Why and how does Zenyatta cause folks to become irrational?

[PaceAdvantage]

Case in point:

I'm reading my latest issue of Horseplayer Magazine, specifically the Editor's Note, by Editor Frank R. Scatoni. I'm not at all familiar with the name, but I will assume Mr. Scatoni has a pretty good knowledge of Thoroughbred racing, seeing as he is the Editor of HM.

Here is something he wrote that I could not believe:It took her three tries, but Rachel eventually got a win in 2010 and followed up that victory with another score, but a disappointing flop in the Personal Ensign at Saratoga finally got her strongest supporters to admit what everyone else could see: that she just wasn't the same horse as last year, and that Rachel probably shouldn't have won Horse of the Year after ducking the reigning distaff champion Zenyatta as well as the best handicap horses in the world in the 2009 Breeders' Cup Classic.Phew...that was quite the lengthy sentence. Utterly irrational when you realize what you do in 2010 has no impact on the 2009 award. The 2009 award is for 2009 performances, and Rachel outperformed Zenyatta. Simple as that. Nothing done or not done by either runner in 2010 should have any impact on the legitimacy of the 2009 award. That's the bottom line, and that's how rational racing fans view the world.

But, just when you thought it couldn't get any better, a little further down the line, we get this gem (this was obviously written prior to RA's retirement):I'll go on record as saying that I think Rachel should run in the Filly & Mare Sprint. She'd be devastating at 7-furlongs. Her combination of speed and heart would make her tough to beat in that race. But I don't make those decisions - I'm just a racing fan who likes to speculate.Zenyatta must translate somewhere into "Scrambled Brains"...can anyone check that out for me?

[turfnsport]

That's great stuff.
Looks like Horseplayer Magazine does not have a detention barn.

[OntheRail]

Zenyatta must translate somewhere into "Scrambled Brains"...can anyone check that out for me?
I think it's some kind of subliminal mind control. :sleeping:

[thaskalos]

Zenyatta must translate somewhere into "Scrambled Brains"...can anyone check that out for me?
I think George C. Scott phrased it perfectly, in the movie "Patton".

"America loves a winner...and won't tolerate a loser." :)

[KingChas]

I'm just a racing fan who likes to speculate.

Looks to me like tunnel vision.
From both sides of the fence.................forever. ;)

[jelly]

This guy is scary,my guess is that Horseplayer Magazine won't be around very long.

[PaceAdvantage]

This guy is scary,my guess is that Horseplayer Magazine won't be around very long.It's been around quite a long time already...something like 15 years if not longer by my count...

[CincyHorseplayer]

The only thing I can say Pace is that to some these are not horses,they are representations of what they believe and what they perceive others to believe.And that's where the sickness began.

I can't wait honestly til Zen retires so hopefully we can just talk about horses and handicapping unfettered.Last year with RA,Zen,and STS was a total blast from a fan perspective and it was the first time I was able to really follow a European horse's races(wasn't hip to the tech).Anyway wanting to share that was great on here for more than a few but the rest have poisoned the board with endless drivel.I have tried to stay away at times and that sucks because when I found this place it was total heaven.Nobody else much I can relate with.

So I can't wait til it's all in black type and behind us bro.

[thaskalos]

It's been around quite a long time already...something like 15 years if not longer by my count...Are they now sending out the issues in a timely manner?

I used to subscribe years ago, and the issues always arrived terribly late. I never thought they would stay in business this long...

[JustRalph]

It's been around quite a long time already...something like 15 years if not longer by my count...

I used to read it, but there was better stuff on this board, most of the time.

Amtrak has been around forever, but it's damn sure not the best way to travel

The really bad thing is how he speculates as to what Rachel fans are thinking. Then runs the meme off the road by assuming that those same Rachel fans would immediately come to the conclusion that the horse of the year vote was wrong? Where the he'll does he get that? Oh yeah, from his personal opinion.

[JBmadera]

The only thing I can say Pace is that to some these are not horses,they are representations of what they believe and what they perceive others to believe.And that's where the sickness began.

I can't wait honestly til Zen retires so hopefully we can just talk about horses and handicapping unfettered.Last year with RA,Zen,and STS was a total blast from a fan perspective and it was the first time I was able to really follow a European horse's races(wasn't hip to the tech).Anyway wanting to share that was great on here for more than a few but the rest have poisoned the board with endless drivel.I have tried to stay away at times and that sucks because when I found this place it was total heaven.Nobody else much I can relate with.

So I can't wait til it's all in black type and behind us bro.

Amen! honestly it is a little disturbing the amount of inappropriate emotional attachment zenfan et al seem to suffer from.....close to a certain type of personality disorder. for my own sanity I had to greatly expand my ignore list.

here's to getting back to lively handicapping coversations!

[gm10]

Case in point:

I'm reading my latest issue of Horseplayer Magazine, specifically the Editor's Note, by Editor Frank R. Scatoni. I'm not at all familiar with the name, but I will assume Mr. Scatoni has a pretty good knowledge of Thoroughbred racing, seeing as he is the Editor of HM.

Here is something he wrote that I could not believe:Phew...that was quite the lengthy sentence. Utterly irrational when you realize what you do in 2010 has no impact on the 2009 award. The 2009 award is for 2009 performances, and Rachel outperformed Zenyatta. Simple as that. Nothing done or not done by either runner in 2010 should have any impact on the legitimacy of the 2009 award. That's the bottom line, and that's how rational racing fans view the world.

He says that she didn't deserve it after ducking the best horses in the BC 2009.

[JustRalph]

Amen! honestly it is a little disturbing the amount of inappropriate emotional attachment zenfan et al seem to suffer from.....close to a certain type of personality disorder. for my own sanity I had to greatly expand my ignore list.

here's to getting back to lively handicapping coversations!

Zenderangement syndrome
ZDS



With apologies to charles krauthammer

[FenceBored]

He says that she didn't deserve it after ducking the best horses in the BC 2009.

You mean, like Sea the Stars?

[bigmack]

I've know editors/publishers of mags that knew little of the subject. One guy owned something like 6 snowmobile rags. "What's a good brand to get" I ask 'em - "How do I know" he answerves.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the equine opine of Mr. S.

Folks to become irrational -
PA 10/27

[gm10]

You mean, like Sea the Stars?

what does that have to do with it?
besides, do you think a European horse has to win in the US to be HOY in Europe?

[Tom]

I think the scrambled brains syndrome carries over to the side that has to continually attack every crazy statement made about Zenyatta as if they were somehow defending their Mother's honor.

Both sides have been pretty hard to swallow and sound more like dumb and dumber than horse players.

My 2 cents.

[OTM Al]

It's no different than people that latch onto sports teams or political parties. People feel they need something to validate their lives so any loss, any bad word against their team, their side, and they take it personally because in their minds it's a personal attack against them. It grows even stronger and irrational when there is an extreme polarization, almost as if all the people feed on each others' irrationalities and simply grow it even bigger.

She's a very good horse and she herself has done nothing wrong. She would probably find such action by her "fans" very odd and not make any sense to her. I find it very disappointing that her owner did not race her in at the least the big 3 races in CA this year. I have to believe she would have run at least 2. Or what about running last March in Dubai? Think she would have won that too, but had such risks been taken and she was something like 19-17-1-1 right now, don't you think there would be a lot more respect for her as well as not attracting quite so many whack jobs? Sadly on all counts we'll never know.

[Grits]

I think the scrambled brains syndrome carries over to the side that has to continually attack every crazy statement made about Zenyatta as if they were somehow defending their Mother's honor.

Both sides have been pretty hard to swallow and sound more like dumb and dumber than horse players.

My 2 cents.

Tom and Cincy are correct.

It is 8 days before the biggest event of the year in thoroughbred racing. Where has the interest in other horses been? There's been next to none. Every horse that has stepped on a racetrack has been virtually knocked in the dirt. Every performance compared to one animal, time and again.

FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS THE IRRATIONAL GARBAGE THAT HAS BEEN THROWN BACK AND FORTH ABOUT ZENYATTA HAS CAUSED PACE ADVANTAGE TO BECOME NOTHING MORE THAN A CESSPOOL. EVERY POSTER SIMPLY MIRES DEEPER AND DEEPER EITHER WITH ANOTHER BORING TOME OR THEIR QUICK 2 CENTS.

Zippy Chippy had the most telling post of all, when he went to the trouble to count, and note the number of threads that have consumed this website in relation to other horses running and competing at her level.

She's been a joy, a brilliant mare. I wish her the best in retirement. But never will I be so glad to see one animal, or her connections, walk into the sunset.

Its so disappointing what the site has become. At some point one just stops posting and reading, saying, "screw it."

[dccprez]

Tom and Cincy are correct.

It is 8 days before the biggest event of the year in thoroughbred racing. Where has the interest in other horses been? There's been next to none. Every horse that has stepped on a racetrack has been virtually knocked in the dirt. Every performance compared to one animal, time and again.

FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS THE IRRATIONAL GARBAGE THAT HAS BEEN THROWN BACK AND FORTH ABOUT ZENYATTA HAS CAUSED PACE ADVANTAGE TO BECOME NOTHING MORE THAN A CESSPOOL. EVERY POSTER SIMPLY MIRES DEEPER AND DEEPER EITHER WITH ANOTHER BORING TOME OR THEIR QUICK 2 CENTS.



Amen.

But (in something-like a small defense of the rest of the PA circle); It's been quite some time since there has been a runner the likes of Zen. So it kinda-sorta makes sense that talk (postings) of-and-about her would dominate the boards.

In the interest of full disclosure; I am of the opinion that there is a "too much of a good thing" level that seems to have been exceeded (some time ago, in fact) BUT I don't at all begrudge anyone who feels compelled to talk about/post about/express opinions on this (probably) once-in-a-lifetime mare. I simply choose not to read every "new" (and at this point there is almost nothing "new" to say) post. Hence I avoid the "Zen-Overload".

And I don't believe for one second that PA has become a "cesspool" (I mean...c'mon! Check out he definition of "cesspool" before throwing around that comparison). It's perhaps a little "cluttered" with Zen/RA discourse, but that is the current nature of the game.

No one WANTS my opinion, but I'll offer it in the hopes that just one other poster reads it and finds enlightenment;

- RA won HOY and deserved it. Her "year" was better - perhaps by a whisker - than Z's. (Remember; it isn't a "Lifetime Achievement Award", it is for the year in question only).
- Any other year Zen wins in a landslide.
- Zen would most likely have beaten RA had they raced. But they didn't so we can't use that as a comparision no matter how much the Z' camp would like to.
- I think that history will be much kinder to Z than RA.
-Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who takes the RA/Zen comparison personally and insults the "other camp" OR questions the abilities/achievements of the opposite runner probably needs to seek professional counseling.
- Let it go people.

And I'll add;
Let's enjoy Z's swan song next week and just be happy that we saw both of the ladies at their best.

[cj's dad]

Are they now sending out the issues in a timely manner?

I used to subscribe years ago, and the issues always arrived terribly late. I never thought they would stay in business this long...

