A Trip Down Memory Lane

[classhandicapper]

Following is a list of most of the greatest "dirt" fillies and mares I've seen since the mid 70s when I became a huge fan of racing and handicapping. I compiled the list primarily by looking at former Eclipse Award winners, my memory of the horses, overall impressiveness of record, and anyone else that made a big enough impression on me to be included. I'm sure I missed a few very good ones, but that's not what this list is about.

I compiled the list for my own handicapping benefit, the benefit of those that are considering taking a short price on Zenyatta in the the Classic, and anyone that has been critical of Zenyatta's limited experience against Grade 1 older males or that's looking forward to gloating if she fails next month.

As you can see, some on this list never tried Grade 1 older males due to early retirement.

Some tried and failed against other 3YOs.

Some were successful against other 3YOs but never made the leap.

Many simply avoided males altogether despite opportunity.

Some tried one time and were embarrassed so badly the connections never tried again (10F was particularly cruel to a few of the especially good ones)

Some were competitive on occasion when the fields were weak but failed badly a number of other times.

Only 3 won. Here they are.

Personal Ensign - beat a 3 horse field in the slop that included Gulch and King's Swan. Gulch was an Eclipse Award winning sprinter/miler who could stretch out to 9F okay, but was never considered an elite member of his own class going long. King's Swan was primarily an Aqueduct Grade 3 winter horse who enhanced his reputation running against Gulch.

Ladies Secret - beat Ends Wells and Fuzzy. I don't want to disparage the competition and I definitely don't want to diminish Ladies Secret's other terrific performances against Grade 1 males, but I hardly even remember Ends Wells and Fuzzy.

Rachel Alexandra - beat Macho Again and Bullsbay in an unforgettable performance, but both were more or less the 2nd or 3rd string Grade 1 males in a weak year on the east coast.

Based on the results and my own view of these horses, most of these great mares would have little or no chance to beat an elite, deep, and full field of multiple older Grade 1 winners at 10F on the dirt. The rest had little or no chance to even be competitive.

This thread is not meant to be another place for people to argue about the merits of Zenyatta. There are enough of those. It's meant to be a list of horses and the results of their efforts against older Grade 1 male competition that will help evaluate her or any other mare's chances in a race like the Classic.

Here's the list:

Chris Evert - never tried Grade 1 older males

Ruffian - never tried Grade 1 older males

Davona Dale - never tried Grade 1 older males

Revidere - 3rd JCGC behind Great Contractor and Appassionato

Genuine Risk - never tried Grade 1 older males

Glorious Song - 2nd Marboro behind Winters Tail, 2nd AL Haskel HCP behind Spectacular Bid, well beaten in several other Grade 1 older male races


Relaxing - 3rd JCGC behind John Henry and Peat Moss, 4th Woodward behind Pleasant Colony, Amber Pass, and Herb Water


Life's Magic - 2nd Brooklyn behind Bounding Bosque, typically mid pack against Grade 1 males in several races

Princess Rooney - never tried Grade 1 older males

Mom's Command - never tried Grade 1 older males

Ladies Secret - 1st in Whitney beating Ends Well and Fuzzy, 3rd in Met Mile behind Garthorn and Love that Mac, 3rd in Iselin behind Roo Art and Precisionist, 2nd in Woodward behind Precisionist

Winning Colors - never tried Grade 1 older males

Personal Ensign - 1st in Whitney (3 horse field) beating Gulch and Kings Swan

Bold and Determined - never tried Grade 1 older males

Genuine Risk - never tried Grade 1 older males

Bayakoa - well beaten in SA Handicap

Go for Wand - never tried Grade 1 older males

Dance Smartly - never tried Grade 1 older males

Paseana - well beaten in Pacific Classic

Heavenly Prize - 3rd Donn behind Cigar and Wekiva Springs

Go for Wand - never tried Grade 1 older males

Sky Beauty - never tried Grade 1 older males

Inside Information - never tried Grade 1 older males

Silver Bullet Lady - never tried Grade 1 older males

Serena's Song - well beaten in SA Handicap, 2nd Whitney behind Mohagony Hall with Peaks Valley's 3rd, 3rd in Iselin behind Smart Strike and Eltish

Azeri - well beaten Met Mile, BC Classic

Riboletta - never tried Grade 1 older males

Ginger Punch - never tried Grade 1 older males

Rags to Riches - never tried Grade 1 older males

Rachel Alexandra - 1st Woodward beating Macho Again/Bullsbay

[Cardus]

This thread title made me think that you were referring to your cameo over at Derbytrail.

[the little guy]

Ladies Secret beat Ends Wells and Fuzzy.


Chris Evert - never tried Grade 1 older males


Who was Ladies Secret? If you meant Lady's Secret, perhaps you should have added that she beat Turkoman, Personal Flag, and Skip Trial ( among others ) and lost to Precisionist and Garthorn.

As for Chris Evert...I guess mentioning her trying Little Current in the sloppy Travers the week after losing the Alabama to Quaze Quilt wouldn't have suited your agenda. Ditto Davona Dale. Yeah, she was a really ducker.

