were much better than her chances this year.

[horses4courses]

Who is comparing her to Secretariat? They are on crack if they do. Pepper's Pride won something like 16 races in a row against weak competition.....was she the female Secretariat?

Zenyatta was 5-2 last year ON A SYNTHETIC SURFACE. She has won two times on real dirt, and the most recent was a race so slow it would not win a classified allowance race in NY or other top level circuits. Her chances of winning last year on her preferred surface were much better than her chances this year.

All that you state is true.
That still does not change the fact that she will be an over-bet favorite in the BCC. She will be close to 2-1 even if all the top contenders make it to post.

[Wiley]

Zenyatta was 5-2 last year ON A SYNTHETIC SURFACE.
I think part of this was first time open company, first time beyond a mile and an eighth, at least for me they were factors, did not like the mile and a sixteenth prep coming up to it. Those questions are answered so I am looking at even money or 4-5 on her, with Quality Road second choice at 3-1 or so. If you like any of the others you will probably get some value.

You are right the dirt question is a big one but she is by Street Cry, watch his tour de force Stephen Foster years ago, and remember how well Street Sense liked CD also. Have read large hooved types do well on the CD surface and Zenyatta's visually look huge to me, it would be nice to get a measurement for her though. Will have to see who makes the race, but if there is a decent pace, she will be hard to hold off. IMO, synthetic to dirt is a good angle for her also, at least from a fitness standpoint.

I love playing against favorites but the way I see it Zenyatta has a lot going for her coming into this race. Physically she is a brilliant looking mare - huge in stature, so it will be good to make sure she looks the part in the paddock and post parade, especially given that I read they are bringing her in right before the race, so no works, maybe a gallop or two on the track.

[5k-claim]

.... And while one might feel dead-certain of her ability, it's quickly approaching delusional to simply award the gift of greatness by inferrence, by default. ....

Very interesting, professor.

So what then, in your estimation, are some of the non-delusional means in which people in the thoroughbred world have used to bestow the title of greatness on Z?

[BluegrassProf]

Very interesting, professor.

So what then, in your estimation, are some of the non-delusional means in which people in the thoroughbred world have used to bestow the title of greatness on Z?
How might the title be rationally bestowed, is this the question? If so, it's easy breezy, covergirl: same damned way it always has been, in this game and every other. :D

Thing is, the method by which that title is traditionally awarded is by way of conclusion resultant to accomplishment, not to inferrence - greatness made manifest is far superior to greatness presumed and issued by default, the latter - in my view, mind you - merely a delusional attempt to make riches from rice. The question in Zenyatta's case is whether or not you fundamentally believe that her greatness was, in fact, made manifest - here's where the award is either issued or tightly held, depending on where you place your priorities. We can agree to disagree on that, and the sun will still rise in the morning. Promise.

But the fact remains, what's done is done; what is, is. Ain't nothin' changin' that - not even a super-fabulous BC, whatever the outcome, for or against the Big Z.

[5k-claim]

How might the title be rationally bestowed, is this the question?

That was a good guess. After I read my question a second time even I couldn't figure out exactly what it is asking.

You do a good job answering that first question, btw. I would generally agree with you up to a point.

But let me try and be a little more clear on what I was really asking. I think it could be a more fun question.

Assuming everyone in the thoroughbred world who has bestowed the title of greatness on Z is not just delusional, what are some non-delusional means by which the title has already been granted?

[BluegrassProf]

Assuming everyone in the thoroughbred world who has bestowed the title of greatness on Z is not just delusional, what are some non-delusional means by which the title has already been granted?I think the second question is likewise answered above - try answering the question yourself (or the converse: "Assuming everyone who hasn't issued the title of greatness isn't a Rachel-lovin' nutter, what are some reasons for which that title might be withheld?"), and it should be clear.

As to the former, it ranges from a particular arrangement of priorities at best for those in the game to, at worst, the largely irrational "best evar" hyperbole as previously noted from those who simply know no better (resident Pretty Horsey Heads plz take note...you know who you are!). My concern is that the distance between one rationale and the other is quite short - in the test of greatness, I place great weight on the way an athlete's ability is tested and thereby evidenced, and approach with great skepticism the notion that we can make inferrences to the same end (particularly ex post facto and devoid of very specific context). Zenyatta's case simply puts the distinction in sharp relief, hence the (never-ending) divide.

[5k-claim]

I think the second question is likewise answered above - try answering the question yourself (or the converse: "Assuming everyone who hasn't issued the title of greatness isn't a Rachel-lovin' nutter, what are some reasons for which that title might be withheld?"), and it should be clear.


As to the former, it ranges from a particular arrangement of priorities at best for those in the game...

We have known all along that this would shake down to just having slightly (or perhaps not so slightly) different criteria and definitions of "greatness". That is where it all started, and that is where it will likely (never) end.

I don't for a second think that anyone withholding the title of greatness from Z is necessarily a "Rachel-lovin' nutter". People can set up whatever criteria they want- and if Z hasn't met their criteria, then she hasn't met it. Simple enough.

I happen to think both RA and Z are great horses. For different reasons. (I am one of those 'more than just one path to greatness' guys.) One of these great runners is already inside The Club, hanging out and having some drinks with the Big Red boys and all the others, waiting for Z to finally quit racing and come join them at the party. And the big mare is going to have no problem getting past the bouncer, if you ask me.

So in the end, I agree that someone doesn't have to be a "nutter" to withhold the title of greatness from Z- and you agree that not everyone who has bestowed that title on her is "delusional". Is this right?

[thaskalos]

I think the second question is likewise answered above - try answering the question yourself (or the converse: "Assuming everyone who hasn't issued the title of greatness isn't a Rachel-lovin' nutter, what are some reasons for which that title might be withheld?"), and it should be clear.

It ranges from a particular arrangement of priorities at best for those in the game to, at worst, the irrational "best evar" hyperbole as previously noted from those who simply know no better (resident Pretty Horsey Heads plz take note). My concern is that the distance between one rationale and the other is quite short - in the test of greatness, I place great weight on the way an athlete's ability is tested and thereby evidenced, and approach with great skepticism the notion that we can make inferrences to the same end (particularly ex post facto and devoid of very specific context).

After the 2009 route, ol' Zen had ground to make up this year - and we were promised that very thing. We were short-changed, to say the least, and that's perfectly reasonable grounds for relative disappointment from all sides.There is no set definition of "greatness" in any sport Professor...it is a term that is often determined by extenuating circumstances.

In baseball, for example, greatness is determined by the defensive position played by the player. A great shortstop's offensive production is not compared to that of the third baseman's...eventhough they play next to each other on the field.

In much the same way, there cannot be a "blanket" definition of greatness in horseracing. The fillies and mares should not be compared to the male horses when their careers are being analyzed.

In this country, the great fillies and mares have only faced their male counterparts in rare and very selective cases. Some great mares never faced males at all...and yet they have not received anything close to the criticism that Zenyatta's connections have faced, as far as avoiding the "big boys" is concerned.

Yes, I know...there were some F+M races that were deemed more competitive for Zenyatta, and her connections skipped those too. But is there any proof that Zenyatta actually "ducked" any other female horse in the country...as some have suggested? Didn't we all see the horses that showed up to face her in the Apple Blossom at Oaklawn Park earlier this year?

The comparisons between Zenyatta and the sport's all time greats are laughable, of course.

But if she wins this year's Classic...let's give the horse her due and place her near the top of her division in the history books....

Is that too much to ask? :)

[chickenhead]

part of what is at issue here, I think -- and it does get confused and conflated, is that "superstar" and "greatness" are not necessarily the same thing. They often go together, but they aren't necessarily describing the same thing. I'm sure some people will react negatively to Zenyatta being called a superstar, others would say it's ridiculous to say even entertain that she isn't. I think while her greatness may be under debate, her star power is not. And that bleeds all over the place makes for weird arguments and long drawn out threads.

I think it's great that she's a superstar...how's that for intentionally confusing conflation. :)

[BluegrassProf]

5K: Certainly; all the hyperbole and fightin' rhetoric aside, it all comes down to priorities and rationale.

And sure, thask - there's rarely a rigid standard of assessment. But that doesn't mean one's method can be unsound (read: presumptive or selectively ignorant, two issues that plague the most incensed and divisive arguments/arguers) and/or - as you actually note above - devoid of any number of contextual realities. Even the criticisms themselves must be viewed both in context and in historical perspective, not as a way to inject further subjectivity into the debate, but as a method to holistically assess, as Beyer says, "place in the pantheon." Certainly, with a BC win at CD in 2010 (or even without one, quite frankly), she'll occupy a special place in those books; what's implicit in that particular place - what it means in the grander picture of the game - will probably be a matter of debate from here on out. And to that end, see supra, x1000. ;)

Rather than commenting on myriad add'l points (some of which elicit agreement, some otherwise), I'll simply acknowledge the slight, probably temporary turn towards relative agreement exhibited above. Gooo team!

Chx: I don't think you're far off, actually - "superstar" is probably a pretty accurate label. It also seems to imply popularity bounded somewhat by interest in the game generally, which I also think is the case. Confusing conflations indeed... :D

[TommyCh]

part of what is at issue here, I think -- and it does get confused and conflated, is that "superstar" and "greatness" are not necessarily the same thing. They often go together, but they aren't necessarily describing the same thing. I'm sure some people will react negatively to Zenyatta being called a superstar, others would say it's ridiculous to say even entertain that she isn't. I think while her greatness may be under debate, her star power is not. And that bleeds all over the place makes for weird arguments and long drawn out threads.