I gave up on them 2-3 yrs ago. As you said, always way late. One year their Preakness issue came out the week after; that did it for me.

[Tom]

I just got Sept/Oct last week. Not a word about the BC.
Not sure if they will have a BC issue or when it will arrive - maybe for Christmas?

Overall, they do a poor job. The "player" part is secondary to many of the fluffy crap they have. Some rally good article, but mostly wrapped in crap.

The need a horse player to run the rag.

[FenceBored]

what does that have to do with it?
besides, do you think a European horse has to win in the US to be HOY in Europe?

No, Rachel didn't duck the "best horses" by not running in the Breeders Cup, because Sea the Stars wasn't there. :bang:

[OntheRail]

He says that she didn't deserve it after ducking the best horses in the BC 2009.
Rachel was the BEST horse in 2009... ;)
In North America

[castaway01]

To get back to PA's original post, I think what causes some people to become irrational about Zenyatta is that they want to believe they are seeing something special. There's so little that's special in racing these days---lots of talk about declining handle, brittle horses, boycotts, and synthetic tracks, but not much actual accomplishment on the racetrack. So, these people believe that 19 wins in a row is that remarkable accomplishment, and they get extremely upset if you don't acknowledge that. Zenyatta has been running and winning long enough that she's developed actual fans, like a sports team, and this group takes it very personally if you don't give what they feel is the proper respect to their horse. I can't think of another horse in this country that people felt that way about in recent years---even it's just a small minority of people, we're on a horse racing board, and that's where those people are. And the fact that some of us don't think that a winning streak in itself makes you the best horse ever, or that Rachel Alexandra got Horse of the Year last year but Zenyatta hasn't won it yet REALLY upsets them. It's a personal thing as opposed to a gambling or sporting issue. That's my take anyway.

[BluegrassProf]

No one WANTS my opinion, but I'll offer it in the hopes that just one other poster reads it and finds enlightenment;

- RA won HOY and deserved it. Her "year" was better - perhaps by a whisker - than Z's. (Remember; it isn't a "Lifetime Achievement Award", it is for the year in question only).
- Any other year Zen wins in a landslide.
- Zen would most likely have beaten RA had they raced. But they didn't so we can't use that as a comparision no matter how much the Z' camp would like to.
- I think that history will be much kinder to Z than RA.
-Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who takes the RA/Zen comparison personally and insults the "other camp" OR questions the abilities/achievements of the opposite runner probably needs to seek professional counseling.
- Let it go people.Much respect to an individual opinion. But for the record:

- Agreed. Better 2010 "by a whisker?" Ridiculous.
- Agreed. Not that the critique to date is without legitimate merit...
- In 2009 - on dirt - not an ever-lubbin' chance. But hey, wild speculation is the spice of life, eh? ;)
- Vehemently disagreed. Records (and the variables inherent in each) are what they are, for better or for worse.
- Agreed re: the former; vehemently disagreed with the latter. Questioning, critiquing, and/or celebrating the accomplishments of an athlete (even an equine version) is a fundamental part of the enjoyment of sport.
- The pot calls out the kettle...and yes, we're ALL equally guilty. Such is the irony of the thing. :D :faint:

[BluegrassProf]

To get back to PA's original post, I think what causes some people to become irrational about Zenyatta is that they want to believe they are seeing something special. ... So, these people believe that 19 wins in a row is that remarkable accomplishment, and they get extremely upset if you don't acknowledge that. ... And the fact that some of us don't think that a winning streak in itself makes you the best horse ever, or that Rachel Alexandra got Horse of the Year last year but Zenyatta hasn't won it yet REALLY upsets them. It's a personal thing as opposed to a gambling or sporting issue. That's my take anyway.In large part, I quite agree with this sentiment. We're increasingly an "all eggs in basket A" sort of sport, which is all sorts of problematic.

The Zenyatta "issue" has considerable overtones ringing of a sort of hero-desire complex - a perfectly understandable one particularly given the way the hero-worship theme is reinforced by turf media. The ever-myopic turf mouthpieces (and make no mistake, the community - at least with respect to writers with any substantive visibility - is quite small), each reciprocating the hyperbole of the other, place great emphasis on the notion of "looking for heroes," when in fact what the game requires first is a foundation from which those heroes can emerge....attempting to reverse that order is an exercise in futility. The exercise becomes even more difficult when the hero characters look in some ways to be somewhat of a construction: Zenyatta is (in my opinion, mind you...this is a subjective assessment re: labelling, and not a dismissal of ability) an example of the constructed hero, with the various qualifications, explanations, and justifications of accomplishments unseating the promise of something far more heroic. All of our eggs are in Zenyatta's basket - for some, this is at the removal of eggs from other baskets (either current baskets or those from the not-so-distant past, or even baskets from long before) since, like a Highlander, "there can be only one." Personally, I consider the theft of eggs from these other baskets more than ridiculous - it's detrimental to a sense of the enormous scope of the sport, something so fundamental and to be cherished so strongly in the case of thoroughbred racing. Sadly, the trend seems only to be getting worse.

Characters and stories are important, but the notion that a single horse - particularly one that will be retired in less than two weeks, perhaps even before her SI article is released - can have even a negligible impact on the sport (something the John Sheriffs and Jay Hovdey agree upon, despite the obvious irony of that fact) is preposterous. Grits raises an excellent point re: the BC, one that I was just discussing with a friend the other day: here we have an excellent opportunity to promote the "international" nature of the BC, but instead the powers that be focus only on the horse that needs very little extra airtime. For crissakes, play off the FEI theme of intl competition; celebrate larger concepts - build that foundation - and the structure on top will be considerably more solid.

[tucker6]

To get back to PA's original post, I think what causes some people to become irrational about Zenyatta is that they want to believe they are seeing something special. There's so little that's special in racing these days---lots of talk about declining handle, brittle horses, boycotts, and synthetic tracks, but not much actual accomplishment on the racetrack. So, these people believe that 19 wins in a row is that remarkable accomplishment, and they get extremely upset if you don't acknowledge that. Zenyatta has been running and winning long enough that she's developed actual fans, like a sports team, and this group takes it very personally if you don't give what they feel is the proper respect to their horse. I can't think of another horse in this country that people felt that way about in recent years---even it's just a small minority of people, we're on a horse racing board, and that's where those people are. And the fact that some of us don't think that a winning streak in itself makes you the best horse ever, or that Rachel Alexandra got Horse of the Year last year but Zenyatta hasn't won it yet REALLY upsets them. It's a personal thing as opposed to a gambling or sporting issue. That's my take anyway.I couldn't have expressed my opinion any better than you have. 19 in a row is unremarkable without context. Some of us don't believe the substance behind her record makes her special. Indeed, Zenyatta may be special in one respect. She may be the first in a long line of horses that are overly managed to the point where being undefeated becomes commonplace and no longer special. A vote for Zenyatta as HOY because she went undefeated over her career is setting a dangerous precedent for the sport, and a slippery slope for competitive races. What owner wouldn't try to get his stallion in the barn undefeated, no matter that he didn't face the greatest of competition. A good marketer can work wonders after the fact.

[Pick6]

I cannot recall a 3YO or up winning HOY with no 1 1/4+ wins, and no fall campaign.

At some point in time, RA was probably the best horse in training, at least at 1 1/8. I seriously doubt at 1 1/4 she was the best in training BCC day. Z got a lot of votes for HOY, and I would not call all of those voters "irrational". You can talk all you want about dirt vs. poly, in the end many believed that Z was the top American horse in training at 1 1/4 BCC day, which is probably the best gauge for HOY.

[Tom]

I find the word "dangerous" in terms of horse racing kind of ridiculous. It's not like anything really important ever happened on a race track - nothing ever did.

It is nothing more than a business for some and entertainment for others.
As far as competitive racing goes, I think that ship sailed a long time ago. If HOY is so danged important, why are there no published and enforced guidelines and requirements for the voting?

How exactly did RA getting HOY last year improve your life? Did you make more money this year, cash more tickets? Are you getting a cut of her offspring's earnings? HOY certainly didn't help her racing career.

If some people want to have their own criteria of greatness, who are you to tell them they are wrong, when the game itself has not bothered to set down the ground rules? If people want to take an interest in the game, why beret them?

This thread is so similar to the arrogance in the breeding poll thread.

[FenceBored]

I cannot recall a 3YO or up winning HOY with no 1 1/4+ wins, and no fall campaign.

At some point in time, RA was probably the best horse in training, at least at 1 1/8. I seriously doubt at 1 1/4 she was the best in training BCC day. Z got a lot of votes for HOY, and I would not call all of those voters "irrational". You can talk all you want about dirt vs. poly, in the end many believed that Z was the top American horse in training at 1 1/4 BCC day, which is probably the best gauge for HOY.

In 26 years, the Classic winner has been HOY 11 times. Rational people understand that to mean that the Classic is not the be-all end-all that others might like to believe.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
It is nothing more than a business for some and entertainment for others...

I get what you are saying, but I think this might cause more than a few to recoil. It has always been both of those two things to me, either one or the other or both simultaneously - but at the same time, neither defines my motive for my role.

[BluegrassProf]

If some people want to have their own criteria of greatness, who are you to tell them they are wrong, when the game itself has not bothered to set down the ground rules? If people want to take an interest in the game, why beret them?So, just to clarify: because there aren't any "set criteria" for HoY per "the game," we shouldn't bother discussing and/or debating them? Once again: the less criteria we have, the less we should debate what they might/should be? Fo realz??

Perhaps more applicably: Try as some might, it's very difficult to argue against on-track accomplishments over the course of a year as the primary determinant in voting for HoY. Absolutely, there are exceptions to this increasingly-discussed rule (and certainly, numerous other secondary factors play a notable role in any given year). But for ever-loving crissakes, the stretching of the definition of Horse. Of. The. YEAR. (particularly in efforts to fit a preformed label) is starting to look damned silly, and an illogical step away from a natural desire to define the integrity of the award. It's OK to be reasonable. If it's arrogance to suggest the most basic, most increasingly-clear concept in the world - one that fits logically into the process over time - then I'm the egotist Prince of Siam. :ThmbUp:

Besides, I see considerably more legitimate discussion of a relevant concept than I do [raspberry] bereting... ;)

I find the word "dangerous" in terms of horse racing kind of ridiculous. It's not like anything really important ever happened on a race track - nothing ever did.Lots of important things happen on and at racetracks: people make livings; lives and well-being are tested, damaged, and recovered; economic impact plays enormous roles at local and state levels; myriad industries converge and interact with implications stretching - ultimately - across the country. If there's a trend that's potentially detrimental to the industry generally, it's perfectly legitimate to deem that detriment "dangerous," and misleading to simply chalk it up to an offense of the sensibilities.

[tucker6]

I find the word "dangerous" in terms of horse racing kind of ridiculous. It's not like anything really important ever happened on a race track - nothing ever did.

It is nothing more than a business for some and entertainment for others.
As far as competitive racing goes, I think that ship sailed a long time ago. If HOY is so danged important, why are there no published and enforced guidelines and requirements for the voting?