You are so full of sh it it really is amazing. You omit facts, or twist them, in your sad desire to build up Zenyatta. If she stands up so well on her own....why lie and manipulate in a desperate attempt to make her look better?

Ladies Secret!

[Cardus]

Maybe you meant the Breeders' Cup Ladies Secret Classic?

I like "Silver Bullet Lady"; that's a good one!

[PaceAdvantage]

[size=2] I compiled the list for my own handicapping benefit, the benefit of those that are considering taking a short price on Zenyatta in the the Classic, and anyone that has been critical of Zenyatta's limited experience against Grade 1 older males or that's looking forward to gloating if she fails next month.First off, I doubt anyone is going to gloat if Zenyatta loses in the BC Classic. Anyone who does this probably will have all of 10-20 posts to their credit. And of course they'll be held up all across other internet horse racing message boards as representatives of PaceAdvantage as a whole... :lol:Based on the results and my own view of these horses, most of these great mares would have little or no chance to beat an elite, deep, and full field of multiple older Grade 1 winners at 10F on the dirt. The rest had little or no chance to even be competitive. Let's settle this nonsense once and for all. The only reason some of us are looking forward to Zenyatta finally running against the best available horses on dirt is because of the non-stop hype surrounding this mare as one of the BEST EVER. Heady praise, emanating from MANY corners of the horse racing universe....not just here.

Thus, folks like YOU are the reason why there is demand to see her face top males on dirt. You keep praising her as one of the best if not the best female runner ever, and many are praising her as one of the best HORSES ever...

DIRT is the other reason. Zenyatta has beaten "the best available" only on synthetics (and only once)...synthetics are quickly becoming a failed experiment in the racing world.

There are your two reasons why Zenyatta is being called upon to take on males again, this time on dirt. (we'll leave alone the fact that the vast majority of her races to date have been against some very poor females). Males on dirt are the best runners in America, where dirt racing is king.

If she's one of the best ever, now she can finally prove that fact.

Perhaps if the hype were more realistic, along with her actual campaign, another run against males would not be necessary.

[the little guy]

Maybe you meant the Breeders' Cup Ladies Secret Classic?

I like "Silver Bullet Lady"; that's a good one!

Silverbulletday is a good horse to compare to Zenyatta...after winning five races to begin her 3YO season ( and eight straight overall ), from mid February to mid March, she ran in the Belmont Stakes, her third start in five weeks. She actually ran pretty well, finishing seventh, after setting a very fast pace. She came back a month later to win three races in eight weeks. In a matter of less than seven months she won 8 of nine races, including four Gade 1s.

And he can't even get her name right.

[classhandicapper]

Who was Ladies Secret? If you meant Lady's Secret, perhaps you should have added that she beat Turkoman, Personal Flag, and Skip Trial ( among others ) and lost to Precisionist and Garthorn.

As for Chris Evert...I guess mentioning her trying Little Current in the sloppy Travers the week after losing the Alabama to Quaze Quilt wouldn't have suited your agenda. Ditto Davona Dale. Yeah, she was a really ducker.

You are so full of sh it it really is amazing. You omit facts, or twist them, in your sad desire to build up Zenyatta. If she stands up so well on her own....why lie and manipulate in a desperate attempt to make her look better?

Ladies Secret!

Don't you have anything better to do besides be my spell checker.:bang:

If you read my post carefully, I specifically pointed out that I was only looking at how fillies and mares did against Grade 1 older males.

The reason for that is because many 3YO fillies have been successful against 3YO males due to the fact they mature sooner physically than their male counterparts. How they do against 3YO colts does not tell you how fillies or mares would tend to do against fully mature males that continued to develop long after most fillies peaked (kind of like Rachel last year).

The reason that many trainers try 3YO colts in the Derby preps and Triple Crown (and sometimes even as 2YOs) is because they understand that. You apparently don't.

I also said that Ladies Secret had a number of excellent performances against Grade 1 males, but she did not win except against a weak field. That does mean something.

The only thing you've been doing lately is diminishing your own reputation.

[the little guy]

If you read my post carefully, I specifically pointed out that I was only looking at how fillies and mares did against Grade 1 older males.




Who has the time to read you epic tomes at all....much less carefully?

And this is more BS.....because you left out at least 2 Grade 1 males that she beat....one of them the mighty Turkoman.

But, PA said it best.

[classhandicapper]

First off, I doubt anyone is going to gloat if Zenyatta loses in the BC Classic. Anyone who does this probably will have all of 10-20 posts to their credit. And of course they'll be held up all across other internet horse racing message boards as representatives of PaceAdvantage as a whole... :lol:Let's settle this nonsense once and for all. The only reason some of us are looking forward to Zenyatta finally running against the best available horses on dirt is because of the non-stop hype surrounding this mare as one of the BEST EVER. Heady praise, emanating from MANY corners of the horse racing universe....not just here.

Thus, folks like YOU are the reason why there is demand to see her face top males on dirt. You keep praising her as one of the best if not the best female runner ever, and many are praising her as one of the best HORSES ever...

DIRT is the other reason. Zenyatta has beaten "the best available" only on synthetics (and only once)...synthetics are quickly becoming a failed experiment in the racing world.