I think it's great that she's a superstar...how's that for intentionally confusing conflation. :)

I don't really think Zenyatta is a true superstar. Her accomplishments are debated even among the knowledgeable fans in her sport and she is certainly not a household name among non-racing or other sports fans. It's another unfortunate byproduct of her career management and exclusivity to the west coast and to synthetic surfaces. By the time she runs in California, people in New York and even Chicago are well on their way to dinner. She may be a superstar out west--you tell me.

[bisket]

There is no set definition of "greatness" in any sport Professor...it is a term that is often determined by extenuating circumstances.

In baseball, for example, greatness is determined by the defensive position played by the player. A great shortstop's offensive production is not compared to that of the third baseman's...eventhough they play next to each other on the field.

In much the same way, there cannot be a "blanket" definition of greatness in horseracing. The fillies and mares should not be compared to the male horses when their careers are being analyzed.

In this country, the great fillies and mares have only faced their male counterparts in rare and very selective cases. Some great mares never faced males at all...and yet they have not received anything close to the criticism that Zenyatta's connections have faced, as far as avoiding the "big boys" is concerned.

Yes, I know...there were some F+M races that were deemed more competitive for Zenyatta, and her connections skipped those too. But is there any proof that Zenyatta actually "ducked" any other female horse in the country...as some have suggested? Didn't we all see the horses that showed up to face her in the Apple Blossom at Oaklawn Park earlier this year?

The comparisons between Zenyatta and the sport's all time greats are laughable, of course.

But if she wins this year's Classic...let's give the horse her due and place her near the top of her division in the history books....

Is that too much to ask? :)
the analogy of the shortstop and 3rd baseman pretty much hit the nail on the head. i think just about anyone that doubts zen's "greatness" pretty much overlooks the fact that she is a mare. although i think it is a backhanded way of admitting her "greatness"? notice how this post was kind ignored....

[chickenhead]

I don't really think Zenyatta is a true superstar. Her accomplishments are debated even among the knowledgeable fans in her sport and she is certainly not a household name among non-racing or other sports fans.

Justin Beiber and the Jonas Brothers greatness, nay even goodness, isn't even bothered to be debated amongst anyone knowledgeable -- but they are certainly superstars within their realm.

I am not comparing Zenyatta to either of them -- you kind of make my point for me -- stardom and all-timey greatness aren't necessarily all that strongly coupled. They can be in fact completely uncoupled. And they don't need to be widely known by everyone. Just adored by many, and maybe it raises peoples hackles, but Zenyatta is adored by many.

By the time she runs in California, people in New York and even Chicago are well on their way to dinner. She may be a superstar out west--you tell me.

She's undoubtedly a superstar out west. It isn't exactly a small market on it's own, but I do see plenty of evidence just on this board that she has many fans spread all over the place.

[BluegrassProf]

notice how this post was kind ignored....It most certainly was not ignored - in fact, I myself refered to it (and its author) specifically only two posts later. :D Good grief.

Please also note that I refer in the aforementioned post to folks very much like yourself, as well - though not by name. Take that as you will - the parties involved in this particular discourse have largely come to terms. Perhaps you should take better notes. :ThmbUp:

Chx: Again, I think the descriptor is accurate (and pretty darned difficult to debate, IMO...ex: still not seeing the Blame bobbleheads, sadly). And hey, even the sharpest critic will cede that Zen's better medicine than a Beiber any damned day.

[DeanT]

She's undoubtedly a superstar out west. It isn't exactly a small market on it's own, but I do see plenty of evidence just on this board that she has many fans spread all over the place.

She made Oprah's 2010 "Power List" this year. That is not for small potatoes and certainly not something you see every day for a racemare.

http://www.oprah.com/world/The-2010-O-Power-List/20

[chickenhead]

my prediction: Mike Smith inexplicably falls off right at the start of the race, Zen lopes along in last, unpiloted, yet springs to life around the turn, closes like a freight train unprompted in the stretch, ears pricked, shuts it down early -- and wins by a length and a half.

Leaving the debates to fester, FOREVER.

Or at least that what should happen in the movie.

[thaskalos]

my prediction: Mike Smith inexplicably falls off right at the start of the race, Zen lopes along in last, unpiloted, yet springs to life around the turn, closes like a freight train unprompted in the stretch, ears pricked, shuts it down early -- and wins by a length and a half.

Leaving the debates to fester, FOREVER.

Or at least that what should happen in the movie.Have you ever considered writing a book? And in case you already have...would you please inform me of it? :ThmbUp:

[Spalding No!]

She made Oprah's 2010 "Power List" this year. That is not for small potatoes and certainly not something you see every day for a racemare.

http://www.oprah.com/world/The-2010-O-Power-List/20

Is that the same list where Oprah endorses James Frey's A Million Little Pieces?

[Spalding No!]

my prediction: Mike Smith inexplicably falls off right at the start of the race, Zen lopes along in last, unpiloted, yet springs to life around the turn, closes like a freight train unprompted in the stretch, ears pricked, shuts it down early -- and wins by a length and a half.

Leaving the debates to fester, FOREVER.

Or at least that what should happen in the movie.

Only the CA stewards would be idiotic enough to declare her the winner in that instance.

[chickenhead]

Have you ever considered writing a book? And in case you already have...would you please inform me of it? :ThmbUp:

well after the wire, to stirring music -- under her own head she circles back slowly, curiously no outriders approach her -- and stands in front of the grandstand, center of the track, paws and bows, then holds her head high in that regal way of horses. Churchill fans sobbing, standing on their seats -- ignoring whoever actually won, shaken by the tragedy and triumph of the moment, of the career, of this magnificent beast.

Not a dry eye in the theater, I guarantee. Make Seabiscuit look like a B movie. Even Spalding, DaHoss, and tlg would mist up, especially DaHoss -- they just wouldn't admit it. ;)

[tucker6]

Where's the selection that she doesn't enter the gate??

[5k-claim]

Where's the selection that she doesn't enter the gate??

5% or less

It is the first selection

[5k-claim]

Awesome script!

She could also run over to the fallen Mike Smith to make sure her compatriot is alright and not seriously injured...

well after the wire, to stirring music -- under her own head she circles back slowly, curiously no outriders approach her -- and stands in front of the grandstand, center of the track, paws and bows, then holds her head high in that regal way of horses. Churchill fans sobbing, standing on their seats -- ignoring whoever actually won, shaken by the tragedy and triumph of the moment, of the career, of this magnificent beast.

Not a dry eye in the theater, I guarantee. Make Seabiscuit look like a B movie. Even Spalding, DaHoss, and tlg would mist up, especially DaHoss -- they just wouldn't admit it. ;)

[Valuist]

well after the wire, to stirring music -- under her own head she circles back slowly, curiously no outriders approach her -- and stands in front of the grandstand, center of the track, paws and bows, then holds her head high in that regal way of horses. Churchill fans sobbing, standing on their seats -- ignoring whoever actually won, shaken by the tragedy and triumph of the moment, of the career, of this magnificent beast.

Not a dry eye in the theater, I guarantee. Make Seabiscuit look like a B movie. Even Spalding, DaHoss, and tlg would mist up, especially DaHoss -- they just wouldn't admit it. ;)

The only tears at the track are when one witnesses a truly horrible ride.

THere's no crying in horse racing.

[keithw84]

Awesome script!

She could also run over to the fallen Mike Smith to make sure her compatriot is alright and not seriously injured...

Or picks him and slings his limp body over her withers to take him to the ambulance.

[pandy]

She was 5-2 against ten GR1 winners last year and that was before she had ever beaten males, she won impressively and now has the longest winning streak in history plus 13 Gr1 wins. I can't see how she won't be 8-5 or lower.

[Charlie D]

She was 5-2 against ten GR1 winners last year and that was before she had ever beaten males, she won impressively and now has the longest winning streak in history plus 13 Gr1 wins. I can't see how she won't be 8-5 or lower.

Can't you, then i suggest you stop looking at her 13 Gr1 wins and look at the abilities of the horses she has beaten in those races properly, her figures awarded and performances in those races and the horses she is facing in her next Match Up.

[pandy]

She has beaten a total of 11 GRADE 1 winning mares in her career, that's not including the 10 GR1 horses she beat in the BC Classic, totally she has beaten 21 GR1 winners. I have looked at the ability of her competition, guess what, if you beat 21 GR1 winners, who beat good competition.

[jonnielu]

Can't you, then i suggest you stop looking at her 13 Gr1 wins and look at the abilities of the horses she has beaten in those races properly, her figures awarded and performances in those races and the horses she is facing in her next Match Up.

Well, there you go. All of the mysteries solved. You just have to look at it properly. Only dirt performances count, the dirt figures are everything, and she is facing a multitude of winners from real big-time races on real dirt.

Even if she does win, it would just be fluke #20, so you could throw that result out too.

jdl

[George Sands]

The following was written by Len Friedman of the Ragozin Sheets on Aug 13, 2009:

"The most unusual aspect of the comparison between RA and ZEN is that they both have shown the ability to run top efforts on both dirt and poly. I think that there is some justice in your approach of comparing dirt horses to dirt horses and poly and grass horses similarly, but in this case it's not really necessary. Some of Zen's numbers may be slower because of slow paces (even after we make our correction) but her top effort is a point faster than RA's best and Zen has many efforts within a point or two of RA's top. RA's efforts are as a 3yo as against Zen's top form at 4yo, but there are no guarantees that RA will be able to run faster numbers in the future even if she is campaigned as a 4yo (we can only hope that will be the case). They are head and shoulders the best of any mares in modern times and to me it would be hard to pick the likely winner if they were to match up on dirt or poly."