How exactly did RA getting HOY last year improve your life? Did you make more money this year, cash more tickets? Are you getting a cut of her offspring's earnings? HOY certainly didn't help her racing career.

If some people want to have their own criteria of greatness, who are you to tell them they are wrong, when the game itself has not bothered to set down the ground rules? If people want to take an interest in the game, why beret them?

This thread is so similar to the arrogance in the breeding poll thread.So, do you really prefer less and less quality races?? I believe it was you just the other day lamenting that you don't see efforts like Alydar's anymore. I understand what you are saying above, but at some point, the sport becomes too watered down to matter. Have we reached that point already?? Maybe, maybe not. Does it matter to the player if the race is exciting or not. Probably not. However, there has to be something exciting about a sport to attract new players, or am I completely offbase in thinking that way?? That's why I used the term, "dangerous". Because that is the lessen Moss is teaching other owners. Play it safe and win in the shed. Corollary is horseplayer/industry/sport be damned.

[ArlJim78]

I find stuff said and written about horses all the time that appears to me irrational. Why is it that with Zenyatta every positive statement someone makes has to be documented here with a separate thread denoting how irrational it is? Isn't that irrational in and of itself? For every three people that have positive things to say about Zenyatta its seems there are five people quick to jump in and tell them that they are stupid or irrational. It seems odd to me to be to attacking other fans of the sport based on a difference of opinion about a horse's performance or credentials. Indeed I can think of no other horse whose followers are so routinely looked down on. Why is that? Normally a group of fans who support a horse are allowed to have their opinions without be ripped on each and every day. What other horse has an such a high level of anti-fans dedicated to task of enlightening it's followers to the idea that they are misguided rubes incapable of a rational thought? Some people like Zenyatta, so what?

This isn't science, there should be room for differing opinions without being labeled insane or stupid or irrational.

[gm10]

No, Rachel didn't duck the "best horses" by not running in the Breeders Cup, because Sea the Stars wasn't there. :bang:

pfffffff
this is tiresome
no he wasn't there, how does that change the fact that she ducked the best on offer, including her immediate rivals for HOY

[dccprez]

Much respect to an individual opinion. But for the record:

- Agreed. Better 2010 "by a whisker?" Ridiculous.
- Agreed. Not that the critique to date is without legitimate merit...
- In 2009 - on dirt - not an ever-lubbin' chance. But hey, wild speculation is the spice of life, eh? ;)
- Vehemently disagreed. Records (and the variables inherent in each) are what they are, for better or for worse.
- Agreed re: the former; vehemently disagreed with the latter. Questioning, critiquing, and/or celebrating the accomplishments of an athlete (even an equine version) is a fundamental part of the enjoyment of sport.
- The pot calls out the kettle...and yes, we're ALL equally guilty. Such is the irony of the thing. :D :faint:

Prof...you are WONDERFUL!!!

A few notes - because I can only imagine that people are on the edges of their seats awaiting a response...

- "By a whisker" was a deference to all of the big time Z supporters. I didn't want to rile them up and have to see yet another Z thread calling me a heretic...(IMHO: I think tha RA was a clear-cut winner, based on the HOY criteria...)
- In my opinion; ZEN wins on poly at any distance and at 1-1/4 on dirt or poly. RA wins on dirt from 1M to 1-1/16 but only before the Woodward experience. Pre-Woodward it would be a 'toss-up' at 1-1/8 on dirt. So, for the sake of further debate, let's see Zen winning 6 of 10 races "heads up".
- History will always be "better" (and I use that for lack of a better term) to the well-accomplished, undefeated runner...IF she goes undefeated. So I'm guilty of pre-supposing that Z will win the Classic. If she does then I'm confident that I'll be correct in my supposition; many more people (and ALL trivia buffs) will remember an undefeated, all-time-money-winning runner. The 2009 HOY winner...not so much. (I suspect that RA will prove to be the better dam, however. And that is with absolutely ZERO scientific back-up - only opinion...)
- I've read too many posts wherein people have taken the Z vs. RA debate WAY too seriously. I support discourse and engourage opinion...but c'mon; read some of these posts! It's ridicuous. At the end of the day we can all agree on ONE thing at least; either Zen or RA deserved HOY in 2009 and one of those two actually won the award. And, regardless of which "camp" you are in, you would have to be a fool if you didn't admit that if YOUR preferred lady wasn't the winner then the other runner certainly deserved the award. If it was THISCLOSE then you shouldn't begrudge the other camp. (Full disclosure; I am 100% confident that RA was the proper winner.) I'm not the only person who could sit here all day and cut-down any opinion/post/rant that suggests that Zen deserved the award more than RA. BUT CONSIDER: I am a big fan of both of the ladies and I would NOT have been at all "disappointed" nor "offended" if Zen had won. I would have embraced it. So LET it GO people.

And no matter where you stand on the issue, PA is NOT a "cesspool", by any measure.

I remain, as always, your humble servant,

DPrez

[Pick6]

In 26 years, the Classic winner has been HOY 11 times. Rational people understand that to mean that the Classic is not the be-all end-all that others might like to believe.
11 of 26 is a pretty good rate. What other race has that rate of success for HOY over the same 26 years?

1985 - Slew o' Gold, top horse in training 1 1/4 BCC day => top older horse honors. John Henry wins HOY in what I consider a mediocre campaign and sentimental vote.

1986 - Spend a Buck makes an abbreviated campaign, avoiding several top races including 2/3 of the TC, and the Fall races. Turkoman was favored in the BCC but was defeated by Skywalker, who campaigned in the west and would never garner any east coast support for HOY.

1990 - Criminal Type was injured and could not participate in the BCC. His campaign included defeats of Easy Goer and Sunday Silence at classic distance. Unbridled won BCC and earned top 3YO honors.

1993 - Longshot Arcangues edges out top older horse Bertrando. Turf specialist Kotashaan wins HOY.

1994 - Holy Bull, best horse in training at 1 1/4 BCC day, DNP in BCC.

1996 - Cigar, favorite for BCC and eventual HOY, runs 3rd to longshot Alphabet Soup.

1997 - 2YO Favorite Trick, winner of BC Juvenile, wins HOY. Skip Away wins BCC and top older horse honors.

1998 - Awesome Again goes 6-6 and wins BCC in possibly the best field ever assembled for the race (1989?). Favored Skip Away gets HOY.

1999 - Cat Thief wins at $41.20. No clear top older horse this year so HOY goes to Charismatic.

2001 - Point Given, easily the top horse in training, is hurt prior to BCC. Tiznow repeats and earns top older horse honors.

2002 - Longshot Volponi wins in a year recognized as lacking a top older horse. Filly Azeri, winner of BC Distaff, wins HOY.

2003 - Longshot Pleasantly Perfect wins, best horse in training and HOY Mineshaft DNP.

2008 - Favorite Curlin and HOY is upset by Raven's Pass.

2009 - Undefeated and favored Zenyatta becomes first F/M to win BCC. Rachel Alexandra, who did not campaign in the fall, is awarded HOY.

All other years HOY was the winner of BCC. So the top horse in training at 1 1/4 BCC day accounts for HOY 19 of the 26 years. 3 years a non-dirt or non-older horse is awarded HOY.

[BluegrassProf]

I find stuff said and written about horses all the time that appears to me irrational. Why is it that with Zenyatta every positive statement someone makes has to be documented here with a separate thread denoting how irrational it is? Isn't that irrational in and of itself? For every three people that have positive things to say about Zenyatta its seems there are five people quick to jump in and tell them that they are stupid or irrational. It seems odd to me to be to attacking other fans of the sport based on a difference of opinion about a horse's performance or credentials. Indeed I can think of no other horse whose followers are so routinely looked down on. Why is that? Normally a group of fans who support a horse are allowed to have their opinions without be ripped on each and every day. What other horse has an such a high level of anti-fans dedicated to task of enlightening it's followers to the idea that they are misguided rubes incapable of a rational thought? Some people like Zenyatta, so what?

This isn't science, there should be room for differing opinions without being labeled insane or stupid or irrational.This is a pretty bigtime whitewashing of the issue. Here's a problematic dialogue for ya:

John: Zenyatta's a thrill to watch.
Jane: She's totally the best in the world. Way better than Secretariat.
John: Whaaa?? That's ridiculous. She's... (synth, travel, competition, etc. etc.)
Jane: Why do you hate Zenyatta? You're just a jerkface.
John: Oh, that's not true - I think she's an extremely talented horse! Thrill to watch! I just wanted to see.... (etc. etc.) - some of this hyperbole is just crazypants, dontcha think?
Jane: You're such a jeeeeeeeeeeerkface! Why do you think I'm crazy because I love big Queen Z? East coast bias!!

fin.

There's nothing remotely irrational about thinking Zenyatta's an extremely talented horse; there's not even anything particularly irrational about much of the qualifying. But there's a pretty bright line that some seem inclined to cross- repeatedly, to the detriment/selective ignorance of a great big game, and with outside voices - and that, my man, is precisely the problem: it's cah-raaaaazy. :bang:

Edit: Note dccprez's post above...so reasonable it hurts. :ThmbUp: We can indeed agree, disagree, or agree to disagree with all due civility..

[FenceBored]

pfffffff
this is tiresome
no he wasn't there, how does that change the fact that she ducked the best on offer, including her immediate rivals for HOY

Talk about tiresome. :sleeping:

If I tell you I'm not coming to your party six months before you have it, you can't very well say at the party that I decided not to come to duck the now ex-girlfriend I hadn't even met yet when I told you I wasn't coming.

[FenceBored]

11 of 26 is a pretty good rate. What other race has that rate of success for HOY over the same 26 years?


Woodward - 10/26.

[tucker6]

I find stuff said and written about horses all the time that appears to me irrational. Why is it that with Zenyatta every positive statement someone makes has to be documented here with a separate thread denoting how irrational it is? Isn't that irrational in and of itself? For every three people that have positive things to say about Zenyatta its seems there are five people quick to jump in and tell them that they are stupid or irrational. It seems odd to me to be to attacking other fans of the sport based on a difference of opinion about a horse's performance or credentials. Indeed I can think of no other horse whose followers are so routinely looked down on. Why is that? Normally a group of fans who support a horse are allowed to have their opinions without be ripped on each and every day. What other horse has an such a high level of anti-fans dedicated to task of enlightening it's followers to the idea that they are misguided rubes incapable of a rational thought? Some people like Zenyatta, so what?

This isn't science, there should be room for differing opinions without being labeled insane or stupid or irrational.
Jim,

I don't dislike Zenyatta, nor do I believe anyone else does. She's a horse being asked to perform a task. She does it admirably. If that were all some of the Zenyatta minions said, then I would agree with you. I guess where the rubber meets the road is that we often see the inevitable:


Zenyatta is an all-time great (without backing it up with facts)
Zenyatta is better than Secretariat (without backing it up)
Zenyatta has won more G-1's than any other horse in history (without ponying up the fact that she hasn't faced a true G-1 horse this year)
Zenyatta 19-0 streak is the greatest in the sport's history (and then gets angry when you compare to PP)
If others were so great, why couldn't they go undefeated.
She faced the best in last year's BCC (without acknowledging that it was on her home poly against horses not used to the surface)
It offends my sensibilities, and I believe others, that such things are said as if it were as true and correct as saying the sun is yellow and the sky is blue. It is when beliefs are made into facts that the problem begins.