There are your two reasons why Zenyatta is being called upon to take on males again, this time on dirt. (we'll leave alone the fact that the vast majority of her races to date have been against some very poor females). Males on dirt are the best runners in America, where dirt racing is king.

If she's one of the best ever, now she can finally prove that fact.

Perhaps if the hype were more realistic, along with her actual campaign, another run against males would not be necessary.

Let's get this straight.

1. If you don't think some people would gloat and others would rejoice in silence you are lying to yourself.

2. I didn't say a thing about Zenyatta's ability relative to anyone in this list and consider myself among the few that has been reasonably objective in all the debates about her, Rachel, etc...

3. I thought this list and the historical results strongly support my view that she's a "bet against" in the Classic at a short price because some true terrors that were already proven on dirt got crushed when they tried elite Grade 1 older males (especially at 10F).

So I don't see how any of this has anything to do with the debate about her own ability.

[classhandicapper]

Who has the time to read you epic tomes at all....much less carefully?

And this is more BS.....because you left out at least 2 Grade 1 males that she beat....one of them the mighty Turkoman.

But, PA said it best.

I think Ladies Secret had the best overall record against Grade 1 older males. Finishing ahead of Turkoman was an excellent accomplishment. She only won once though and that was with weak horses right behind her.

But if you insist on looking at everyone a horse finishes ahead of (something that would have been a monumental task) I would say that if Zenyatta should happen to pull a rabbit out of her hat and finish in the money or close up and ahead of a few multiple Grade 1 winners in the Classic, it would be a similar accomplishment but on a more limited basis (only once) if you exclude her win on synthetic in the Classic.

However, some might be willing to give her extra credit for being able to beat them on Pro Ride and also win on Cushion and Polytrack (all mildly different surfaces) just as they give extra credit to Secretariat and Dr Fager for their successes on turf because so many other horses (both turf and dirt) fail that kind of experiment.

The bottom line is that most great mares never tried an elite Grade 1 field of older males and most of those that did either failed or failed miserably when they did. So at short odds, she's a bet against pretty much no matter how well she handles dirt and how good she is.

[Cardus]

Silverbulletday is a good horse to compare to Zenyatta...after winning five races to begin her 3YO season ( and eight straight overall ), from mid February to mid March, she ran in the Belmont Stakes, her third start in five weeks. She actually ran pretty well, finishing seventh, after setting a very fast pace. She came back a month later to win three races in eight weeks. In a matter of less than seven months she won 8 of nine races, including four Gade 1s.

And he can't even get her name right.

More incredible is that at some point -- probably very early in the season -- Baffert had to ship Silver Bullet Lady over the Rockies to run at the Fairgrounds.

Seriously, she had an incredible three-year-old season. The three races in five weeks, and if memory serves, later in the season a runaway win in the Alabama at 10 furlongs.

[the little guy]

Funny how Shuvee, All Along, Dahlia, and Waya didn't make the list. Gee, I wonder why.

I do love, though, that Rags to Riches never beat older males.

[bisket]

Who was Ladies Secret? If you meant Lady's Secret, perhaps you should have added that she beat Turkoman, Personal Flag, and Skip Trial ( among others ) and lost to Precisionist and Garthorn.

As for Chris Evert...I guess mentioning her trying Little Current in the sloppy Travers the week after losing the Alabama to Quaze Quilt wouldn't have suited your agenda. Ditto Davona Dale. Yeah, she was a really ducker.

You are so full of sh it it really is amazing. You omit facts, or twist them, in your sad desire to build up Zenyatta. If she stands up so well on her own....why lie and manipulate in a desperate attempt to make her look better?

Ladies Secret!
since your a new york homer i would think you would be aware that the travers is for 3 year olds

[Cratos]

I don’t know what part of the seventies you are referring to, but the great racemare, Shuvee won back-to-back (1970 &71)renewals of the Jockey Club Gold Cup Stakes and each race included male horses. If I am not mistaken the grading of races begin in 1970. Therefore Shuvee would be the winner of two G1s against male horses.

[bisket]

Funny how Shuvee, All Along, Dahlia, and Waya didn't make the list. Gee, I wonder why.

I do love, though, that Rags to Riches never beat older males.
um they ran on the turf. your in rare form tonight. stick with the low hanging fruit.
rags beat older males? when

[Dahoss9698]

Funny how Shuvee, All Along, Dahlia, and Waya didn't make the list. Gee, I wonder why.

I do love, though, that Rags to Riches never beat older males.

Come on, Ginger Punch deserved to be on the list way ahead of them.

How about the comments on Serena's Song? She only won the Jim beam and Haskell as a 3 year old. She beat Pyramid Peak who was no star, but followed up his second in the Haskell with a strong second in the Travers. In the Jim Beam she crushed Tejano Run who would go on to finish second in the Derby.

In the Whitney, where she finished second, she cleared from the 9 hole at Saratoga, which is never easy. She set sharp fractions and was in front every step of the race except for the last one. She ran her eyeballs out.

[wisconsin]

For those not paying attention:

He said he was not consiedering races for 3 year olds. As for Shuvee, he did say "mid-seventies" was when he began to follow the sport.