[Charlie D]

Well, there you go. All of the mysteries solved. You just have to look at it properly. Only dirt performances count, the dirt figures are everything, and she is facing a multitude of winners from real big-time races on real dirt.

Even if she does win, it would just be fluke #20, so you could throw that result out too.

jdl



There is no mystery to horse racing Jonnie. It's just horse ability v horse ability and what peonple use to measure that ability is entirely up to them. However, if people talked a little less and read a bit more, they would be able to sort the wheat from the chaff in a short period of time.

[jonnielu]

The following was written by Len Friedman of the Ragozin Sheets on Aug 13, 2009:

"The most unusual aspect of the comparison between RA and ZEN is that they both have shown the ability to run top efforts on both dirt and poly. I think that there is some justice in your approach of comparing dirt horses to dirt horses and poly and grass horses similarly, but in this case it's not really necessary. Some of Zen's numbers may be slower because of slow paces (even after we make our correction) but her top effort is a point faster than RA's best and Zen has many efforts within a point or two of RA's top. RA's efforts are as a 3yo as against Zen's top form at 4yo, but there are no guarantees that RA will be able to run faster numbers in the future even if she is campaigned as a 4yo (we can only hope that will be the case). They are head and shoulders the best of any mares in modern times and to me it would be hard to pick the likely winner if they were to match up on dirt or poly."

Obviously, yet another goofball that isn't looking at it "properly". Let us all pray that he will start paying attention to the NYRA pre-race show to get his mind right.

jdl

[jonnielu]

There is no mystery to horse racing Jonnie. It's just horse ability v horse ability and what peonple use to measure that ability is entirely up to them.


If people talk a little less and read a bit more, they should be able to sort the wheat from the chaff in a short period of time.

Well sure, I'm just amazed that more of these peonple haven't stumbled onto this in 100+ years of studying past performances. Then there are the peonple that are mystified when one of those 40-1 chaff horses win.

jdl

[Charlie D]

Well sure, I'm just amazed that more of these peonple haven't stumbled onto this in 100+ years of studying past performances. Then there are the peonple that are mystified when one of those 40-1 chaff horses win.

jdl


Like i said Jonnie, people need to read more and talk less it will help them understand.

[horses4courses]

Quality of opponents aside, slowly-run races have been to Zenyatta's disadvantage during the course of her win streak.

Say what you like about how quickly, or otherwise, she gets from point A to B.
The mare has little in the way of stamina limitations........

[keithw84]

The following was written by Len Friedman of the Ragozin Sheets on Aug 13, 2009:

"The most unusual aspect of the comparison between RA and ZEN is that they both have shown the ability to run top efforts on both dirt and poly. "

I guess it depends on what a "top effort" is. Is a win automatically a "top effort?" Rachel won at Keeneland, but few would argue that she was a "monster" on poly.

This brings me to the conundrum of Zenyatta on dirt. Her connections say she is better on dirt and yet went two years without running her on dirt. In general, actions speak louder than words.

On the other hand, some of her biggest winning margins were on dirt. Were these more dominant performances, or were the margins simply greater because:
1. Poly surfaces, on average, lead to smaller winning margins, OR
2. Horses who race on poly tend to run with styles similar to Zenyatta more often, so there are more horses closing in the stretch?

[George Sands]

I guess it depends on what a "top effort" is. Is a win automatically a "top effort?"

Friedman is going by Sheet figures, not wins.

[Charlie D]

They are head and shoulders the best of any mares in modern times and to me it would be hard to pick the likely winner if they were to match up on dirt or poly."




Head and shoulders above Rags to Riches???

[jonnielu]

Head and shoulders above Rags to Riches???

Obviously, this Friedman guy is a good example of someone that should read a little more and talk a little less.

jdl

[the little guy]

Head and shoulders above Rags to Riches???

The question is what period does " modern times " cover? Riboletta, on her best days, was better. Go for Wand and Bayakoa were routinely better. Gorgeous had her days. What about Lady's Secret? Serena's Song? Beautiful Pleasure? Even Banshee Breeze and Silverbulletday? Inside Information was clearly better on her best days. Heavenly Prize would certainly have been a decent match. And this is off the top of my head.

Too many good horses seem to be being summarily dismissed in people's haste and need to anoint Zenyatta as some sort of deity. That is what I find most unfortunate....not to mention historically dishonest.

[Charlie D]

When those were running tlg, i was otherwise engaged and thats why i leave that to people like yourself, but find RA, Zen "head and shoulders" comment interesting.


It seems the writer of the post George supplied is implying RA and Zen would beat Curlin easily and that is something i can not agree with.

[Bullet Plane]

The following was written by Len Friedman of the Ragozin Sheets on Aug 13, 2009:

"The most unusual aspect of the comparison between RA and ZEN is that they both have shown the ability to run top efforts on both dirt and poly. I think that there is some justice in your approach of comparing dirt horses to dirt horses and poly and grass horses similarly, but in this case it's not really necessary. Some of Zen's numbers may be slower because of slow paces (even after we make our correction) but her top effort is a point faster than RA's best and Zen has many efforts within a point or two of RA's top. RA's efforts are as a 3yo as against Zen's top form at 4yo, but there are no guarantees that RA will be able to run faster numbers in the future even if she is campaigned as a 4yo (we can only hope that will be the case). They are head and shoulders the best of any mares in modern times and to me it would be hard to pick the likely winner if they were to match up on dirt or poly."

Well, for me, the problem with this is, of course, The SHEETs give credit for lengths wide. On poly being wide is no problem, because of the lack of crest on turns - like they have on dirt tracks. So, they are giving her about 4-5 points of unwarranted credit- she typically runs 4 - 8 lengths- wide on the turns due to her lack of early speed.

So, you would have to give Z about a 4-5 vs a 0 or 1 on the Sheets for Rachel. That is, if you factor being wide into the equation. If they were both early speed types you could measure them more accurately with the Sheets.
You would have to assume two things to get Z equal to R on the Sheets:
1) Being wide on the poly is a disadvantage- which it isn't.
2) On dirt Z would get a rail trip- she can't

Therefore, a direct comparision with Z and R is best done with the Beyers. Look at them, they will tell you who the best horse is-

[RXB]

When did the Beyer figures become such infallible measures of a horse's ability?

2006 Classic: the Beyer figures said Bernardini was the fastest horse. BRIS and Thorostats (RIP) said Invasor was the fastest horse. I'm sure there are many more examples like that.

Ragozin and Friedman didn't just fall off of the turnip truck; their numbers are at least as good as Beyer's.

I also remember Beyer writing an article before the '02 BC, saying that Azeri was slow and tailing off and had faced weak competition in SoCal and figured to lose. Sound familiar? She won by five lengths and subsequently won a bunch more Gr 1 races over the next two years.

[Bullet Plane]

When did the Beyer figures become such infallible measures of a horse's ability?

2006 Classic: the Beyer figures said Bernardini was the fastest horse. BRIS and Thorostats (RIP) said Invasor was the fastest horse. I'm sure there are many more examples like that.

Ragozin and Friedman didn't just fall off of the turnip truck; their numbers are at least as good as Beyer's.

I also remember Beyer writing an article before the '02 BC, saying that Azeri was slow and tailing off and had faced weak competition in SoCal and figured to lose. Sound familiar? She won by five lengths and subsequently won a bunch more Gr 1 races over the next two years.

I didn't say that Ragozins number's weren't as good as the Beyers- you can take the lengths wide and factor them any way you want. You think the horse will run wide? Add some points. You must not use the Sheets or you would not have to be told this information.
The Beyers don't give credit to racing wide. So, since that is a big factor in how to evaluate these particular horses - I say look at the Beyers.

[RXB]

I know how the Sheets work, thanks.

[Dahoss9698]

When did the Beyer figures become such infallible measures of a horse's ability?

2006 Classic: the Beyer figures said Bernardini was the fastest horse. BRIS and Thorostats (RIP) said Invasor was the fastest horse. I'm sure there are many more examples like that.

Ragozin and Friedman didn't just fall off of the turnip truck; their numbers are at least as good as Beyer's.

I also remember Beyer writing an article before the '02 BC, saying that Azeri was slow and tailing off and had faced weak competition in SoCal and figured to lose. Sound familiar? She won by five lengths and subsequently won a bunch more Gr 1 races over the next two years.

No one said they were infallible, did they? However it's always funny to me when people bring up anytime Beyer is wrong. As if he is the only one that is ever wrong.

Funny how that works. I guess if he recomended horses running 5 times a year so they don't bounce he'd be a bit more appreciated.

[RXB]

The post to which I referred, said that looking at the Beyers would tell you who the best horse is.

I have nothing against Beyer, and the bulk of my posts that refer to the man back me up in that regard. I just don't think that a horse should be rated solely on its Beyer figures.

[bks]

The question is what period does " modern times " cover? Riboletta, on her best days, was better. Go for Wand and Bayakoa were routinely better. Gorgeous had her days. What about Lady's Secret? Serena's Song? Beautiful Pleasure? Even Banshee Breeze and Silverbulletday? Inside Information was clearly better on her best days. Heavenly Prize would certainly have been a decent match. And this is off the top of my head.

I'm curious: What do you mean by "better" here? Faster? Or faster against better competition? Something else?

[cj]

I would say Beyers, or any other good speed figure, do tell you which horses are best overall. It doesn't mean they are right every race, or even most individual races.

If you have a horse that runs 110, 108, 80, 111, 98 and another that runs 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 the former is better. It doesn't mean it will beat the latter every time.