I know of no other horse that has been given that treatment, so we should not be surprised that the reaction to her is unique as well. Let's just call us the devil's advocates.

[gm10]

Talk about tiresome. :sleeping:

If I tell you I'm not coming to your party six months before you have it, you can't very well say at the party that I decided not to come to duck the now ex-girlfriend I hadn't even met yet when I told you I wasn't coming.

How does change the fact that she didn't face the best on offer? Maybe it doesn't? Never mind.

[Pick6]

Woodward - 10/26.
So is that it? Of all the races you can't find one as important as BCC in determining HOY? I think everybody knew this already.

[Tom]

Oxy-moron.
How one ONE RACE embrace the of the year part of it?

RA won last year because she was the dominant race horse throughout the whole year. IF the BCC is all that matters, then just anoint the winner every year and be done with it.

[Stillriledup]

I'm friendly with a pretty decent handicapper and when the discussion of Zenyatta comes up, he loses all rationality. Its like there's tremendous personal feelings involved because he loves Zenyatta so much. He takes it personally if you even suggest she beat nothing, its like you're insulting his family or something. Personally i could care less, i'm just trying to win my next bet on a positive ROI. If i feel Z is 'value' i'll play her, if i feel she's overbet, i'll toss her, i dont understand why people get so wrapped up in this.

[Pick6]

Talk about tiresome. :sleeping:

If I tell you I'm not coming to your party six months before you have it, you can't very well say at the party that I decided not to come to duck the now ex-girlfriend I hadn't even met yet when I told you I wasn't coming.
Does this also include other major races RA did not appear in, such as the JCGC?

[FenceBored]

How does change the fact that she didn't face the best on offer? Maybe it doesn't? Never mind.

The best on offer? What's that supposed to mean, anyway.

A: Is this wine any good?
B: It's the "best on offer" (meaning "no")

A: Will this medicine cure my otherwise fatal infection?
B: It's the "best on offer" (i.e. call the undertaker).

[thaskalos]

To get back to PA's original post, I think what causes some people to become irrational about Zenyatta is that they want to believe they are seeing something special. There's so little that's special in racing these days---lots of talk about declining handle, brittle horses, boycotts, and synthetic tracks, but not much actual accomplishment on the racetrack. So, these people believe that 19 wins in a row is that remarkable accomplishment, and they get extremely upset if you don't acknowledge that. Zenyatta has been running and winning long enough that she's developed actual fans, like a sports team, and this group takes it very personally if you don't give what they feel is the proper respect to their horse. I can't think of another horse in this country that people felt that way about in recent years---even it's just a small minority of people, we're on a horse racing board, and that's where those people are. And the fact that some of us don't think that a winning streak in itself makes you the best horse ever, or that Rachel Alexandra got Horse of the Year last year but Zenyatta hasn't won it yet REALLY upsets them. It's a personal thing as opposed to a gambling or sporting issue. That's my take anyway. Not wanting to turn this thread into another argument, I must say that, IMO, the Rachel fans are equally to blame for the heated Zenyatta-based verbal exchanges that have been displayed on this board.

I have been a pretty vocal "fan" of Zenyatta, and have gotten into more than a few arguments here, while defending the racing ability of the horse. But I have never said that Zenyatta is a "best ever" type. Neither have the vast majority of her other "admirers" on this site. All we have said is that she is a remarkable animal with a will-to-win that we have not seen in many years, and that, should she win this year's Classic...she deserves to be considered as one of the best mares ever...and IMO, the best mare in recent memory. The conservative campaign chosen by her connections has been criticized by friend and foe alike...

However...because this "realistic" opinion of Zenyatta is not enough to start a massive online argument...her critics (who - by coincidence - happen also to be Rachel fans) have chosen to isolate on the "minority" opinion of Zenyatta - voiced by people like "Carlon", and a few other infrequent posters of this forum...who claim that Zenyatta is the second coming of Secretariat. These Zenyatta critics then become angry at the comparisons between Zenyatta and racing's "elite"...and start making comparisons of their own - between Zenyatta and Peppers Pride. The pro-Zenyatta opinions of the press are thrown into the mix...and heated arguments ensue.

What the Zenyatta "realists" have never stopped to consider is that most of us "Zenyatta fans" are long time, hardcore horseracing fans, and not hero worshiping teenagers with Zenyatta posters on our walls. We are not angry because our "idol's" unblemished record is being criticized. We are angry because our opinion is being drowned out by Carlon, John Pricci...and this clown from the "Horseplayer" magazine.

For what it's worth, I too would love to put an end to all of this, and to start discussing handicapping topics again...

[FenceBored]

Does this also include other major races RA did not appear in, such as the JCGC?

She also didn't appear in the Spinster, the Arlington Million, the Arc de Triomphe, and Melbourne Cup. So what?

[Tom]

So, just to clarify: because there aren't any "set criteria" for HoY per "the game," we shouldn't bother discussing and/or debating them? Once again: the less criteria we have, the less we should debate what they might/should be? Fo realz??

I thought we doing that. I took the position that it was not important and not worth the bother, you say the future of the free world hinges on it! ;)
Seeing how neither of us gets to vote, it really is a moot point. I rooted for Zenny last. I got beat. I still have my house, my job, my car, no one asked me to move out....I lived. I stubbed my toe during the races last BC and that had a far more lasting effect on me than Zenny losing HOY.

Right now the criteria is whatever the voters want to make it. How about we argue how the poeople who issue the awards have failed to do their jobs and set rigid criteria to protect racing from the evil that is out there rooting for horses with no valid reasons! Sorry, but I am a victim of my position - I can't discuss it seriously!:D

[dccprez]

11 of 26 is a pretty good rate. What other race has that rate of success for HOY over the same 26 years?


All other years HOY was the winner of BCC. So the top horse in training at 1 1/4 BCC day accounts for HOY 19 of the 26 years. 3 years a non-dirt or non-older horse is awarded HOY.

Excellent post/research.

But I'm not sure if you're arguning for-or-against the Classic as the benchmark for HOY? Or not at all.

Either way, I can't really argue with any of the choices in the past 26 years...except for a slight personal bent for Skip Away over Favorite Trick...

But I digress...

[Pick6]

She also didn't appear in the Spinster, the Arlington Million, the Arc de Triomphe, and Melbourne Cup. So what?
Races such as the JCGC are considered major barometers for American HOY. We know the other races you mentioned do not. Was there any reason of which you are aware for RA to avoid JCGC? Or the Belmont Stakes? We know why RA avoided BCC, at least those stated by Jackson.

[Pick6]

Excellent post/research.

But I'm not sure if you're arguning for-or-against the Classic as the benchmark for HOY? Or not at all.

Either way, I can't really argue with any of the choices in the past 26 years...except for a slight personal bent for Skip Away over Favorite Trick...

But I digress...
If Slew o' Gold wins BCC he def. gets HOY over John Henry.

My position is that BCC is the most IMPORTANT race for HOY. For many reasons:
1 - No other race winner has led to more HOY in the same span;
2 - Contested at classic American distance of 1 1/4 miles;
3 - A huge purse which alters training campaigns significantly and affected importance of other races, sometimes even eliminating them;
4 - Time of the race - Fall. It allows 3YOs and F/M a better chance at competing;
5 - A rotating location structure which attempts to remove geographic or track bias.

[dccprez]

Races such as the JCGC are considered major barometers for American HOY. We know the other races you mentioned do not. Was there any reason of which you are aware for RA to avoid JCGC? Or the Belmont Stakes? We know why RA avoided BCC, at least those stated by Jackson.


*sigh*...

Really, seriously, Let it Go. Anyone could sit here and debate the "why's" and "what-for's" as to why RA wasn't in th JCGC or the Classic and it wouldn't matter not one bit. The facts are that she had a great campaign and won all of her necessary dances INCLUDING winning a race that hadn't been won by a 3YO filly...ever (am I right? angry-dissenters, please educate me...). Period. THAT, and that alone, won her the award. It wasn't any "East Coast Bias", it was the fact tha Zen ran "her" races - and won them, and RA won "her" races - and won them - and that RA's races, in total, were of a greater "weight" than Zen's were in that particular year.

Why can't people grasp this? It's OVER people. We have (had) TWO great ladies running at the same time and we had to pick one of them for HOY. No disrespect for the runner-up!

Perhaps we should move on...

[BluegrassProf]

Oxy-moron.
How one ONE RACE embrace the of the year part of it?

RA won last year because she was the dominant race horse throughout the whole year. IF the BCC is all that matters, then just anoint the winner every year and be done with it.BOOM! goes the obviousgrenade. :ThmbUp:

Couldn't agree more. So sad...

Pick6: Your selectivity is delightful... :D

[FenceBored]

So is that it? Of all the races you can't find one as important as BCC in determining HOY? I think everybody knew this already.

Gee, 11/26 and 10/26 are soooooo far apart that nobody can span the gap. :rolleyes:

Compare that with:

09/11 F&M Turf to Female Turf Eclipse
23/26 Juv Fillies to 2yo Filly Eclipse
20/26 Juvenile to 2yo Eclipse or
19/26 Distaff to 3yo Filly or Older Female Eclipse

Or even:

15/26 Sprint to Sprint Eclipse
15/26 Turf to Turf Male or Female Eclipse

[Pick6]

BOOM! goes the obviousgrenade. :ThmbUp:

Couldn't agree more. So sad...

Pick6: Your selectivity is delightful... :D
I thought you would not like my objectivity, as opposed to someone's claim of "irrationality".

[Pick6]

Gee, 11/26 and 10/26 are soooooo far apart that nobody can span the gap. :rolleyes:

Compare that with:

09/11 F&M Turf to Female Turf Eclipse
23/26 Juv Fillies to 2yo Filly Eclipse
20/26 Juvenile to 2yo Eclipse or
19/26 Distaff to 3yo Filly or Older Female Eclipse

Or even:

15/26 Sprint to Sprint Eclipse
15/26 Turf to Turf Male or Female Eclipse
Well, at least you agree with the numbers that BCC is more important than Woodward. Not often you do that.

And if you knew anything about statistics you would realize that the inability of finding one race that beats BCC means more than what you are trying to claim.

[andymays]

They become irrational because they believe that.............

.......every little thing she does is magic.....everthing she does just turns them on........


The Police - Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ3unI6-aTI

[castaway01]

Not wanting to turn this thread into another argument, I must say that, IMO, the Rachel fans are equally to blame for the heated Zenyatta-based verbal exchanges that have been displayed on this board.