[Dahoss9698]

For those not paying attention:

He said he was not consiedering races for 3 year olds. As for Shuvee, he did say "mid-seventies" was when he began to follow the sport.

In your opinion is Classhandicapper being genuine in this thread?

[chickenhead]

For those not paying attention:

He said he was not consiedering races for 3 year olds.

And how convenient, being that Zenyattas 3yo campaign SUCKED. Pretty transaprent, "oh yeah, lets just ignore 3yo years cause Zenny was a ducker back then." Nice try.

[Cratos]

um they ran on the turf. your in rare form tonight. stick with the low hanging fruit.
rags beat older males? when

Shuvee ran on the turf against males?

[Spalding No!]

um they ran on the turf. your in rare form tonight. stick with the low hanging fruit.
rags beat older males? when

Actually, Waya was a multiple Grade 1 winner on dirt.

[Cratos]

For those not paying attention:

He said he was not consiedering races for 3 year olds. As for Shuvee, he did say "mid-seventies" was when he began to follow the sport.

Then, I apologize for the over sight.

[Charlie D]

The bottom line is that most great mares never tried an elite Grade 1 field of older males and most of those that did either failed or failed miserably when they did. So at short odds, she's a bet against pretty much no matter how well she handles dirt and how good she is.




CH, your definition of elite G1 males is probably different to mine, but fwiw, i do not see a Tiznow, Giants Causeway, Invasor, Sakhee or Sea The Stars running in 2010 Classic and there certainly was not a horse of thier ability in 2009 renewal.

Edit to add.

Thinking about it. The task Zen faces is probably no more difficult than Rachel faced in Preakness or Rags to Riches in Belmont.

[Bullet Plane]

CH, your definition of elite G1 males is probably different to mine, but fwiw, i do not see a Tiznow, Giants Causeway, Invasor, Sakhee or Sea The Stars running in 2010 Classic and there certainly was not a horse of thier ability in 2009 renewal.

Good point!

Also, in this race the two older male main rivals (Blame, Quality Road) have yet to win a Grade One at ten furlongs.

The two 3 year old main contenders (Lookin at Lucky, Fly Down) have yet to beat older horses this year.

So, I really don't know how rock solid this field will be... However, it will be a damn good race.

There will not be celebration when Z loses- that point by CH is ridiculous. The only way I celebrate when Z loses is if I cash on a longshot, and there will be no harm meant.

[chickenhead]

Thinking about it. The task Zen faces is probably no more difficult than Rachel faced in Preakness or Rags to Riches in Belmont.

Both of which were once per century happenings, incidentally (the winning). I basically agree though, it's not worth trying to split hairs on what's most difficult. It's DIFFICULT. It doesn't get tried as often as it probably should, yes, but at least in part, because everyone knows it's really difficult to actually win.

[wisconsin]

In your opinion is Classhandicapper being genuine in this thread?

I think he is trying very hard to make a compelling argument in an impossible case.

[Charlie D]

Both of which were once per century happenings, incidentally (the winning). I basically agree though, it's not worth trying to split hairs on what's most difficult. It's DIFFICULT. It doesn't get tried as often as it probably should, yes, but at least in part, because everyone knows it's really difficult to actually win.

It gets tried all the time in other places and some are successful, some not. the latter happens mainly when the horse does not have the ability to succeed, which Rachel, Rags and Zen did just like Ouija Board, Goldikova and Zarkava.

[wisconsin]

Both of which were once per century happenings, incidentally (the winning). I basically agree though, it's not worth trying to split hairs on what's most difficult. It's DIFFICULT. It doesn't get tried as often as it probably should, yes, but at least in part, because everyone knows it's really difficult to actually win.

It's a shame that if she wins back to back Classics on two separate surfaces, someone will try to poke holes through it.

[Dahoss9698]

I think he is trying very hard to make a compelling argument in an impossible case.

A compelling arguement for what? Using the ignore feature of this board?

Of course beating older males on the dirt has been historically difficult. Who doesn't know that. But comparing some of these fillies and mares, who ran when there actually were good horses to now is pure folly. Which gets down to one of the main points of the entire Zenyatta debate....perspective, or lack thereof.

[Charlie D]

It's a shame that if she wins back to back Classics on two separate surfaces, someone will try to poke holes through it.


Someone analysing a performance or performances is not poking holes. It's called handicapping.

[Tom]

Well now, that was certainly a pleasant stroll down memory lane.
Gotta do this more often. :D

[wisconsin]

A compelling arguement for what? Using the ignore feature of this board?

Of course beating older males on the dirt has been historically difficult. Who doesn't know that. But comparing some of these fillies and mares, who ran when there actually were good horses to now is pure folly. Which gets down to one of the main points of the entire Zenyatta debate....perspective, or lack thereof.

You could have just said that before. I said HE was making the argument, and I said it was an impossible one. Too subjective, in my opinion. Did you set me up to once again demonstrate your own superior opinions? It's not my thread.

[wisconsin]

Someone analysing a performance or performances is not poking holes. It's called handicapping.