[the little guy]

I'm curious: What do you mean by "better" here? Faster? Or faster against better competition? Something else?


Pretty much " better " as it is defined in the English language.

[thaskalos]

I would say Beyers, or any other good speed figure, do tell you which horses are best overall. It doesn't mean they are right every race, or even most individual races.

If you have a horse that runs 110, 108, 80, 111, 98 and another that runs 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 the former is better. It doesn't mean it will beat the latter every time.The speed figures are significant, of course...but IMO, they blind most players, and the players can't see other important facets of the game...like consistency.

In the same vein as your speed figure example above...let's assume that 2 horses have registered the following speed figures in their starts:

Horse A: 110, 108, 80, 99, 98, 99, 109, 111, 98, 99.

Horse B: 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100.

The speed handicapper might conclude that horse "A" is the better horse because of the higher figures...but horse "B's" superior consistency would make "B" the winner in 6 of the 10 races...assuming that they competed in the same races each time.

[RXB]

I would say Beyers, or any other good speed figure, do tell you which horses are best overall. It doesn't mean they are right every race, or even most individual races.

If you have a horse that runs 110, 108, 80, 111, 98 and another that runs 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 the former is better. It doesn't mean it will beat the latter every time.

If you go by Beyer figures then Zenyatta's win in the Classic last year was inexplicable and she should have essentially no chance of winning this year, either. Yet you even gave her an 19-25% chance in that recent poll.

My point is that no single metric is going to be precise in determining just how good a horse is. Reputable figuremakers will frequently produce numbers that are quite different from each other, even for top horses. So when Z is referred to as a "slow" horse, I think it's legitimate to ask the question: is the horse slow, or is the ratings system not accurately measuring the horse's ability?

In this case, we're talking about a horse that looked like a fringe Gr 1 mare on Beyer figures going into the Classic last year; a horse that is frequently derided because of those figures yet has won 13 Gr 1 wins from as many tries. It doesn't compute that a slow horse could do that, and therefore I have to believe that the Beyer figures are not accurate assessors of Z's ability. Just as I would take the opposite tack and say that her perfect record doesn't prove she's the best female horse ever.

[cj]

If you go by Beyer figures then Zenyatta's win in the Classic last year was inexplicable and she should have essentially no chance of winning this year, either. Yet you even gave her an 19-25% chance in that recent poll.

My point is that no single metric is going to be precise in determining just how good a horse is. Reputable figuremakers will frequently produce numbers that are quite different from each other, even for top horses. So when Z is referred to as a "slow" horse, I think it's legitimate to ask the question: is the horse slow, or is the ratings system not accurately measuring the horse's ability?

In this case, we're talking about a horse that looked like a fringe Gr 1 mare on Beyer figures going into the Classic last year; a horse that is frequently derided because of those figures yet has won 13 Gr 1 wins from as many tries. It doesn't compute that a slow horse could do that, and therefore I have to believe that the Beyer figures are not accurate assessors of Z's ability. Just as I would take the opposite tack and say that her perfect record doesn't prove she's the best female horse ever.

I don't remember the Beyer figures from last year, but I know my synthetic numbers for her were better than any other horse. Now, if people are comparing numbers across surfaces, good luck to them.

[Charlie D]

Horse A: 110, 108, 80, 99, 98, 99, 109, 111, 98, 99.

Horse B: 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100.



These are measurements of past performances under certain conditions and being such will not always tell you a horses true ability. Just as they don't in Zens case when she is up against tomato cans will not give an accurate measure of her TRUE ability.


A more accurate measure of ability can only be obtained when a horse faces horses with similar, equal or better ability (such as the Classic in Zens case)and even then under certain conditions this does not always tell you a horses true ability.


Hope that makes sense and helps.

[RXB]

I don't remember the Beyer figures from last year, but I know my synthetic numbers for her were better than any other horse. Now, if people are comparing numbers across surfaces, good luck to them.

I'm just referring to the Beyer figures, not your performance figs. Her Beyers going into the '09 Classic were 103-104-99-97. Then she got a 112 for the Classic. Same track for the 112 and the 97 that directly preceded it.

This year it will be 102-95-103-95-101. Her dirt Beyer this year is a mere 95. (You gave her a 94 in that race.) Take those at face value, she wouldn't be looking like the top contender in the Distaff, never mind the Classic-- where she would figure to lose by 10 lengths, literally.

[Charlie D]

I'm just referring to the Beyer figures, not your performance figs. Her Beyers going into the '09 Classic were 103-104-99-97. Then she got a 112 for the Classic. Same track for the 112 and the 97 that directly preceded it.

This year it will be 102-95-103-95-101. Her dirt Beyer this year is a mere 95. (You gave her a 94 in that race.) Take those at face value, she wouldn't be looking like the top contender in the Distaff, never mind the Classic-- where she would figure to lose by 10 lengths, literally.


People do just that and that is one of the biggest mistakes people make when using figures.

[thaskalos]

These are measurements of past performances under certain conditions and being such will not always tell you a horses true ability. Just as they don't in Zens case when she is up against tomato cans will not give an accurate measure of her TRUE ability.


A more accurate measure of ability can only be obtained when a horse faces horses with similar, equal or better ability (such as the Classic in Zens case)and even then under certain conditions this does not always tell you a horses true ability.


Hope that makes sense and helps.You didn't understand what I said Charlie.

I said that the 2 horses ran against each other and against the SAME horses every time.

[Charlie D]

You didn't understand what I said Charlie.

I said that the 2 horses ran against each other and against the SAME horses every time.


I have not replied to your post thaskalos :) my posts are to do with misinterpretations of figures


Sorry if this caused confusion.

[thaskalos]

I have not replied to your post thaskalos :) my posts are to do with misinterpretations of figures


Sorry if this caused confusion.Sorry...

I got confused because I was the one who posted those speed figures that you highlighted.

My mistake...:)

[Charlie D]

Sorry...

I got confused because I was the one who posted those speed figures that you highlighted.

My mistake...:)


Not your mistake,, the confusion was caused by me using your figs instead of my own examples.

[PaceAdvantage]

I just don't think that a horse should be rated solely on its Beyer figures.I assure you, in the case of Zenyatta, she is not...in fact, I don't even use speed figures anymore in my critiques...they aren't necessary....

[RXB]

If she's as common as made out to be by a considerable portion of this board's population, why would many of these same people be so insistent that she run in the Classic again? I mean, if it's doubtful that she could defeat Life At Ten, or Blind Luck, or Havre De Grace, isn't it sheer folly to enter the horse into the Classic?

Shirreffs and Moss wouldn't be "ducking" anything by running in the Distaff; they'd just be entering the horse in a race where she might have a chance rather than engaging in utter madness by running against colts that are many, many lengths superior.

As I see it, there are two options:

1. She is a truly great mare and belongs in the Classic; entering her in the filly/mare race would be chicken; or

2. She is not a great mare; entering her in the female race is sensible while entering her in the Classic would be stupid.

I see plenty of people who accuse Moss and Shirreffs of being chicken, ducking male competition, etc., yet all the while they continue to denigrate her ability. Hard to follow that logic.

[bks]

Pretty much " better " as it is defined in the English language.

The definition of better isn't at issue. What's at issue is what you think makes a horse better than another. The criteria of "betterness", if you like.

cj actually offered an explanation for what is better to him. Assuming you understand the difference, try something like that.

[the little guy]

If she's as common as made out to be by a considerable portion of this board's population, why would many of these same people be so insistent that she run in the Classic again? I mean, if it's doubtful that she could defeat Life At Ten, or Blind Luck, or Havre De Grace, isn't it sheer folly to enter the horse into the Classic?

Shirreffs and Moss wouldn't be "ducking" anything by running in the Distaff; they'd just be entering the horse in a race where she might have a chance rather than engaging in utter madness by running against colts that are many, many lengths superior.

As I see it, there are two options:

1. She is a truly great mare and belongs in the Classic; entering her in the filly/mare race would be chicken; or

2. She is not a great mare; entering her in the female race is sensible while entering her in the Classic would be stupid.

I see plenty of people who accuse Moss and Shirreffs of being chicken, ducking male competition, etc., yet all the while they continue to denigrate her ability. Hard to follow that logic.


Here's the basic problem, and it permeates way too many of Zenyatta's fans' threads, your entire thesis depends upon an argument that is a complete and utter fabrication. Not one poster has made any suggestion that she is anything close to " common. " Once we get past this intentional falsehood, the rest of your post becomes moot, as it relies on a supposition that is 100% untrue.

[chickenhead]

her speed figures are pretty common, tho.

[RXB]

Here's the basic problem, and it permeates way too many of Zenyatta's fans' threads, your entire thesis depends upon an argument that is a complete and utter fabrication. Not one poster has made any suggestion that she is anything close to " common. " Once we get past this intentional falsehood, the rest of your post becomes moot, as it relies on a supposition that is 100% untrue.

Andy, do you remember these words: "The list is endless." That is your response concerning female horses that you rated as better than Zenyatta. If that doesn't label her "common" by Gr 1 standards (or, "routinely talented," if you prefer), then please expound.

The Classic is the biggest race of the year. And we know that it's been exceedingly rare for a female to win Gr 1 races against older males, especially at 10f. Thus, the female horse in question had better be of the highest quality or there's really not much point in trying.

Further, I'm not a Zenyatta "fan" unless you are also then a Zenyatta "hater." I'm just trying to make a point that goes beyond Zenyatta. You might not agree with everything I say, but I'm perfectly willing to claim that I've taken a fairly balanced approach throughout this discussion.