I have been a pretty vocal "fan" of Zenyatta, and have gotten into more than a few arguments here, while defending the racing ability of the horse. But I have never said that Zenyatta is a "best ever" type. Neither have the vast majority of her other "admirers" on this site. All we have said is that she is a remarkable animal with a will-to-win that we have not seen in many years, and that, should she win this year's Classic...she deserves to be considered as one of the best mares ever...and IMO, the best mare in recent memory. The conservative campaign chosen by her connections has been criticized by friend and foe alike...

However...because this "realistic" opinion of Zenyatta is not enough to start a massive online argument...her critics (who - by coincidence - happen also to be Rachel fans) have chosen to isolate on the "minority" opinion of Zenyatta - voiced by people like "Carlon", and a few other infrequent posters of this forum...who claim that Zenyatta is the second coming of Secretariat. These Zenyatta critics then become angry at the comparisons between Zenyatta and racing's "elite"...and start making comparisons of their own - between Zenyatta and Peppers Pride. The pro-Zenyatta opinions of the press are thrown into the mix...and heated arguments ensue.



It's not that no hardcore horse racing fan likes Zenyatta. Of course some do. And of course not everyone that is a fan thinks she's the greatest horse ever...but some do. That's because Zenyatta has more "casual" fans that aren't hardcore horseracing fans or bettors than any horse since the stars of the 1970s. I know this is a small number of people, but they're online, and at the track when she runs. And I happen to believe that is why they get so upset when their hero isn't given the credit they feel is due---they're FANS of this particular horse.

I wasn't trying to start another RA vs. Zen thread, just acknowledging the fact that Zenyatta fans always make last year's HOY vote part of their argument. I actually think it's great for racing that people care so much about Zenyatta. More power to them. I was just trying to address the whole Zenyatta phenomenon and WHY people are so passionate, not whether I think it makes sense. People are allowed to like who they like.

[FenceBored]

Races such as the JCGC are considered major barometers for American HOY. We know the other races you mentioned do not. Was there any reason of which you are aware for RA to avoid JCGC? Or the Belmont Stakes? We know why RA avoided BCC, at least those stated by Jackson.

Yes, he skipped the BCC because he had to clean the gunshot residue off her hooves from when she shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll ... or, was it the explosives residue from when she wired the twin towers to implode? I get so confused.

[Pick6]

*sigh*...

Really, seriously, Let it Go. Anyone could sit here and debate the "why's" and "what-for's" as to why RA wasn't in th JCGC or the Classic and it wouldn't matter not one bit. The facts are that she had a great campaign and won all of her necessary dances INCLUDING winning a race that hadn't been won by a 3YO filly...ever (am I right? angry-dissenters, please educate me...). Period. THAT, and that alone, won her the award. It wasn't any "East Coast Bias", it was the fact tha Zen ran "her" races - and won them, and RA won "her" races - and won them - and that RA's races, in total, were of a greater "weight" than Zen's were in that particular year.

Why can't people grasp this? It's OVER people. We have (had) TWO great ladies running at the same time and we had to pick one of them for HOY. No disrespect for the runner-up!

Perhaps we should move on...
So at least we acknowledge that races were indeed "avoided". Is it coincidence that RA never campaigned at the most important American distance, 1 1/4?

I would vote for the best horse in training at 1 1/4, which a lot of people did. And they are not "irrational".

[Pick6]

Yes, he skipped the BCC because he had to clean the gunshot residue off her hooves from when she shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll ... or, was it the explosives residue from when she wired the twin towers to implode? I get so confused.
I read this and I get a reasonable idea of what's "irrational".

[FenceBored]

Well, at least you agree with the numbers that BCC is more important than Woodward. Not often you do that.

And if you knew anything about statistics you would realize that the inability of finding one race that beats BCC means more than what you are trying to claim.

What I agree with is that no one race is the be-all end-all of American Racing. I also agree that many Eclipse voters are too freakin' lazy to do their due diligence and just use the BC results to mark their ballots. That there are people who encourage this kind of laziness is a curse upon the sport.

[dccprez]

Well, at least you agree with the numbers that BCC is more important than Woodward. Not often you do that.

And if you knew anything about statistics you would realize that the inability of finding one race that beats BCC means more than what you are trying to claim.


Ugh...

Where is there any mention of the "woodward" or the "bcc" in the post?

That said; I doub't that there is any dissention in the ranks that suggests that the Woodward is more important than the BCC.

But...

...the HOY isn't decided in the Classic. Sure, it seems like it is (based on the numbers), but there is no rule that is has to be.

I think that the simple "comparison" is that RA's campaign was better than Zen's in 2009. Sure, she won the BCC but her "body of work" was not as great at RA's. Close, no doubt. But it simply wasn't the same.

So she lost to Rachel. That's it. It's OVER.

She's a GREAT mare and will go down as one of the greats of all time. ISN'T THAT ENOUGH?!?!?

Let it GO! In case you haven't noticed, 2009 is OVER - we're working on an entirely new year over here...

[Pick6]

What I agree with is that no one race is the be-all end-all of American Racing. I also agree that many Eclipse voters are too freakin' lazy to do their due diligence and just use the BC results to mark their ballots. That there are people who encourage this kind of laziness is a curse upon the sport.
But the best horse in training leading up to BCC is historically the solid favorite to get HOY.

[FenceBored]

I read this and I get a reasonable idea of what's "irrational".

Thank you. I tried to replicate the thinking of the more 'enthusiastic' Zenyatta supporter. Nice to know I succeeded.

[Pick6]

Thank you. I tried to replicate the thinking of the more 'enthusiastic' Zenyatta supporter. Nice to know I succeeded.
Since you were sustaining a position supporting Jackson, it actually went the other way. No insult intended.

[dccprez]

So at least we acknowledge that races were indeed "avoided". Is it coincidence that RA never campaigned at the most important American distance, 1 1/4?

I would vote for the best horse in training at 1 1/4, which a lot of people did. And they are not "irrational".

It's...

...Over.

And it was all "good and fair".

No One cares about the "statistics" that are referenced other than these;
- RA had an (arguably) "bigger body of work"
- THAT pushed the voters to vote for RA.

It's over.

Let Zen win the Classic this year, finish undefeated, win her HOY (for THIS Year, which she will deserve, without question) and we can move on.


...so I hear that there is this STELLAR 2YO named...

[dccprez]

But the best horse in training leading up to BCC is historically the solid favorite to get HOY.

Arrgh...


SO what?!? Seriously...SO WHAT?!?

No one had ever won from the 20 post in the KD...but a horse DID win from there.

Things CHANGE. "Circumstances" change. Criteria shifts.

Perhaps there will come a time (unlikely, but not impossible) that the BC Classic will have little or NO bearing on the HOY...

...things change.

[FenceBored]

Since you were sustaining a position supporting Jackson, it actually went the other way. No insult intended.

Umm, no. Try harder next time.

[Pick6]

If OP claims that disagreeing with this...
... The 2009 award is for 2009 performances, and Rachel outperformed Zenyatta. Simple as that...
...is "irrational", then one needs to consider the facts I brought up, because disagreeing with this view is certainly not "irrational".

If one feels that bringing up 2009 performance for 2010 honors is "irrational", it would not be the first time. John Henry would certainly not have won HOY in 1984 if not for a hall of fame career prior to that. Again, that is not "irrational" (although it may not be correct in the strictest sense of what defines HOY).

And in regards to RA entering and winning the sprint, what is the big deal with that? IMO it would add to her resume. Some great horses have won at sprint distances, including Dr. Fager and Forego. I understand Jackson took her out of training for no apparent reason, but why is this "irrational"?

[BluegrassProf]

But the best horse in training leading up to BCC is historically the solid favorite to get HOY. :D My gawd, man - it's like you're a tape recording!

(Occasionally you get a "pfft, little ducker skipped the Belmont after winning the effin' Preakness," but they seem to be only wacky li'l asides in efforts to justify your primary proposition.)

On the latter note, please refer to Tom's previous post, and by all means cede that you're proposing that the BCC winner be awarded HoY by default.

It's OK. It's not like your stance isn't clear as could be. ;)

Apart from that (read: regarding, say, 2009 & Rachel Alexandra), you should definitely take a cue from dcc. You're starting to legitimize this whole thread.

[JBmadera]

You're evil Mike, pure evil.....the world needs another Z thread like it needs another zenfan.... :rolleyes:

[Pick6]

:D My gawd, man - it's like you're a tape recording!

(Occasionally you get a "pfft, little ducker skipped the Belmont after winning the effin' Preakness," but they seem to be only wacky li'l asides in efforts to justify your primary proposition.)

On the latter note, please refer to Tom's previous post, and by all means cede that you're proposing that the BCC winner be awarded HoY be default.
Where did I post that? I understand that "body of work" comes into play. Did I not acknowledge that? All I indicated is that the best horse in training leading up to the BCC wins HOY most of the time. That is a fact.
It's OK. It's not like your stance isn't clear as could be. ;)
See above, reading comprehension issues.

Apart from that (read: regarding, say, 2009 & Rachel Alexandra), you should definitely take a cue from dcc. You're starting to legitimize this whole thread.
I am addressing the claim of people being "irrational". I have brought out facts that refute this view. I am sorry if you don't like those facts.

[dccprez]

Ok. So we're all on the same page now?

Good.

RA won HOY in 2009. She deserved it. ZEN was a worthy 2nd. And, I think we can all agree, if RA hadn't been in the mix then Zen would have won in a landslide and we'd all be happy and warm.

'Nuff said. (...right?...)

...so I hear that there's a horse going for her THIRD BC Mile win?? What an accomplishment if she can pull it off!!!)

[keithw84]

Ok. So we're all on the same page now?

Good.

RA won HOY in 2009. She deserved it. ZEN was a worthy 2nd. And, I think we can all agree, if RA hadn't been in the mix then Zen would have won in a landslide and we'd all be happy and warm.

'Nuff said. (...right?...)

...so I hear that there's a horse going for her THIRD BC Mile win?? What an accomplishment if she can pull it off!!!)

How about Zenyatta as a worthy 4th behind Summer Bird and... oh, maybe... Icon Project? Just kidding.

I think the reason there have been so over-the-top posts and claims is that Zenyatta and Rachel raced in the same year. In keeping with the American obsession of having a #1 and ranking everyone else accordingly, no one was satisfied with Rachel and Zenyatta being in separate spheres... even though their accomplishments generally were. Those who said "We don't have enough information to compare them because..." were drowned out by those saying "Rachel/Zenyatta is better because..."

And what did we have to compare? Raw times at different tracks on different surfaces? Manmade speed figures? Beaten lengths of Mine That Bird and Summer Bird?

I think the lack of comparative information combined with their racing at the same time is the reason for the divisiveness.

It's as though we've had a huge rivalry on our hands. And how many great rivalries have existed between horses (or any athletes for that matter) who NEVER faced each other?!

[classhandicapper]

I think the scrambled brains syndrome carries over to the side that has to continually attack every crazy statement made about Zenyatta as if they were somehow defending their Mother's honor.

Both sides have been pretty hard to swallow and sound more like dumb and dumber than horse players.