It's actually called red boarding after the race is over. If she wins, the hole poking will commence. If a horse like Blame or QR, or Looking at Lucky wins, will it be the same analysis? Will their efforts be cheapened because they beat nobody special?

[Charlie D]

It's actually called red boarding after the race is over. If she wins, the hole poking will commence. If a horse like Blame or QR, or Looking at Lucky wins, will it be the same analysis? Will their efforts be cheapened because they beat nobody special?


Sorry, i must not understand the definition of red boarding as i thought that was telling people you bet the winner after result was known.


If any of those win, the performance will be analysed in the same way, at least by me anyway.

[Dahoss9698]

You could have just said that before. I said HE was making the argument, and I said it was an impossible one. Too subjective, in my opinion. Did you set me up to once again demonstrate your own superior opinions? It's not my thread.

It's too bad we don't have a rattle emoticon here.

[Steve R]

It's actually called red boarding after the race is over. If she wins, the hole poking will commence. If a horse like Blame or QR, or Looking at Lucky wins, will it be the same analysis? Will their efforts be cheapened because they beat nobody special?
Absolutely, if it's a bad race. Should one of them wins by 10 lengths in 1:59 something, the performance will be praised, as would Zenyatta's if she did the same. If any one them (including Zenyatta) wins in 2:02 something with a BSF less than 110 (which would be several lengths below BC Classic standards), then ho-hum, it's just another race and holes will be deservedly poked.

[wisconsin]

Sorry, i must not understanding the definition of red boarding as i thought that was telling people you bet the winner after result was known.


If any of those win, the performance will be analysed in the same way, at least by me anyway.

Ok, then. Handicapping is picking a horse before he race is run.

[Charlie D]

Ok, then. Handicapping is picking a horse before he race is run.


Yes, it is also anylasing races and putting them in some sort of order of merit. This is what the handicappers employed by Timeform do, this is what CJ does, the guys that produce the Sheets etc do too.


Why your acting dumb on this i'm not quite sure.

[wisconsin]

It's too bad we don't have a rattle emoticon here.

Why, are you feeling like a spoiled baby? Have I struck a nerve? You can have the last word. I am looking for the "uncle" emoticom.

[wisconsin]

Absolutely, if it's a bad race. Should one of them wins by 10 lengths in 1:59 something, the performance will be praised, as would Zenyatta's if she did the same. If any one them (including Zenyatta) wins in 2:02 something with a BSF less than 110 (which would be several lengths below BC Classic standards), then ho-hum, it's just another race and holes will be deservedly poked.

Fair enough, and that is the answer I was looking for.

[Dahoss9698]

Why, are you feeling like a spoiled baby? Have I struck a nerve? You can have the last word. I am looking for the "uncle" emoticom.

Ummm, you jumped into the thread to sort of defend it (hero worshipping). Then you realized it's a dumb thread so you tried to distance yourself from it by saying it wasn't your thread and was too subjective.

Let me know if you find that uncle emoticon.

[Charlie D]

Should one of them wins by 10 lengths in 1:59 something, the performance will be praised, as would Zenyatta's if she did the same. If any one them (including Zenyatta) wins in 2:02 .


As far as i know in both instances you are actually analysing or handicapping a performance.

[cj]

First off, I doubt anyone is going to gloat if Zenyatta loses in the BC Classic. Anyone who does this probably will have all of 10-20 posts to their credit...

Man....way to put me in a pickle.

[PaceAdvantage]

Let's get this straight.

1. If you don't think some people would gloat and others would rejoice in silence you are lying to yourself.If she runs a halfway decent race (which I fully expect she will), what will there be to gloat about? The results will speak for themselves win or lose.

I absolutely, 100% guarantee you that the NONSENSE and the GLOATING will be 1000x worse should she win, then should she lose.2. I didn't say a thing about Zenyatta's ability relative to anyone in this list and consider myself among the few that has been reasonably objective in all the debates about her, Rachel, etc...I believe you've stated multiple times how highly you think of Zenyatta in comparison to other great fillies and mares of years past. That fact was germane to my reply.3. I thought this list and the historical results strongly support my view that she's a "bet against" in the Classic at a short price because some true terrors that were already proven on dirt got crushed when they tried elite Grade 1 older males (especially at 10F).

So I don't see how any of this has anything to do with the debate about her own ability.Actually, I read it quite differently. I saw it as an attempt to show that Zenyatta is being asked to do something that other greats of years gone by were never asked to do, or couldn't do, yet they are still regarded as some of the "best ever" fillies & mares. I've highlighted the relevant part of your reply below:I compiled the list for my own handicapping benefit, the benefit of those that are considering taking a short price on Zenyatta in the the Classic, and anyone that has been critical of Zenyatta's limited experience against Grade 1 older males or that's looking forward to gloating if she fails next month.

As you can see, some on this list never tried Grade 1 older males due to early retirement.

[PaceAdvantage]

Man....way to put me in a pickle.There are always exceptions I suppose. :lol:

[eastie]

There will be big time gloating.....no matter the outcome, but if she gets dusted, it will be must worse. The "I told you so" brigade will be out in force. I'd much rather be in the "rooting for" column, than the rooting against side. I wouldn't even know how to root against a marvel like Zenyatta. Plus it's bad to root against anyone. Y'all should have learned that by now.