[the little guy]

Andy, do you remember these words: "The list is endless." That is your response concerning female horses that you rated as better than Zenyatta. If that doesn't label her "common" by Gr 1 standards (or, "routinely talented," if you prefer), then please expound.




First of all, and probably most importantly, you have now introduced " common by Grade 1 standards " into your argument which is completely different than your original post/thesis. I guess that means you agree with my response?

And now you are suggesting I claimed that she was somehow " common by Grade 1 standards " because she wasn't necessarily better than some of the best fillies or mares of the last 25 years. Not the logical extension I would have drawn....that's for sure.

[cj]

And we know that it's been exceedingly rare for a female to win Gr 1 races against older males, especially at 10f. Thus, the female horse in question had better be of the highest quality or there's really not much point in trying.



Again, the surface had A LOT to do with this. Females compete much better with males on turf and rubber, yet people like to pretend they don't know this with regards to Zenyatta.

[RXB]

First of all, and probably most importantly, you have now introduced " common by Grade 1 standards " into your argument which is completely different than your original post/thesis. I guess that means you agree with my response?

And now you are suggesting I claimed that she was somehow " common by Grade 1 standards " because she wasn't necessarily better than some of the best fillies or mares of the last 25 years. Not the logical extension I would have drawn....that's for sure.

You've referred to Zenyatta a few times as "slow," not "slow by Grade 1 standards" so spare the obfuscation regarding "common." I think it's understood that we're not talking about a claimer/allowance horse.

Also, "some" is quite different than "endless" so maybe in fact you're coming around to my response? ;)

I know you're a sharp guy. So your opinion matters to me more than others. I want to hear it. Should they enter in the Distaff? Or the Classic? If they enter the Distaff, what are her chances, based on the horses we can expect to show up? Same with the Classic.

What I said about the Classic-vs-Distaff, stupid-vs-chicken bit, I meant absolutely. Some people (I didn't necessarily say you) are trying to have it both ways.

[RXB]

Again, the surface had A LOT to do with this. Females compete much better with males on turf and rubber, yet people like to pretend they don't know this with regards to Zenyatta.

So the same question I posed to Andy, I pose to you, too.

Also, I've yet to see any other female besides Zenyatta win a major route stakes vs. males on artificial surfaces. If there's been a spate of such occurrences, I'm not aware of it.

[the little guy]

You've referred to Zenyatta a few times as "slow," not "slow by Grade 1 standards" so spare the obfuscation regarding "common." I think it's understood that we're not talking about a claimer/allowance horse.

Also, "some" is quite different than "endless" so maybe in fact you're coming around to my response? ;)

I know you're a sharp guy. So your opinion matters to me more than others. I want to hear it. Should they enter in the Distaff? Or the Classic? If they enter the Distaff, what are her chances, based on the horses we can expect to show up? Same with the Classic.

What I said about the Classic-vs-Distaff, stupid-vs-chicken bit, I meant absolutely. Some people (I didn't necessarily say you) are trying to have it both ways.


I honestly don't like the internet game of pretending somebody said, or meant, something that they pretty clearly didn't. I am happy to engage in an actual discussion, but I can't, and won't, if whatever I say will be twisted to suit the agenda of somebody else.

As for your question......how could her connections race her anywhere other than the Classic after the histrionics that have gone on over the past year plus? A great many claims have been made that preclude racing her anywhere else. However, they can do as they wish, as long as they are realistically aware of the consequences. Should she not even attempt the Classic, regardless of the outcome of either race, she is not realistically even in the HOY discussion, and also realistically risks winning any Eclipse award should she lose the Distaff. She can back into the F&M Eclipse simply by racing in the Classic, regardless of my opinion, as she will win that popularity contest ( plus, the Distaff winner may well be a 3YO, which does pretty much eliminate any of the older horses from real contention ). As for HOY, any one of Quality Road, Blame, and Lookin at Lucky already have established a greater claim on HOY based on 2010 records than Zenyatta should she not run in the BC Classic. I'm old school.....I believe year end awards should be based on entire yearly resumes of races with historical significance and not just a 26YO series of races.

I'm sure many will disagree with the above paragraph....I just hope they have a good contra argument. None of the above means I don't think Zenyatta is a really terrific horse. On the other hand, nothing she has done in 2010, and that's all that matters for this year's Eclipse Awards, has been particularly compelling. I'm sure some also disagree with that...but that's what makes horse racing.

[cj]

So the same question I posed to Andy, I pose to you, too.

Also, I've yet to see any other female besides Zenyatta win a major route stakes vs. males on artificial surfaces. If there's been a spate of such occurrences, I'm not aware of it.

Well, of course not, I can't think of many that have tried. Most acknowledge that synthetics are much like turf in style, so it would reason to me that many things are similar on both.

As for the question, what good would it do to enter the Distaff? She'd lose Horse of the Year again barring an upset in the Classic. There is also the very distinct possibility she would lose to Blind Luck and/or Life At Ten.

[tucker6]

I've yet to see any other female besides Zenyatta win a major route stakes vs. males on artificial surfaces.
A more correct question would be to ask if any female, including Zenyatta, has won a major stakes race against males on poly that is also their preferred surface. Note the big difference with a few more exacting words.

The BCC last year just proved that Zenyatta is a good horse, and that when she races males on her surface, she can win.

[RXB]

I honestly don't like the internet game of pretending somebody said, or meant, something that they pretty clearly didn't. I am happy to engage in an actual discussion, but I can't, and won't, if whatever I say will be twisted to suit the agenda of somebody else.

As for your question......how could her connections race her anywhere other than the Classic after the histrionics that have gone on over the past year plus? A great many claims have been made that preclude racing her anywhere else. However, they can do as they wish, as long as they are realistically aware of the consequences. Should she not even attempt the Classic, regardless of the outcome of either race, she is not realistically even in the HOY discussion, and also realistically risks winning any Eclipse award should she lose the Distaff. She can back into the F&M Eclipse simply by racing in the Classic, regardless of my opinion, as she will win that popularity contest ( plus, the Distaff winner may well be a 3YO, which does pretty much eliminate any of the older horses from real contention ). As for HOY, any one of Quality Road, Blame, and Lookin at Lucky already have established a greater claim on HOY based on 2010 records than Zenyatta should she not run in the BC Classic. I'm old school.....I believe year end awards should be based on entire yearly resumes of races with historical significance and not just a 26YO series of races.

I'm sure many will disagree with the above paragraph....I just hope they have a good contra argument. None of the above means I don't think Zenyatta is a really terrific horse. On the other hand, nothing she has done in 2010, and that's all that matters for this year's Eclipse Awards, has been particularly compelling. I'm sure some also disagree with that...but that's what makes horse racing.

Re: paragraph #1, I agree. That was my point about "common," "slow," etc. You knew the context in which I meant "common" just like I knew what you meant by "slow."

To the rest of it, I didn't really ask about HoY; I was genuinely interested in your analysis of Zenyatta's chances in an actual race vs. the other leading fillies and Zenyatta's chances in a race vs. the actual leading colts (based on who we could reasonably assume to enter both races).

I wasn't kidding; I do value your opinion and would like to know what you think her chances would be in either race.

[the little guy]

Re: paragraph #1, I agree. That was my point about "common," "slow," etc. You knew the context in which I meant "common" just like I knew what you meant by "slow."

To the rest of it, I didn't really ask about HoY; I was genuinely interested in your analysis of Zenyatta's chances in an actual race vs. the other leading fillies and Zenyatta's chances in a race vs. the actual leading colts (based on who we could reasonably assume to enter both races).

I wasn't kidding; I do value your opinion and would like to know what you think her chances would be in either race.


I didn't know that is what you meant by common. And, since your later context of " common by Grade 1 standards " also was not what I said, it is impossible for me to know what context it belonged to.

As for her chances in the Distaff....I would prefer Blind Luck. I'm not Life at Ten's biggest fan, but after she rated comfortably last time, I imagine she would have a chance. I would probably use all of Zenyatta and those two in Pick-4s, though it's VERY premature to be making any definitive opinions, and would pick Blind Luck if a gun were put to my head.

However, I reserve the right to have a completely different opinion in three weeks.

[RXB]

There is also the very distinct possibility she would lose to Blind Luck and/or Life At Ten.

But why bother entering the Classic with a horse that might lose to those fillies? Any horse that might not beat those two has effectively no chance against the males.

[RXB]

As for her chances in the Distaff....I would prefer Blind Luck. I'm not Life at Ten's biggest fan, but after she rated comfortably last time, I imagine she would have a chance. I would probably use all of Zenyatta and those two in Pick-4s, though it's VERY premature to be making any definitive opinions, and would pick Blind Luck if a gun were put to my head.

However, I reserve the right to have a completely different opinion in three weeks.

So pretty much she would be a toss in the Classic?

[cj]

But why bother entering the Classic with a horse that might lose to those fillies? Any horse that might not beat those two has effectively no chance against the males.

Not true for me. Life At Ten, yes, could probably only beat her with a very good trip and pace set up. With Blind Luck though, I think she could WIN the Classic and have said so here before, months ago. Zenyatta might not face a horse as good as her at 10f in the Classic.

[the little guy]

So pretty much she would be a toss in the Classic?


Does the judge often call you for leading the witness?

I'm done. You don't want a discussion.

[RXB]

Does the judge often call you for leading the witness?


I guess the judge could've warned me in this case. Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. You're right, I made an assumption but I always think that if a filly/mare is not the choice to beat females, then beating males is pretty much out of the question.