My 2 cents.

Tom = the voice of reason. ;)

[PaceAdvantage]

I cannot recall a 3YO or up winning HOY with no 1 1/4+ wins, and no fall campaign.

At some point in time, RA was probably the best horse in training, at least at 1 1/8. I seriously doubt at 1 1/4 she was the best in training BCC day. Z got a lot of votes for HOY, and I would not call all of those voters "irrational". You can talk all you want about dirt vs. poly, in the end many believed that Z was the top American horse in training at 1 1/4 BCC day, which is probably the best gauge for HOY.The irrational part I speak of is looking at RA's races in 2010 and using THOSE RACES to claim she did not deserve HOY in 2009.

Surely even you understood this basic concept.

Not ONCE did I infer or try to claim that anyone voting for Zenyatta for HOTY in 2009 was irrational.

Better luck next time.

[PaceAdvantage]

Why is it that with Zenyatta every positive statement someone makes has to be documented here with a separate thread denoting how irrational it is?If this was aimed at me, again, you, like Pick6, have completely missed my point.

I was not claiming that anything positive stated about Zenyatta was irrational.

The irrational part was the statement that because Rachel didn't come back strong in 2010, she didn't deserve the HOTY award for 2009.

[PaceAdvantage]

For what it's worth, I too would love to put an end to all of this, and to start discussing handicapping topics again...Who is stopping you?

[PaceAdvantage]

If OP claims that disagreeing with this...

...is "irrational", then one needs to consider the facts I brought up, because disagreeing with this view is certainly not "irrational".Thank you for continuing to totally misrepresent what I clearly stated at the beginning of this thread. Thankfully, I have now set you and the record straight.

[Pick6]

The irrational part I speak of is looking at RA's races in 2010 and using THOSE RACES to claim she did not deserve HOY in 2009.

Surely even you understood this basic concept.

Not ONCE did I infer or try to claim that anyone voting for Zenyatta for HOTY in 2009 was irrational.

Better luck next time.
Thanks for your clarification.

The author is trying to use some kind of logic to deduce that because RA did not perform very well this year, then this must mean she was not as good in 2009 as most previously believed, and for that reason people mistakenly voted for RA as HOY. He uses the avoidance of BCC as further evidence to his position.

I don't agree with it, but I don't necessarily think it is crazy nonsense either. For example, many who promote horses such as Dr. Fager over Secretariat, is that Secretariat never campaigned as an older horse. Nobody knows how well he would have done, but needless to say if he had performed badly it would have not reflected well on his career.

If the author were told (or knew) how many times great 3YOs do not pan out as older horses, then he probably would not go this route.

Seattle Slew is a good example of the corollary: a champion 3YO who performed even better at 4 and earned greater recognition.

[gm10]

The irrational part I speak of is looking at RA's races in 2010 and using THOSE RACES to claim she did not deserve HOY in 2009.

Surely even you understood this basic concept.

Not ONCE did I infer or try to claim that anyone voting for Zenyatta for HOTY in 2009 was irrational.

Better luck next time.

See, this whole thread is based on the wrong premise. He doesn't say that she doesn't deserve it because of 2010 performances, he says

'and that Rachel probably shouldn't have won Horse of the Year after ducking the reigning distaff champion Zenyatta as well as the best handicap horses in the world in the 2009 Breeders' Cup Classic'.

Funnily enough I do agree with your point about irrationality, although I think it is actually a good thing. Being a racing fan is irrational. You spend endless amounts of time and - in many cases - too much money watching some big animals running around an oval on four legs. There's nothing rational about that activity. To see the irrationality spreading through the wider public is great, the more irrational interest in the sport, the larger the fan base.

[PaceAdvantage]

See, this whole thread is based on the wrong premise. He doesn't say that she doesn't deserve it because of 2010 performances,Sure he does...it's the entire lead up to his conclusion:

It took her three tries, but Rachel eventually got a win in 2010 and followed up that victory with another score, but a disappointing flop in the Personal Ensign at Saratoga finally got her strongest supporters to admit what everyone else could see:

[gm10]

Sure he does...it's the entire lead up to his conclusion:

Yes it's a lead to another point, but the justification for not deserving HOY is clearly not what you made it out to be.

The point it leads up to is that she wasn't the horse she was last year, and that is where he uses the 2010 performances.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I have a question. Should Rachel have got the HOY award in 2008 based on her 2009 performance?

[Pick6]

It would not be the first time that somebody judged the quality of a horse at a given moment in time based on his/her later efforts.

[Pick6]

Yes it's a lead to another point, but the justification for not deserving HOY is clearly not what you made it out to be.

The point it leads up to is that she wasn't the horse she was last year, and that is where he uses the 2010 performances.
I disagree. I believe the author is using evidence of a poor 2010 campaign to reveal RA's quality at the end of 2009, i.e. she was not going to win 2009 BCC so avoiding it was the best option.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with the logic but her poor 2010 campaign cannot improve her standing amongst the greats.

[OntheRail]

I am addressing the claim of people being "irrational". I have brought out facts that refute this view. I am sorry if you don't like those facts.
I'm sorry but I've read though this and you give the impression of a person who has stuck their fingers into their ears and stamp their feet turning around while chanting LaLaLaLaLaLALALALALAAAAAA.

Races such as the JCGC are considered major barometers for American HOY. We know the other races you mentioned do not. Was there any reason of which you are aware for RA to avoid JCGC? Or the Belmont Stakes? We know why RA avoided BCC, at least those stated by Jackson.

Why did Moss not contest Zen in the major open company races in California Like the Hollywood Gold Cup this year or last? That would of went far in laminating her as HOTY. One race does not trump a better year on the track.

So is that it? Of all the races you can't find one as important as BCC in determining HOY? I think everybody knew this already.

So if LAL, QR or Blame win the BCC... your saying they Should Win HOTY.... Rrright. ;)

[Cardus]

PA, how dare you! Irrational and Zenyatta in the same sentence? It can't be! Take, for instance, this Internet Land poster, Leonard, who has everything in perspective:

Posted by: Leonard, Inglewood, CA on October 28, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Did anyone get a chance to sign the banner that Hollywood Park put up for Zenyatta's legion of fan's to sign, it will be on display at Churchill for all the folks at Churchill can see the support Zenyatta rolls into town with, if you all get a chance go check it out, by the way I signed next to Mike Smith, he signed the banner first and I went second, Oh what a treat that was. ZENYATTA DUCKS NO-ONE NOR DOES SHE DUCK TRACK CONDITION'S. I hope this helps you all that are concerned with your what if's.

[thaskalos]

Who is stopping you?Typical response from you...

After you have repeatedly complained about how we don't need any more Zenyatta argument-inducing threads, you start exactly that type of thread...so you can now proceed to aggravate us "Zenyatturds" with your biting sarcasm.

[Pick6]

I'm sorry but I've read though this and you give the impression of a person who has stuck their fingers into their ears and stamp their feet turning around while chanting LaLaLaLaLaLALALALALAAAAAA.
Maybe you can elaborate on this. I simply brought out facts. Was there a fact you are trying to dispute? I don't really know what the above means if you are trying be lucid and make some kind of point.
Why did Moss not contest Zen in the major open company races in California Like the Hollywood Gold Cup this year or last? That would of went far in laminating her as HOTY. One race does not trump a better year on the track.
I forgot the 2009 BCC was an open race held at Santa Anita. I thought we all agreed about why this race was so important.
So if LAL, QR or Blame win the BCC... your saying they Should Win HOTY.... Rrright. ;)
When did I ever say Zenyatta deserves HOY based on her campaign so far? If she wins, obvious HOY. If she finishes a close 2nd or 3rd, maybe. Anything less, probably not. Who gets HOY I am not sure. If some longshot wins, it's a grab bag. It has been a VERY weak year for older horses.

[tucker6]

Again, I don't necessarily agree with the logic but her poor 2010 campaign cannot improve her standing amongst the greats.I certainly believe you agree with the logic, however flawed. Otherwise, you wouldn't have brought it up. No one ever called RA "among the greats". Please link where this was said. Many have called Zenyatta not only among the great, but the greatest. Do you see where that insane statement may ruffle a couple feathers. Zenyatta is not within a country mile of being the greatest of all time. And don't for a minute tell me that some kook said it and not you, because everytime someone does say it, I never see a Zenyatta promoter on here telling that person to put the liquor bottle down. It's asinine.

[PaceAdvantage]

Typical response from you...

After you have repeatedly complained about how we don't need any more Zenyatta argument-inducing threads, you start exactly that type of thread...so you can now proceed to aggravate us "Zenyatturds" with your biting sarcasm.I take it your answer was "nobody is stopping me, I simply enjoy participating in the very threads I profess to look upon with disdain."

And there are no typical responses from me... :lol:

[Pick6]

I certainly believe you agree with the logic, however flawed. Otherwise, you wouldn't have brought it up. No one ever called RA "among the greats". Please link where this was said. Many have called Zenyatta not only among the great, but the greatest. Do you see where that insane statement may ruffle a couple feathers. Zenyatta is not within a country mile of being the greatest of all time. And don't for a minute tell me that some kook said it and not you, because everytime someone does say it, I never see a Zenyatta promoter on here telling that person to put the liquor bottle down. It's asinine.
Ok. How many 3YO fillies have won HOY? I cannot recall one. If this alone does not put RA amongst the greats I don't know what does. I put her campaign in the top 5 of all 3YO fillies ever. Is she top 20? Obviously not. Top 100? I'd say she is close enough to that bar. If the vote were held after her 2009 Woodward, she definitely gets voted in top 100. If I feel that way, I am certain that other horse racing historians feel that way as well.

I don't really care what other people post about Zenyatta. I don't police the threads. I have stated my positions and I will defend them. If she wins 2010 BCC she belongs in the top 50. That is my position and I will defend it. I am sure you can cite some post that claims she is as good as Secretariat or Man o' War or whatever. Why bother responding to that nonsense? Even if she were, I recognize her campaigns would never earn her that right to be in that league. But top 50 is certainly well within her reach.

Maybe your definition of "greats" is top 10 or top 20. I think being recognized in the top 100 is not too shabby. That is what I am talking about when I say "great".

[tucker6]

Ok. How many 3YO fillies have won HOY? I cannot recall one. If this alone does not put RA amongst the greats I don't know what does. I put her campaign in the top 5 of all 3YO fillies ever. Is she top 20? Obviously not. Top 100? I'd say she is close enough to that bar. If the vote were held after her 2009 Woodward, she definitely gets voted in top 100. If I feel that way, I am certain that other horse racing historians feel that way as well.

I don't really care what other people post about Zenyatta. I don't police the threads. I have stated my positions and I will defend them. If she wins 2010 BCC she belongs in the top 50. That is my position and I will defend it. I am sure you can cite some post that claims she is as good as Secretariat or Man o' War or whatever. Why bother responding to that nonsense? Even if she were, I recognize her campaigns would never earn her that right to be in that league. But top 50 is certainly well within her reach.