[classhandicapper]

Funny how Shuvee, All Along, Dahlia, and Waya didn't make the list. Gee, I wonder why.

I do love, though, that Rags to Riches never beat older males.

1. I started with the horses I could evaluate well because saw them run and knew their competition fairly well. The first horses I could evaluate were Ruffian and Chris Evert.

2. I stayed entirely with dirt horses because there is a long history of mares being successful against Grade 1 older males on turf. I have a theory for why that's the case that is both very logical and consistent with the results. So I consider it imperative that if you want to understand mares vs. Grade 1 older horses on dirt and want to understand Zenyatta's chances you have to exclude results on turf. You may also have to exclude performances on synthetic because it might be easier for mares on that surface also, but there is less evidence to support that at this point even though I think it's likely.

3. I explained why I believe you have to exclude 3yo fillies against less mature 3YO colts if you want to understand the chances of a mare against older Grade 1 colts on dirt.

If you want consider all these accomplishments as equal or equally likely you are welcome to do so. As a handicapper I disagree strongly and will assess her chances and the historical record based on what know to be true and what my research indicates about the various categories.

The bottom line is that many of the greatest mares of all time never tried Grade 1 older horses, most of those that tried failed badly, and a few of the truly great all time terrors failed miserably. Typically they were only able to win in weaker spots even though a few were competitive against elite company.

I don't even understand the emotion in this thread when I am providing insight into her chances of winning that should help gamblers as opposed to giving ammunition to the lovers and haters that are revealing their baises.

[Steve R]

As far as i know in both instances you are actually analysing or handicapping a performance.
Exactly, and I think that is the basis on which many have come to believe Zenyatta's reputation surpasses her accomplishments.

[classhandicapper]

I saw it as an attempt to show that Zenyatta is being asked to do something that other greats of years gone by were never asked to do, or couldn't do, yet they are still regarded as some of the "best ever" fillies & mares. I've highlighted the relevant part of your reply below:

Yes, you are correct. I don't deny that.

Part of the post was to put the calls for her to run against the best Grade 1 older males available in CA all year in perspective. It was also to highlight what an extraordinary task she has in front of her in a Breeder's Cup Classic as opposed to some of the more diluted Grade 1s that it's possible to run in during the year the way some other mares did.

In years past, the SA Handicap and Pacific Classic tended to be extremely deep and high quality races at 10F. A few of the all time great mares failed miserably in those races. Those races made a big impression in my mind at the time and were the beginnings of my research, thinking and understanding of the differences between trying to beat Grade 1 older males in sprints, on turf, 3yo against 3yo, and at Classic distances on dirt against older. IMO they are all a different ball game and this is by far the toughest task.

[classhandicapper]

By the way, I did see Waya and thought she was a total monster at her best. I excluded her because she was primarily a turfer, never faced Grade 1 males, and her overall record was more spotty than the horses I was trying to key on.

She beat Grade 1 mares on dirt and won a non graded stakes on dirt against males, but the runner up was Late Bloomer. LB was another excellent mare. That and the fact that Stern was 3rd told me something about the quality of the field. In any event, it certainly wasn't a Grade 1 race for older males.

[Dahoss9698]

Part of the post was to put the calls for her to run against the best Grade 1 older males available in CA all year in perspective.


Correct me if I'm wrong. One of your points here has been how difficult it is for mares to run against older males on DIRT, correct? So if people were calling for her to run against males in California, they were calling for her to run on synthetic, which despite what some think is a totally different surface than dirt. You can't have it both ways.


In years past, the SA Handicap and Pacific Classic tended to be extremely deep and high quality races at 10F. A few of the all time great mares failed miserably in those races. Those races made a big impression in my mind at the time and were the beginnings of my research, thinking and understanding of the differences between trying to beat Grade 1 older males in sprints, on turf, 3yo against 3yo, and at Classic distances on dirt against older. IMO they are all a different ball game and this is by far the toughest task.

Again, why ignore the fact these races aren't run on dirt anymore? And why ignore the fact that in the years since California has switched to synthetic, the Big Cap and Pacific Classic have been neither extremely deep or high quality races?

[classhandicapper]

I believe you've stated multiple times how highly you think of Zenyatta in comparison to other great fillies and mares of years past. That fact was germane to my reply.

Again correct.

I think I've been fairly consistent in that regard.

I think of greatness irrespective of surface and distance. In my mind there are great turfers, sprinters, milers, classic dirt horses etc... and now great synthetic horses. I think that's a good way to think about it , but others are free to disagree.

Some might argue that there isn't enough a record on synthetic racing to gauge Zenyatta's greatness on that surface. I disagree. IMO there is enough of a record to understand the fractional and final time nuances of synthetic racing compared to dirt racing/turf racing and there have been enough crossovers to validate those insights. By those standards she has been great on several occasions and in others the nature of the racing makes it tough to tell.

I also consider her an all time great because IMHO she has done some things and won in some spots that virtually no other mare I have ever seen in my life could have done or won in. The few that might have would also be on my list.