I think she would be a solid choice in the filly race, but stranger things have happened. I don't like betting females against males and at her odds there's no way I'd bet her in the Classic but at 10f, if she gets the trip and a respectable pace to run at, she does have a habit of winning, so who knows. That's my opinion.

[Dahoss9698]

But why bother entering the Classic with a horse that might lose to those fillies? Any horse that might not beat those two has effectively no chance against the males.

Because that was the excuse for her cupcake schedule this year, wasn't it?

[RXB]

Not true for me. Life At Ten, yes, could probably only beat her with a very good trip and pace set up. With Blind Luck though, I think she could WIN the Classic and have said so here before, months ago. Zenyatta might not face a horse as good as her at 10f in the Classic.

Fair enough, thanks. Blind Luck has turned out to be better than I thought she was initially, but I still don't think she would be able to beat older males, even though the Classic is shaping up as an average-to-below average rendition. I would choose Zenyatta over Blind Luck, but that preference would be more pronounced at 10f than at 9f.

[the little guy]

I guess the judge could've warned me in this case. Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. You're right, I made an assumption but I always think that if a filly/mare is not the choice to beat females, then beating males is pretty much out of the question.

I think she would be a solid choice in the filly race, but stranger things have happened. I don't like betting females against males and at her odds there's no way I'd bet her in the Classic but at 10f, if she gets the trip and a respectable pace to run at, she does have a habit of winning, so who knows. That's my opinion.


She would absolutely be a strong favorite in the Distaff. It might make a better situation for betting against her, as I doubt she will be nearly as big an underlay in the Classic exotics as she will be in that win pool. In the Distaff, she would be a huge favorite in all pools. Perhaps rightfully so....I just don't particularly think so. But I'm wrong a lot.

[GatetoWire]

As for your question......how could her connections race her anywhere other than the Classic after the histrionics that have gone on over the past year plus? A great many claims have been made that preclude racing her anywhere else. However, they can do as they wish, as long as they are realistically aware of the consequences. Should she not even attempt the Classic, regardless of the outcome of either race, she is not realistically even in the HOY discussion, and also realistically risks winning any Eclipse award should she lose the Distaff. She can back into the F&M Eclipse simply by racing in the Classic, regardless of my opinion, as she will win that popularity contest ( plus, the Distaff winner may well be a 3YO, which does pretty much eliminate any of the older horses from real contention ). As for HOY, any one of Quality Road, Blame, and Lookin at Lucky already have established a greater claim on HOY based on 2010 records than Zenyatta should she not run in the BC Classic. I'm old school.....I believe year end awards should be based on entire yearly resumes of races with historical significance and not just a 26YO series of races.

I'm sure many will disagree with the above paragraph....I just hope they have a good contra argument. None of the above means I don't think Zenyatta is a really terrific horse. On the other hand, nothing she has done in 2010, and that's all that matters for this year's Eclipse Awards, has been particularly compelling. I'm sure some also disagree with that...but that's what makes horse racing.


Very well said.

[RXB]

She would absolutely be a strong favorite in the Distaff. It might make a better situation for betting against her, as I doubt she will be nearly as big an underlay in the Classic exotics as she will be in that win pool. In the Distaff, she would be a huge favorite in all pools. Perhaps rightfully so....I just don't particularly think so. But I'm wrong a lot.

Thanks. I think our basic thoughts about the Distaff are similar. Still interested in your early assessment of her chances in the Classic (and the other contenders). I think Quality Road will finish in the top four as he's consistent and a ratable speed horse, but don't see him winning. In my view, he figures to defeat the other pace animals but come up short in the final eighth. I would think that at least one of Blame, Looking At Lucky or Zenyatta would run him down inside the furlong pole.

I like to discuss/argue but I'm usually fairly good about taking my medicine when I've stepped out of line-- and thus don't mind when people point it out to me.

The defence rests.

[Charlie D]

I didn't know that is what you meant by common. And, since your later context of " common by Grade 1 standards " also was not what I said, it is impossible for me to know what context it belonged to.

As for her chances in the Distaff....I would prefer Blind Luck. I'm not Life at Ten's biggest fan, but after she rated comfortably last time, I imagine she would have a chance. I would probably use all of Zenyatta and those two in Pick-4s, though it's VERY premature to be making any definitive opinions, and would pick Blind Luck if a gun were put to my head.

However, I reserve the right to have a completely different opinion in three weeks.

Gun to head = Zen

Great Game this :)

[KingChas]

Gun to head = Zen

Great Game this :)

Charlie D =Zen24/7

All these comments and I am still waiting to see what your vote is in reference to this thread.

Of course your waiting for your Sig to vote so you can copy his opinion. :jump:

[Charlie D]

You'll be waiting a while King Chas

[Pick6]

Based on the responses, assuming "5% or less" at 2.5%, and "50% or more" ~ 55%, I get a weighted chance of winning at 34.3%.

With 16% takeout this translates to tote odds of 1.40.

[David-LV]

I'm just wondering what the title of the thread will be when Zenyatta blows them away in the BC Classic and makes it 20 for 20.

JUST WONDERING ??

________
David-LV

[thaskalos]

I'm just wondering what the title of the thread will be when Zenyatta blows them away in the BC Classic and makes it 20 for 20.

JUST WONDERING ??

________
David-LVZENYATTURDS TRIUMPHANT !!:)

[cj]

I'm just wondering what the title of the thread will be when Zenyatta blows them away in the BC Classic and makes it 20 for 20.

JUST WONDERING ??

________
David-LV

Nonexistent.

[thaskalos]

Nonexistent.Tell me that you are not a little nervous...:)

[Cardus]

I'm just wondering what the title of the thread will be when Zenyatta blows them away in the BC Classic and makes it 20 for 20.

JUST WONDERING ??

________
David-LV

It'll be the "Neverending" thread.

[thaskalos]

It'll be the "Neverending" thread.I have planned my vacation around it...

[cj]

Tell me that you are not a little nervous...:)

Why would I be nervous?

[Tom]

I'm just wondering what the title of the thread will be when Zenyatta blows them away in the BC Classic and makes it 20 for 20.

JUST WONDERING ??

________
David-LV


Zenyadda yadda yadda.......

[tzipi]

I'm just wondering what the title of the thread will be when Zenyatta blows them away in the BC Classic and makes it 20 for 20.

JUST WONDERING ??

________
David-LV

What's your point? The title is, what are her chances. I see 40%, I see 50+%. What should the title be? 100% win? Most say 50% or higher. So what's the "what if Zen wins?" I could see your point if 30-40 people said 5%. But it's the opposite.

[PaceAdvantage]

Why would I be nervous?As TLG once stated brilliantly, the silliness never ends.

[UK View]

4/1 available over here.

Certainly looking forward to the race.

Goldikova is better though ;)

[David-LV]

4/1 available over here.

Certainly looking forward to the race.

Goldikova is better though ;)

If Goldikova is better then Zenyatta, let them enter her in the Classic and prove it on the racetrack.

_________
David-LV

[Dahoss9698]

If Goldikova is better then Zenyatta, let them enter her in the Classic and prove it on the racetrack.

_________
David-LV

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Is it a requirement to throw all logic out of the window when defending Zenyatta's honor?

[UK View]

If Goldikova is better then Zenyatta, let them enter her in the Classic and prove it on the racetrack.

_________
David-LV


Erm?......

Because she is a Miler and a Turf horse.

By that argument I could just say "enter Zenyatta in the Mile and let her prove it"!!

[Charlie D]

Erm?......

Because she is a Miler and a Turf horse.



Didn't stop Ravens Pass, Henrythenavigator, Giants Causeway etc taking a shot.

[Valuist]

I'm just wondering what the title of the thread will be when Zenyatta blows them away in the BC Classic and makes it 20 for 20.

JUST WONDERING ??

________
David-LV

Aerosmith already wrote a song about it: Dream On

[BluegrassProf]

Erm?......

Because she is a Miler and a Turf horse.

By that argument I could just say "enter Zenyatta in the Mile and let her prove it"!!WHACK! Smacked in the face by common sense! :D

[UK View]

Didn't stop Ravens Pass, Henrythenavigator, Giants Causeway etc taking a shot.


Ravens Pass and Henrythenavigator were Milers running on pro-ride over 10f. Much less of a test than if it had been on dirt where they most certainly would not have taken part.

Giants Causeway was a 10f horse and bred for dirt.

[Charlie D]

Ravens Pass and Henrythenavigator were Milers running on pro-ride over 10f. Much less of a test than if it had been on dirt where they most certainly would not have taken part.


Really, who told you that???



Giants Causeway was a 10f horse and bred for dirt.


He was turf horse just like Sakhee, Swain, Electrocutionist, Dubia Millennium, which was one of the reasons you gave for Goldikova not running in Classic, Ravens Pass and Henrythenavigtor were milers and that was the other reason you gave for Goldikova no running.

A career to date on Turf does not stop some, nor does having run mainly at a mile and therefore these reasons should not be used in Goldikova's case

[FenceBored]

Really, who told you that???


Short answer (for Raven's Pass), John Gosden.

There was a thread on the subject:

Hmmm So Raven's Pass was going to duck Curlin (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61905)

[Charlie D]

Oh him. One word - Mineshaft :)


A few more. 5 losses at mile for RP, never tried at 10f by trainer,

Frankie on

2+2 = Some rich arab was maybe pulling strings and not trainer, so i'd take what he stated with a pinch of salt.