Maybe your definition of "greats" is top 10 or top 20. I think being recognized in the top 100 is not too shabby. That is what I am talking about when I say "great".Fair enough. My definition is Top 20 for greats.

[thaskalos]

I take it your answer was "nobody is stopping me, I simply enjoy participating in the very threads I profess to look upon with disdain."

And there are no typical responses from me... :lol:Disdain is your word, not mine.

I enjoy participating in the arguments as much as you do; it's just that my style is a little different than yours. I don't particularly like going through a person's entire lengthy post just so I can find one sentence to disagree and comment on. I much prefer to comment on the content of the entire post.

To each his own I guess...

The only reason I would want these arguments to end is because they have gone on too long, and they are getting terribly repetitive.


P.S. As far as your atypical responses are concerned...you are not as unpredictable as you think you are.

[Grits]

Mike/PA, as much as I care about you, and as hard as you work keeping this place running, I apologize. I should not have termed PA a cesspool. I'm sorry for having done so.

This thread, too--is yet another back and forth on Zenyatta--having now become the only horse in thoroughbred racing it seems. I don't know why anyone is bothering to show up for Breeders' Cup. The whole organization has even made the stupid mistake of billing the entire two day event around this one racehorse. Do I get it? No I don't because, frankly, I think its the stupidest marketing decision I've seen in some time. Heralding her as a champion coming back to defend last year's win, yes, indeed. But building an entire event around only her? No. Bad decision.

I'm tired of all the threads, every single word and paragraph picked apart. For a long while, I tried, I worked at putting up new threads, those that might interest everyone regarding all the horses, as well as other things of interest within the industry--but forget it, not any more. None of its appreciated. There's little care because everyone's too busy arguing over this mare. And of course, because of this--I can choose to not post, to not read any of it (a good deal of which I have resorted to), or I can removed myself from the site. But I don't want to because I care about this place, and I care deeply about horseracing.

All in all, though, it may have been a good idea to limit the number of threads that were Zenyatta based, or that spiraled downward into another pissing match. After a long while, months and months, what in the hell is new--how many more ways can one phrase their opinion? If there was a thread about Rachel Alexandra--it never remained so--Zenyatta folks were all over those too.

It has been OVERLOAD, STRAIGHTWIRED TO THE MAX--some of which we may have been better off without. Much of which has probably been fodder for every inept turf writer/columnist that has trotted out "his or her" qualified opinion.

For me to call the site, a cesspool, again, I was out of line. And I am terribly sorry. You've worked too hard for me to say something this wrong, though, it was said too quickly in anger and disgust.

As I said, I'll just be mighty glad when her race is done come Saturday afternoon, November 6th. Win or lose.

[horses4courses]

I've been away for a while....just seeing this thread for the first time.

As far as irrationality goes, Zenyatta detractors are just as guilty as her fans.

On the evening of Nov 6th, one camp gets the bragging rights, like it, or not.

[BluegrassProf]

As far as irrationality goes, Zenyatta detractors are just as guilty as her fans.GAAAAH.

I'm begging you - from one real-life person to another - please stop using the term "her detractors." For the vast majority (those you include by default in the term), it's nonsense.

Now, if you want to label the critiques re: those who make the decisions, that's a whole 'notha story...

[Cratos]

Simple Question: How many posters on the forum took time out to go the racetrack and see either Rachel Alexandra or Zenyatta run? If you did, you will probably have a different opinion about either horse.

Although I was at the Derby last year, I missed seeing Rachel run in the Oaks and I don’t go to Pimilco for any race; therefore I missed seeing her race in person.

However the Mother Goose was my live coming out party for Rachel and what a party it was. It allowed me to see her totally different than I had anticipated and later I would be in person to see her run in the Woodward and the Personal Ensign.

I have only seen Zenyatta run once in person and that was last year’s BC Classic and I will rank her performance in that race with any which I have even seen; and to mention a few that I saw would be the Dr. Fager/Damascus rivalry, all of Ghostzapper races (except his BC Classic), the Alydar/Affirmed rivalry, and Secretariat’s spectacular Belmont win.

I not saying that you must see every race by an alleged “great” horse to have an informed opinion, but I am saying that if you have the opportunity to be in person to see the horse run you should do it because it will probably give you a different perspective about the horse.

[Tom]

I never saw either in person.
The Rockies are too high - I get nose-bleeds, and RA totally ducked all the stakes races at Finger Lakes this year. Even on alleged dirt!

But I enjoyed both of them on TV.

[cj]

Simple Question: How many posters on the forum took time out to go the racetrack and see either Rachel Alexandra or Zenyatta run? If you did, you will probably have a different opinion about either horse.



I did, but it doesn't change my opinion. It probably cemented it.

[JustRalph]

Simple Question: How many posters on the forum took time out to go the racetrack and see either Rachel Alexandra or Zenyatta run? If you did, you will probably have a different opinion about either horse.

Nope. For me it's not about the horses. I like em both. I just hate the way they campaigned Z. It was like electricity.......always the path of least resistance.

I love watching both of them run. I think Z is an incredible specimen. I still don't think they have gotten to the bottom on her. Because they haven't tried. They were too busy keeping her safe. Now she is too old to be at her peak, but is still dazzling to watch. I just admire the 2009 Campaign of Rachel and the performances she put in, much much more than what Z did.

The way Rachel runs, style wise, and the 2009 campaign make her a great one. Where she fits, who knows. It's all subjective. But I say she fits above a Z because of the way Z was campaigned. The connections blew it.

[Cardus]

Simple Question: How many posters on the forum took time out to go the racetrack and see either Rachel Alexandra or Zenyatta run? If you did, you will probably have a different opinion about either horse.

Although I was at the Derby last year, I missed seeing Rachel run in the Oaks and I don’t go to Pimilco for any race; therefore I missed seeing her race in person.

However the Mother Goose was my live coming out party for Rachel and what a party it was. It allowed me to see her totally different than I had anticipated and later I would be in person to see her run in the Woodward and the Personal Ensign.

I have only seen Zenyatta run once in person and that was last year’s BC Classic and I will rank her performance in that race with any which I have even seen; and to mention a few that I saw would be the Dr. Fager/Damascus rivalry, all of Ghostzapper races (except his BC Classic), the Alydar/Affirmed rivalry, and Secretariat’s spectacular Belmont win.

I not saying that you must see every race by an alleged “great” horse to have an informed opinion, but I am saying that if you have the opportunity to be in person to see the horse run you should do it because it will probably give you a different perspective about the horse.

To mention Zenyatta's Classic win with Secretariat's legendary Belmont Stakes almighty runaway win allows me -- or any rational human being -- to ask:

Simple question: Is your sign-on name Cratos because there is a crater where your brain used to be?

Seriously, are you out of your mind?

There are a bunch of Breeders' Cup Classic wins that are more impressive than hers last year.

[Cardus]

Mike/PA, as much as I care about you, and as hard as you work keeping this place running, I apologize. I should not have termed PA a cesspool. I'm sorry for having done so.

This thread, too--is yet another back and forth on Zenyatta--having now become the only horse in thoroughbred racing it seems. I don't know why anyone is bothering to show up for Breeders' Cup. The whole organization has even made the stupid mistake of billing the entire two day event around this one racehorse. Do I get it? No I don't because, frankly, I think its the stupidest marketing decision I've seen in some time. Heralding her as a champion coming back to defend last year's win, yes, indeed. But building an entire event around only her? No. Bad decision.

I'm tired of all the threads, every single word and paragraph picked apart. For a long while, I tried, I worked at putting up new threads, those that might interest everyone regarding all the horses, as well as other things of interest within the industry--but forget it, not any more. None of its appreciated. There's little care because everyone's too busy arguing over this mare. And of course, because of this--I can choose to not post, to not read any of it (a good deal of which I have resorted to), or I can removed myself from the site. But I don't want to because I care about this place, and I care deeply about horseracing.

All in all, though, it may have been a good idea to limit the number of threads that were Zenyatta based, or that spiraled downward into another pissing match. After a long while, months and months, what in the hell is new--how many more ways can one phrase their opinion? If there was a thread about Rachel Alexandra--it never remained so--Zenyatta folks were all over those too.

It has been OVERLOAD, STRAIGHTWIRED TO THE MAX--some of which we may have been better off without. Much of which has probably been fodder for every inept turf writer/columnist that has trotted out "his or her" qualified opinion.

For me to call the site, a cesspool, again, I was out of line. And I am terribly sorry. You've worked too hard for me to say something this wrong, though, it was said too quickly in anger and disgust.

As I said, I'll just be mighty glad when her race is done come Saturday afternoon, November 6th. Win or lose.

You sound exhausted, Grits.

Get a good night's rest, and don't let the Zenyatta craziness get to you. Even Cratos' post.

[tucker6]

To mention Zenyatta's Classic win with Secretariat's legendary Belmont Stakes almighty runaway win allows me -- or any rational human being -- to ask:

Simple question: Is your sign-on name Cratos because there is a crater where your brain used to be?

Seriously, are you out of your mind?

There are a bunch of Breeders' Cup Classic wins that are more impressive than hers last year.

Agree. And Grits wonders about the insanity on this forum...

The 2009 BCC was good, but just good. It wasn't great, nor was it the best G1 race in 2009. STS and RA had better wins/races, and they were just good as well. Can we have everyone go to their dictionary and look up the definition of great so we use it less in conversation?

[Cardus]

Simple Question: How many posters on the forum took time out to go the racetrack and see either Rachel Alexandra or Zenyatta run? If you did, you will probably have a different opinion about either horse.

Although I was at the Derby last year, I missed seeing Rachel run in the Oaks and I don’t go to Pimilco for any race; therefore I missed seeing her race in person.

However the Mother Goose was my live coming out party for Rachel and what a party it was. It allowed me to see her totally different than I had anticipated and later I would be in person to see her run in the Woodward and the Personal Ensign.

I have only seen Zenyatta run once in person and that was last year’s BC Classic and I will rank her performance in that race with any which I have even seen; and to mention a few that I saw would be the Dr. Fager/Damascus rivalry, all of Ghostzapper races (except his BC Classic), the Alydar/Affirmed rivalry, and Secretariat’s spectacular Belmont win.

I not saying that you must see every race by an alleged “great” horse to have an informed opinion, but I am saying that if you have the opportunity to be in person to see the horse run you should do it because it will probably give you a different perspective about the horse.

And another thing: if you're from New York -- most genuine New Yorkers do not call it the Big Apple -- you've laid waste to the notion (or myth?) that New Yorkers are sophisticated thinkers.

One post, and you've ruined it for the rest of us.

Zenyatta's Breeders' Cup Classic win in the same class as Secretariat's Belmont Stakes win?

C'mon bro!

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not going to apologize for creating this thread, because I don't feel a need. I had a reaction to what was written in the most recent issue of HP magazine and I wanted to share that with everyone here. That's what this board is about. Sharing thoughts, ideas and opinions about racing.