I believe that the quality of her competition in 2008 and the Classic is 2009 was better than generally believed by some of her critics and those that don't understand the differences between dirt and synthetic and are using dirt standards to evaluate her.

I think her competition in 2010 has been woeful except for St Trinians and I'm unsure if she's as good right now as she was in 2008 and 2009 in the Classic.

I don't think she can be considered an all time great dirt horse off two races in the Apple Blossom because that's not enough evidence, especially when one of the two races was a pony show.

[classhandicapper]

Correct me if I'm wrong. One of your points here has been how difficult it is for mares to run against older males on DIRT, correct? So if people were calling for her to run against males in California, they were calling for her to run on synthetic, which despite what some think is a totally different surface than dirt. You can't have it both ways.



Again, why ignore the fact these races aren't run on dirt anymore? And why ignore the fact that in the years since California has switched to synthetic, the Big Cap and Pacific Classic have been neither extremely deep or high quality races?


I think you already know I agree with you on this.

I believe it's very possible that winning a Grade 1 against older males is easier on synthetic. I have no problem with suggesting that she could have or should have taken at least one more shot against them out there.

My view on that is that they chose not to because they would be much tougher races and a series of tougher races would reduce the probability of them having a totally sound and fresh horse ready to peak for the Classic.

They could have beaten up on Richards Kid and the others all year like they did in the Classic last year, but they wanted to go "all in" in the Classic at their peak.

Personally, I would have done things differently. I would have taken on the top mares on dirt for a few races, searched for Rachel at 10F, etc.. just to demonstrate her ability on dirt and then probably retired her.

I don't think I would have tried the Classic.

That's a possible flaw in my personality. I'm a singles hitter. I don't like striking out with the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th in the 7th game of the world series after going 19-19 in the rest of the series. We can't all be Reggie Jackson. :lol:

(I said the SA Hcp and and Pacific Classic "USED to be" great races years ago when they were dirt races and those other great mares failed dismally. I was drawing a parallel to the Classic this year)

[classhandicapper]

Last post for today then I have to get ready for Belmont today. I have to eat too. :lol:

I'm not sure her running style will transfer as well to dirt as synthetic, but everything I see and hear suggests that dirt itself is not an issue.

1. She has run well at Oaklawn twice and looked good running over the surface

2. I was told by al source that she never trained better in her life than she did at CD when they shipped there but was subsequently scratched when the track came up wet.

3. The Cushion track at Hollywood is not dirt, but it's the closest of all the synthetics to dirt, it's her home track, and she handles it very well.

4. She routinely gallops on Hollywood's dirt training track and loves it. (a little tidbit that is not as well known)

IMO her connections have had a lot of time and more opportunities than people think to evaluate her ability on dirt. After all the bobbing and weaving, spacing, the 19 for 19 record etc... I think they are very confident in her ability to handle dirt or this would never have been an objective to begin with.

To me the issues are:

1. Is she still capable of delivering the same peak level performance she delivered in 2008 and 2009 in the Classic in 2010. I'm not so sure about that at all.

2. How much ground will she lose with so many very good horses in front of her and making good moves on the turn

3. Will one or more of the boys simply run so fast than no mare could beat them. As I've shown, the "modern record" (last 35 years) of super elite mares running against elite older Grade 1 males on dirt going long is clearly horrendous. It's like a who's who of great mares that got clubbed. There are only 3 winners and they found softer spots.

[Dahoss9698]

I think you already know I agree with you on this.

I believe it's very possible that winning a Grade 1 against older males is easier on synthetic. I have no problem with suggesting that she could have or should have taken at least one more shot against them out there.

My view on that is that they chose not to because they would be much tougher races and a series of tougher races would reduce the probability of them having a totally sound and fresh horse ready to peak for the Classic.

They could have beaten up on Richards Kid and the others all year like they did in the Classic last year, but they wanted to go "all in" in the Classic at their peak.

Personally, I would have done things differently. I would have taken on the top mares on dirt for a few races, searched for Rachel at 10F, etc.. just to demonstrate her ability on dirt and then probably retired her.

I don't think I would have tried the Classic.

That's a possible flaw in my personality. I'm a singles hitter. I don't like striking out with the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th in the 7th game of the world series after going 19-19 in the rest of the series. We can't all be Reggie Jackson. :lol:

(I said the SA Hcp and and Pacific Classic "USED to be" great races years ago when they were dirt races and those other great mares failed dismally. I was drawing a parallel to the Classic this year)

What I am asking is why you continue to ignore the obvious flaws in your arguement? Or better yet, why present an arguement that ignores these flaws?

I don't need a book for an answer either. I know your thoughts on her and her handling this year. You've repeated them over and over again. My question pertains to you presenting arguements that are flawed and the reasoning behind it.

[cj]

Yes, you are correct. I don't deny that.

Part of the post was to put the calls for her to run against the best Grade 1 older males available in CA all year in perspective.

Why are you using the history of dirt races to try to put her synthetic schedule in perspective. You know they aren't the same.

I see now dahoss made the same point...sorry about that. I read oldest first.