[Charlie D]

Btw FB, my "Really, who told you that??" was also refering to this bit too. ;)

Much less of a test than if it had been on dirt

[Valuist]

Ravens Pass and Henrythenavigator were Milers running on pro-ride over 10f. Much less of a test than if it had been on dirt where they most certainly would not have taken part.

Giants Causeway was a 10f horse and bred for dirt.

I agree Giants Causeway very likely would've been a monster on dirt. His dam, Mariah's Storm, was a graded stakes winner on dirt. Can't say I've felt many of the Euro stars would translate their form to real dirt, but Giants Causeway probably had as good a chance as any.

[UK View]

Really, who told you that???

Just my opinion. I do not believe either of them would have run in the Classic had it been on Dirt. There was a doubt that Ravens would even get a mile at the start of his 3yo season so certainly wouldn't have gone 10f on Dirt. I don't see that as ducking Curlin, just a sensible policy. I'm sure Curlin would've beaten him easily on Dirt, but on Pro Ride Curlin was always likely to struggle.






He was turf horse just like Sakhee, Swain, Electrocutionist, Dubia Millennium, which was one of the reasons you gave for Goldikova not running in Classic, Ravens Pass and Henrythenavigtor were milers and that was the other reason you gave for Goldikova no running.

A career to date on Turf does not stop some, nor does having run mainly at a mile and therefore these reasons should not be used in Goldikova's case


Giants Causeway was more likely on breeding to have been suited by Dirt than Ravens, HTN or even Goldikova and he had no stamina doubts.

I suppose it could have been possible for Goldikova to attempt the Classic last year but she was going for a repeat in the Mile.

Incidentally her most recent performance in France showed her to still be on top of her game. In a very strong field she beat 5 other Group 1 winners (of 10 Group 1 races) between them.

[UK View]

Btw FB, my "Really, who told you that??" was also refering to this bit too. ;)


When I say "test" I mean stamina test, not a test for ability etc.

[cpitt84]

I've been watching zenyatta's race from last year's classic for almost a year now. I smile everytime I see her switch into gear.

Her size and kicking closing speed should be enough to fend off LAT, quality road and blame. I just don't see how any of those three can overcome her dramatic stretch run at the end.

[Charlie D]

When I say "test" I mean stamina test, not a test for ability etc.


I know what you meant



Giants Causeway was more likely on breeding to have been suited by Dirt than Ravens,



RP Breeding: Elusive Quality - , The sire of Dirt runners like Quality Road, Smarty Jones, Maryfield, Great Notion.

[Charlie D]

GC breeding: Storm Cat. The Sire of GC himself, Aljabr,Catrail, After Market and numerous turfers.

[Dahoss9698]

GC breeding: Storm Cat. The Sire of GC himself, Aljabr,Catrail, After Market and numerous turfers.

Come on Charlie. Storm Cat has sired dozens of stakes winners on dirt and his dam was a monster on dirt.

[Charlie D]

C'mon dahoss. I know that and that fact did not stop all those turfers performing on turf did it.;)

[Steve R]

I've been watching zenyatta's race from last year's classic for almost a year now. I smile everytime I see her switch into gear.

Her size and kicking closing speed should be enough to fend off LAT, quality road and blame. I just don't see how any of those three can overcome her dramatic stretch run at the end.
Aren't you confusing surfaces here? In this year's Apple Blossom at 9f on dirt, her last quarter was run in about :24.4. In 2008, at 8 1/2f, it was about :23.3. Her closing kick in both of her dirt races, while solid, hasn't matched her closing kick on synthetic surfaces. If she reproduces this year's Apple Blossom profile in the Classic and any of the top contenders perform at their best, she would have a very tough time.

[Dahoss9698]

C'mon dahoss. I know that and that fact did not stop all those turfers performing on turf did it.;)

Read your signature and then think about the point you are not making here. I'm not saying Storm Cat wasn't a strong sire for turf runners. But he sired a lot of really good dirt runners and Giants Causeway's dam was a dirt horse.

[Charlie D]

The point i'm trying to make is, there are no surface prefernce genes being passed on to progeny and to suggest, imply or whatever word people want to use is indeed sillyness

[Dahoss9698]

The point i'm trying to make is, there are no surface prefernce genes being passed on to progeny and to suggest, imply or whatever word people want to use is indeed sillyness

So you think it is a coincidence horses by a certain sire tend to prefer one surface over another?

[Charlie D]

So you think it is a coincidence horses by a certain sire tend to prefer one surface over another?


What i think was put up in last post. If you want show me different then go for it.

[Dahoss9698]

What i think was put up in last post. If you want show me different then go for it.

Shocking. A deflection to a simple question.

Take a look at the progeny of Theatrical, who was a really good turf horse. That'll get you started. You don't think he passed on a preference for grass to a large portion of his progeny? I'm not saying it's an exact science, because it isn't. But to ignore it exists is pure folly.

[Charlie D]

Not shcking at all, i said it was sillyness to suggest sirface prefernce genes were passed on to progeny, your suggesting or implying they are and to that, I stated show me.

According to RP info, Threatrical sired horses Drama Critic, Geri and using thier info both handled Dirt.

Is this info correct??

[thaskalos]

Not shcking at all, i said it was sillyness to suggest sirface prefernce genes were passed on to progeny, your suggesting or implying they are and to that, I stated show me.

According to RP info, Threatrical sired horses Drama Critic, Geri and using thier info both handled Dirt.

Is this info correct??Charlie...are you saying that there is no such thing as a "grass sire"?

[Dahoss9698]

Not shcking at all, i said it was sillyness to suggest sirface prefernce genes were passed on to progeny, your suggesting or implying they are and to that, I stated show me.

According to RP info, Threatrical sired horses Drama Critic, Geri and using thier info both handled Dirt.

Is this info correct??

As I said, it isn't an exact science. At no point did I say predominately turf sires can't or won't sire dirt runners also. But you are pretending it's all a big illusion.

Do you dispute Theatrical sired horses that preferred turf for the most part? Take a look at Upper East Sider in the 4th at Belmont on Saturday. Just a coincidence she made a drastic improvement on turf, considering her dam was a turf horse?

We'll agree to disagree, because you're more interested in being stubborn than logical.

[Charlie D]

Charlie...are you saying that there is no such thing as a "grass sire"?


Not heard anyone describe thier horse that is being shipped to shed or in shed as "Grass Sire"thaskalos

Can you show which breeders make these statements??

[Charlie D]

As I said, it isn't an exact science. At no point did I say predominately turf sires can't or won't sire dirt runners also. But you are pretending it's all a big illusion.

Do you dispute Theatrical sired horses that preferred turf for the most part? Take a look at Upper East Sider in the 4th at Belmont on Saturday. Just a coincidence she made a drastic improvement on turf, considering her dam was a turf horse?

We'll agree to disagree, because you're more interested in being stubborn than logical.

Only thing i'm disputing is that surface genes are passed on to progeny.


If a Sires progeny mainly race on a particular surface his record will swing towards that surface, however, it does not mean ihis progeny are incapable of performing on another surface as the RP info seems to show for Theatrical

[Dahoss9698]

Only thing i'm disputing is that surface genes are passed on to progeny.


If a Sires progeny mainly race on a particular surface his record will swing towards that surface, however, it does not mean ihis progeny are incapable of performing on another surface as the RP info seems to show for Theatrical

No one said turf sires can't get dirt runners and vice versa. But you know that.
This is basic stuff we're discussing here. Did Gm10 steal your log in recently?

[RXB]

90% of the North American stakes wins by Theatrical's sons/daughters have been on grass. That is an astonishingly high number for a sire based in North America.

Storm Cat about 25%.

There are no absolutes but wagers on dirt entrants sired by Theatrical, as with almost anything out of the Danehill line, have generally been terrible gambles.

[Charlie D]

90% of the North American stakes wins by Theatrical's sons/daughters have been on grass. That is an astonishingly high number for a sire based in North America.

Storm Cat about 25%.

There are no absolutes but wagers on dirt entrants sired by Theatrical, as with almost anything out of the Danehill line, have generally been terrible gambles.


Correct RXB there are no absolutes as the evidence shows.

[RXB]

No absolutes but in some pedigrees there are very obvious surface/distance/maturation probabilities.

As an example, I started following Maryland racing in 1993. I learned very quickly that when a horse sired by Two Punch or Allen's Prospect showed up in a dirt sprint, it warranted extra attention. But in dirt routes, things got dicey (especially for the Allen's Prospect horses). And in grass routes, they were rather weak sires.

[Dahoss9698]

Correct RXB there are no absolutes as the evidence shows.

No one said there are absolutes. What arguement are you having? It's like people are saying the sky is blue and you're screaming "it isn't red."

But I was hoping you could help me understand something. On the track Kitten's Joy really moved up when his trainer moved him to turf. Not surprising as he was bred on top and bottom for it. Well, anyone that follows racing in this country will recognize that progeny of Kitten's Joy are struggling on dirt, for the most part. However, when they switch to turf, they seem to improve.

How could this be? How would you explain this?

[gm10]

Aren't you confusing surfaces here? In this year's Apple Blossom at 9f on dirt, her last quarter was run in about :24.4. In 2008, at 8 1/2f, it was about :23.3. Her closing kick in both of her dirt races, while solid, hasn't matched her closing kick on synthetic surfaces. If she reproduces this year's Apple Blossom profile in the Classic and any of the top contenders perform at their best, she would have a very tough time.

I don't think you can compare late kick on synthetic with late kick on dirt. Have a look at Lucky's dirt/synthetic performances, same for him.

[Steve R]

I don't think you can compare late kick on synthetic with late kick on dirt. Have a look at Lucky's dirt/synthetic performances, same for him.
I agree. That's my point. Zenyatta probably will not be able to close as dramatically at CD as she did in SoCal. This, of course, assumes that her BC Classic opposition will be much superior to Mine That Bird's Derby opposition. I do expect her to run well, but if her main competitors run close to their previous top, she will have to put in a lifetime best effort by several lengths. Not impossible...only difficult.

[gm10]

I agree. That's my point. Zenyatta probably will not be able to close as dramatically at CD as she did in SoCal. This, of course, assumes that her BC Classic opposition will be much superior to Mine That Bird's Derby opposition. I do expect her to run well, but if her main competitors run close to their previous top, she will have to put in a lifetime best effort by several lengths. Not impossible...only difficult.

I think that her late kick is as strong on dirt as it is on synthetic, relatively speaking. Yes it is slower, yes it looks less dramatic, but she is still 3-4 lengths quicker than the others in the last 2F.

(agreed this year's AB wasn't very good)

[Steve R]

I think that her late kick is as strong on dirt as it is on synthetic, relatively speaking. Yes it is slower, yes it looks less dramatic, but she is still 3-4 lengths quicker than the others in the last 2F.

(agreed this year's AB wasn't very good)
Is that good enough? Can she be within 3 or 4 of the lead at the top of the stretch? When Blame lost the JCGC he ran the last quarter in about :24.1 or :24.2. If he is in front with 2f to go do you think she can go sub-24 at Churchill Downs?

[tucker6]

Is that good enough? Can she be within 3 or 4 of the lead at the top of the stretch? When Blame lost the JCGC he ran the last quarter in about :24.1 or :24.2. If he is in front with 2f to go do you think she can go sub-24 at Churchill Downs?Based on past performances on that track, probably not. Everyone oohs and aahs over Big Brown's finish at the KD, but he ran the last 2F in 25.2. The best ever was Secretariat at 23 flat for the last 2F. Rarely do horses get under 24 for the last 2F on that track at that distance. So, taking Red's final 1/4 time as the absolute best that can be achieved, then Zenyatta will need to be within 6 lengths with a 1/4 to go to have any shot. More likely, she will need to be with the leaders at that point, and grit it out over the final stretch against equally talented horses.

[Charlie D]

Dahoss

Your assertion is Kittens Joy moved up because of turf, but there is nothing to suggest his first turf runs are massively superior to his Dirt runs is there?? and there is nothing to suggest that if given more time and Dirt starts he could not have succeeded on Dirt too, just like Medaglio D'oro (El Prado) or Berrego (El Prado) or Asi Siempre (El Prado)

[thaskalos]

I think it's fair to say that we have all seen more than a few cases where horses were totally transformed when they were switched to the turf.

[Charlie D]

But is it purely because of the surface thaskalos or because of other variables ( some known, some not)

[Dahoss9698]

Dahoss

Your assertion is Kittens Joy moved up because of turf, but there is nothing to suggest his first turf runs are massively superior to his Dirt runs is there?? and there is nothing to suggest that if given more time and Dirt starts he could not have succeeded on Dirt too, just like Medaglio D'oro (El Prado) or Berrego (El Prado) or Asi Siempre (El Prado)

Of course there is something to suggest his turf runs are superior. Any figure would tell you (beyer,bris,rags,tg's) not to mention he won on turf and not dirt. He was mediocre on dirt and very good on turf. His progeny are the same way. Are you denying this?

Asi Siempre? She won on Polytrack at keeneland and her dirt runs were so-so.

Am I being punk'd here?

[Charlie D]

Kittens Joy became decent with time Dahoss and there is nothing to say that could not have happened on Dirt


As you know. Polytrack is not turf, nor is it Dirt, it is, another surface.


You seem to acknowledge breeding is not a production line where you end up with exactly the same product going out of the door in some posts, but overall you seem to be treating it as though it were one.

[Dahoss9698]

Kittens Joy became decent with time Dahoss and there is nothing to say that could not have happened on Dirt


Polytrack is not turf, nor is it Dirt, it is, another surface.


You seem to acknowledge breeding is not a production line where you end up with exactly the same product going out of the door in some posts, but overall you seem to be treating it as though it was one.

Thanks for explaining what Polytrack was. I had no idea.

If you read my posts instead of just thinking of a way to disagree you'll understand what I am saying. I have said at least 4 times now it is not an exact science. But, a good portion of the time it's pretty close. I have provided examples, including an example from Belmont today.

Upper East Sider is bred very strong for turf. She has made 2 starts on dirt. She was 9th of 9 in her debut and 7th of 9 today. In her lone turf race she won by 8 lengths. Coincidence?

There are exceptions and there are NO absolutes. But to act like there is zero correlation between breeding and surface preference is as wrong as it gets. What color is the sky?

[Charlie D]

Again you seem to resort to BS in a post

read sig Dahoss

[Dahoss9698]

Again you seem to resort to BS in a post

read sig Dahoss

You're wrong. I can't put it out there any other way. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the author of your quote agrees with me also.

[Charlie D]

Well, i'll have to agree to disagree with the author of the sig too, which i have on more than one occasion.

I find it is better to be against the crowds thinking anyway.

[Tom]

Close Charlie, but no.....Cigar. :rolleyes:

[gm10]

Is that good enough? Can she be within 3 or 4 of the lead at the top of the stretch? When Blame lost the JCGC he ran the last quarter in about :24.1 or :24.2. If he is in front with 2f to go do you think she can go sub-24 at Churchill Downs?

I think it is more likely that Lucky is in front at that point and he would be tough to catch if he is 5 lengths in front of her.

[ronsmac]

59 %

[FenceBored]

Well, i'll have to agree to disagree with the author of the sig too, which i have on more than one occasion.

I find it is better to be against the crowds thinking anyway.

If the crowd thinks it's better not to be standing underneath a falling safe are you going to be with the crowd or will you run to stand under the safe.

For your evening amusement I suggest playing with the sire lists at bloodhorse.com (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/thoroughbred-breeding/sire-lists/general). You can start by comparing the 2010 Leading Turf sires (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/thoroughbred-breeding/sire-lists/turf) (which is restricted to NA earnings) to the 2010 Leading North American Sires (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/thoroughbred-breeding/sire-lists/north-american-earnings) (also restricted to NA earnings).

Note that Number 1 on the turf list, Dynaformer, has 67% of his total NA earnings for the year from turf runners, and is 19th on the overall list. Number 2 turf sire El Prado is 34th on the overall list (69% of NA earnings from turf).

[Charlie D]

If the crowd thinks it's better not to be standing underneath a falling safe are you going to be with the crowd or will you run to stand under the safe.





read sig FB

[Dahoss9698]

Charlie, explain your position here. Maybe you are right and I'm wrong. But, so far you haven't given me any evidence.

So, if you are right and surface preference isn't passed on, what explains progeny of Theatrical and Kitten's Joy relishing turf? I'm being totally genuine here. What is the basis for your arguement?

How do you explain Upper Easy Sider today? I'm just looking for some kind of proof. So far all you have stated is your opinion, with nothing to back it up. And, before you say it, no one is saying there are absolutes.

[Charlie D]

It's in previous posts i believe Dahoss and repeating the same not only wastes my time and energy, but yours too. So i'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.

These differences are what makes the market and it is these differences in opinion we can take advantage of.

[Dahoss9698]

It's in previous posts i believe Dahoss and repeating the same not only wastes my time and energy, but yours too. So i'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.

These differences are what makes the market and it is these differences in opinion we can take advantage of.

So you have nothing to back it up? You should have just said that last night.

Read your sig, Charlie.

[Charlie D]

Think i already replied, but you seem to be ignoring it.

I interpet data one way, you're interpreting data another way. Which is ok as far as i'm concerned.


So it is you who needs to read sig and that is the end of this silly game for me.

[Dahoss9698]

Think i already replied, but you seem to be ignoring it.

I interpet data one way, you're interpreting data another way.


So it is you who needs to read sig and that is the end of this silly game for me.

I went back and looked and I still don't see it. Instead of deflecting or pretending like the few minutes it will take to explain your position is a waste of time, explain yourself. If you can't, fine. Just say it and we'll move on.

[Charlie D]

If you are unable to determine my position then how come you told me earlier i was wrong.


read sig dahoss.

[Dahoss9698]

If you are unable to determine my position then how come you told me earlier i was wrong.


read sig dahoss.

I see the problem. It's a comprehension thing. I know what your position is. I'm just looking for you to explain it. You haven't and refuse to for some reason.

So I'll just assume you can't explain it and are just flinging crap at the wall and hoping some sticks. Are you always this wrong? I don't really pay attention, but I'm going to have to rethink any arguements I've agreed with you on.

[Charlie D]

this silly game has ened for me.


all the best,

[FenceBored]

read sig FB

I'm making a serious point, Charlie. Sometimes it's profitable to take a contrarian position, but other times it's suicidal.

[PaceAdvantage]

Only thing i'm disputing is that surface genes are passed on to progeny.


If a Sires progeny mainly race on a particular surface his record will swing towards that surface, however, it does not mean ihis progeny are incapable of performing on another surface as the RP info seems to show for TheatricalNot quite. A sire's progeny will NOT CONTINUE to race on a particular surface if they all turn out to be tomato cans on that particular surface.

The progeny will swing towards where the $$$$ and the success is...

Thus, your contention that this is all just a big "Fooled By Randomness" thing does not seem to be correct.

Of course, success on one surface does not automatically mean failure on another. That is a bit of a red herring to this discussion though, don't you think?