[nijinski]

Three year old champion Christmas Past , third in the JCGC .
Beat boys in a grade 1 age Four, Mile and a Quarter .

[PaceAdvantage]

There will be big time gloating.....no matter the outcome, but if she gets dusted, it will be must worse. The "I told you so" brigade will be out in force. I'd much rather be in the "rooting for" column, than the rooting against side. I wouldn't even know how to root against a marvel like Zenyatta. Plus it's bad to root against anyone. Y'all should have learned that by now.Nobody is rooting against her.

[PaceAdvantage]

but if she gets dusted, it will be must worse. The "I told you so" brigade will be out in force.No, it absolutely will not. That much I can guarantee.

Remember all those folks who "came out of hiding" every time Rachel lost this year and every time Zenyatta won? Well, multiply that by 100 and then you will approach what it might be like around here given a Zenyatta victory in the BC Classic.

If she loses but puts in her typical late run and falls a little short, there will be nothing but respect for her, even from those whom you consider to be "bashers / haters."

If she gets beaten by a large margin, there is certain to be a muted response. You're not going to see myself or CJ or anyone else who has been a vocal critic of her start thread after thread (ala carlonr) repeating the same old "I told you so" crap. The result will speak for itself as far as that is concerned.

[classhandicapper]

What I am asking is why you continue to ignore the obvious flaws in your arguement? Or better yet, why present an arguement that ignores these flaws?

I don't need a book for an answer either. I know your thoughts on her and her handling this year. You've repeated them over and over again. My question pertains to you presenting arguements that are flawed and the reasoning behind it.

I don't see any flaws.

1. Many of the greatest mares in history never tried Grade 1 older males on dirt and many of those that did failed badly. Relevant for an understanding of the task at hand and her chances of winning.

2. IMO (backed by objective data and race results), the gap between Grade 1 mares and Grade 1 older horses is larger on dirt than turf. The same is true of 3YOs and sprinters. So you should not include those in a study of the chances of a mare winning the Classic.

3. I don't have enough evidence to know if that's also true on synthetic, but the initial data suggests that it is.

4. I have no problem with those that called for another occasional foray against Grade 1 males on synthetic as long they recognize that it's still a reasonably unusual and aggressive move. Like I said, I don't even know for certain that it's actually any easier than trying it on dirt. There isn't enough of a record to support my initial data. It's not an expectation or established standard for top mares to take on males regularly on synthetic.

5. Even if the gap is less and it's easier on synthetic, that says nothing about the best way to prepare for a year end goal. In either case, a well spaced and easier campaign will increase the probability that any horse will reach the Breeder's Cup fresh, sound, and ready to fire a peak effort. So if the goal is the Classic, the best way to get there is to not make those forays against males before then. Their goals are their own.

6. IMO running in the Classic on dirt is the most aggressive and toughest challenge you can ask of any mare on planet earth.

[Dahoss9698]

I don't see any flaws.

1. Many of the greatest mares in history never tried Grade 1 older males on dirt and many of those that did failed badly. Relevant for an understanding of the task at hand and her chances of winning.

2. IMO (backed by objective data and race results), the gap between Grade 1 mares and Grade 1 older horses is larger on dirt than turf. The same is true of 3YOs and sprinters. So you should not include those in a study of the chances of a mare winning the Classic.

3. I don't have enough evidence to know if that's also true on synthetic, but the initial data suggests that it is.

4. I have no problem with those that called for another occasional foray against Grade 1 males on synthetic as long they recognize that it's still a reasonably unusual and aggressive move. Like I said, I don't even know for certain that it's actually any easier than trying it on dirt. There isn't enough of a record to support my initial data. It's not an expectation or established standard for top mares to take on males regularly on synthetic.

5. Even if the gap is less and it's easier on synthetic, that says nothing about the best way to prepare for a year end goal. In either case, a well spaced and easier campaign will increase the probability that any horse will reach the Breeder's Cup fresh, sound, and ready to fire a peak effort. So if the goal is the Classic, the best way to get there is to not make those forays against males before then. Their goals are their own.

6. IMO running in the Classic on dirt is the most aggressive and toughest challenge you can ask of any mare on planet earth.

This is a perfect example of what I talked about last night. Ask a simple question, get the run around. Not playing this game anymore.

CJ asked nearly the same question I did. Maybe you can answer him. I dare you to do it in under 500 words.

[classhandicapper]

CJ asked nearly the same question I did. Maybe you can answer him. I dare you to do it in under 500 words.

Maybe I am not communicating it well.

Once she runs in the 2010 Classic on dirt, she would have attempted more than many of the all time great dirt mares because many never even tried Grade 1 older males on dirt. Among those that did, they looked for much weaker spots. So she would have attempted more than them too.

Over and above that, she has already faced the strongest field possible on her own surface too instead of the more diluted races during the year.

The rest of it was persona; handicapping insights into how incredibly difficult the task is (most failed badly against less) and the differences between turf and dirt, sprinters and routers, 3YOs and older.

[PaceAdvantage]

Over and above that, she has already faced the strongest field possible on her own surface too instead of the more diluted races during the year.I don't quite understand this quote.