The title of this thread clearly states what it is going to be about. For those who have been highly critical of me in starting this thread, and indeed with the multitude of Zenyatta posts and threads here recently, you could have easily avoided this thread (as well as most of the other Z threads) altogether. It should not have been any surprise to you what this thread was going to be about.

Thus, I have to ask those who have complained in this thread...why couldn't you have simply moved onto another thread if this one didn't interest you?

And yes, I will be closing this thread very shortly, because I can see we're headed down another repetitive path with Cratos' recent comments and Cardus' thrashing follow-up (where, in my opinion, there was absolutely NO REASON for including the insults you did Cardus...you disagree with Cratos...great...but for crying out loud, TONE IT DOWN ALREADY...I don't know how many times I have to state this before it starts to sink in...)

[Cardus]

Agree. And Grits wonders about the insanity on this forum...

The 2009 BCC was good, but just good. It wasn't great, nor was it the best G1 race in 2009. STS and RA had better wins/races, and they were just good as well. Can we have everyone go to their dictionary and look up the definition of great so we use it less in conversation?

There might be two reasons why people have been overcome by her Classic win:

1) Zenyatta has been a crusade for over a year;

2) Denman's call: "THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I think people got carried away by what they heard, not what they saw (or what actually happened).

If her win was "UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", then why was she such a low-price on the tote? She closed on a surface conducive to closers. It was a wonderful, historic win. Ain't no Secretariat... or Affirmed... or Dr.Fager, etc.

[Cardus]

I'm not going to apologize for creating this thread, because I don't feel a need. I had a reaction to what was written in the most recent issue of HP magazine and I wanted to share that with everyone here. That's what this board is about. Sharing thoughts, ideas and opinions about racing.

The title of this thread clearly states what it is going to be about. For those who have been highly critical of me in starting this thread, and indeed with the multitude of Zenyatta posts and threads here recently, you could have easily avoided this thread (as well as most of the other Z threads) altogether. It should not have been any surprise to you what this thread was going to be about.

Thus, I have to ask those who have complained in this thread...why couldn't you have simply moved onto another thread if this one didn't interest you?

And yes, I will be closing this thread very shortly, because I can see we're headed down another repetitive path with Cratos' recent comments and Cardus' thrashing follow-up (where, in my opinion, there was absolutely NO REASON for including the insults you did Cardus...you disagree with Cratos...great...but for crying out loud, TONE IT DOWN ALREADY...I don't know how many times I have to state this before it starts to sink in...)

Are there no ideas that are so beyond ridiculous...

PA, it's not like I jumped on him for a vigorous Affirmed/Alydar debate, or Sunday Silence/Easy Goer debate, etc.

SECRETARIAT!

[KingChas]

. Sharing thoughts, ideas and opinions about racing.




Probably get deleted again.
But why the stereotype with the the thread title?
If we are sharing thoughts, ideas and opinions about horseracing?
Then why do all Zenyatta fans have scrambled brains besides being irrational?
IMHO is nothing but flamethrowing.
Being honest with no disrespect. ;)
It's hard to make a rational ,reply, with a moderater who is very biased on this subject.

[PaceAdvantage]

Are there no ideas that are so beyond ridiculous...

PA, it's not like I jumped on him for a vigorous Affirmed/Alydar debate, or Sunday Silence/Easy Goer debate, etc.

SECRETARIAT!It's not that difficult to understand. Disagreement is perfectly acceptable. This is not:

Simple question: Is your sign-on name Cratos because there is a crater where your brain used to be?

Seriously, are you out of your mind? At some point, I have to put the brakes on this free-for-all.

[KingChas]

2) Denman's call: "THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"






Listen to Durkin's Cigar call.

[PaceAdvantage]

Probably get deleted again.
But why the stereotype with the the thread title?
If we are sharing thoughts, ideas and opinions about horseracing?
Then why do all Zenyatta fans have scrambled brains besides being irrational?
IMHO is nothing but flamethrowing.
Being honest with no disrespect. ;)
It's hard to make a rational ,reply, with a moderater who is very biased on this subject.I didn't delete your last post, but I also didn't disagree with the reasoning behind the deletion.

As for this reply, I never stated all Zenyatta fans have scrambled brains. For instance, I am a fan of Zenyatta. I do not consider my brain scrambled.

What I am referring to is this SINGULAR incident of which I wrote about right here in this thread.

Not sure how this is so hard to see.

[KingChas]

I didn't delete your last post, but I also didn't disagree with the reasoning behind the deletion.

As for this reply, I never stated all Zenyatta fans have scrambled brains. For instance, I am a fan of Zenyatta. I do not consider my brain scrambled.



No vulgarity in the post ,no names mentioned, purely platonic post.
Nothing Grit's(less cesspool) or CJ's Dad...Tom and yourself haven't said before.
Very Rational.Made sense.
Wrong poster I guess.......... ;) Good Nite

[PaceAdvantage]

No vulgarity in the post ,no names mentioned, purely platonic post.
Nothing Grit's(less cesspool) or CJ's Dad...Tom and yourself haven't said before.
Very Rational.Made sense.
Wrong poster I guess.......... ;) Good NiteRight. We're all just picking on you because you're not part of the "in-crowd."

Whatever.

[horses4courses]

GAAAAH.

I'm begging you - from one real-life person to another - please stop using the term "her detractors." For the vast majority (those you include by default in the term), it's nonsense.

Now, if you want to label the critiques re: those who make the decisions, that's a whole 'notha story...

Those that I refer to as her "detractors" pertains to those who devalue her wins due to poor time figures in comparison to other top horses.

I believe that there is more to horse racing than numbers, and that the mare's style of racing does not lend itself to 120+ Beyers.
Should a number of horses wish to set out at a world record pace, say for a 10 furlong race on any surface, she could run 120 Beyers, I believe, if asked to.
Trouble is, those that run against her, regardless of class, know the best way of beating her is to set out slow. Yet, they still can't beat her.
In every race she has run, she has been the fastest horse from point A to B.

I understand, also, the distinction between those who criticize her performance level, and those who don't like her connections due to a lack of ambition during her 2010 campaign.
Should Zenyatta win on Nov 6th, I believe that her connections got everything just right on the lead up to the 2010 BCC.
Defeat, however, would rightly raise questions about their play calling in 2010.
Win or lose, though, she is a fine mare who has been a pleasure to watch.

[BluegrassProf]

Those that I refer to as her "detractors" pertains to those who devalue her wins due to poor time figures in comparison to other top horses.This is a really nice sentiment and all, but in fact, this isn't what you mean (and it's not just you, certainly) - you and others might well *understand* the distinction, but you certainly don't recognize or apply it in the dialogue. I, for one, have criticized the campaign almost exclusively, yet I'm labeled a "detractor" with impressive regularity...think I'm just an outlier?

Besides, even if you are referring only to those who critique speed figures etc., the term is STILL an term of overgeneralization...there are far more mature-sounding ways to deal with critique than to simply toss out blanket labels. It dumbs the conversation down.

As if it needed any help. :bang:

[horses4courses]

This is a really nice sentiment and all, but in fact, this isn't what you mean (and it's not just you, certainly) - you and others might well *understand* the distinction, but you certainly don't recognize or apply it in the dialogue. I, for one, have criticized the campaign almost exclusively, yet I'm labeled a "detractor" with impressive regularity...think I'm just an outlier?

Besides, even if you are referring only to those who critique speed figures etc., the term is STILL an term of overgeneralization...there are far more mature-sounding ways to deal with critique than to simply toss out blanket labels. It dumbs the conversation down.

As if it needed any help. :bang:

I have had my fill of all things Zenyatta until after the race on Nov 6th.
There just isn't any new ground to cover before then.
Enjoy the race, everyone.........

[thaskalos]

This is a really nice sentiment and all, but in fact, this isn't what you mean (and it's not just you, certainly) - you and others might well *understand* the distinction, but you certainly don't recognize or apply it in the dialogue. I, for one, have criticized the campaign almost exclusively, yet I'm labeled a "detractor" with impressive regularity...think I'm just an outlier?

Besides, even if you are referring only to those who critique speed figures etc., the term is STILL an term of overgeneralization...there are far more mature-sounding ways to deal with critique than to simply toss out blanket labels. It dumbs the conversation down.

As if it needed any help. :bang:Oh c'mon Professor...Zenyatta fans have been called names much worse than "critics" and "detractors", and you haven't raised your voice in THEIR defense even once. Don't words like "zealots", "idol-worshipers", "Zenyatturds", etc, dumb down the conversation?

When people compare Zenyatta's record with that of Peppers Pride...when they say that the horse will get "drowned" in the Classic...when they declare that she is somehow "bad for racing", or that she is "a good horse, but nothing special" - all of which have been repeatedly stated on this board - are we to assume that these people are only expressing their dissatisfaction with Zenyatta's connections...and that "detractors" is too vulgar a word to use to describe them?

[Steve R]

Oh c'mon Professor...Zenyatta fans have been called names much worse than "critics" and "detractors", and you haven't raised your voice in THEIR defense even once. Don't words like "zealots", "idol-worshipers", "Zenyatturds", etc, dumb down the conversation?

When people compare Zenyatta's record with that of Peppers Pride...when they say that the horse will get "drowned" in the Classic...when they declare that she is somehow "bad for racing", or that she is "a good horse, but nothing special" - all of which have been repeatedly stated on this board - are we to assume that these people are only expressing their dissatisfaction with Zenyatta's connections...and that "detractors" is too vulgar a word to use to describe them?
Comparisons to Peppers Pride simply illustrate that a horse doesn't have to be "fast" to win 19 straight, only faster than the horses it is competing against. If some people believe the horses Zenyatta has beaten are fast themselves and historically important then she, in their mind, is a "great". If others believe the horses she has beaten are slow and mediocre, then she isn't. Her connections have absolutely no bearing on a rational assessment of her quality. They certainly don't go out of their way to make her run slower than she can. IMO, what you see is what you get. Rationalizing slow times just doesn't cut, and certainly not over an entire career. Winning in slow times also suggests that win/loss stats are easily overemphasized in a manner similar to lifetime earnings. Of course, some people care only about winning. Others care about how the wins are achieved.

[BluegrassProf]

Oh c'mon Professor...Zenyatta fans have been called names much worse than "critics" and "detractors", and you haven't raised your voice in THEIR defense even once. Don't words like "zealots", "idol-worshipers", "Zenyatturds", etc, dumb down the conversation?

When people compare Zenyatta's record with that of Peppers Pride...when they say that the horse will get "drowned" in the Classic...when they declare that she is somehow "bad for racing", or that she is "a good horse, but nothing special" - all of which have been repeatedly stated on this board - are we to assume that these people are only expressing their dissatisfaction with Zenyatta's connections...and that "detractors" is too vulgar a word to use to describe them?I don't expect him to come to anyone's defense, not even once. Nowhere have I suggested such a thing. I've simply requested that he (and certainly others...this is an equal opportunity request, no doubt) not perpetuate the trend toward driving the conversation to its lowest common denominator. Is this clear? Why on earth would you be opposed to such a thing? Is citing others' sweeping and inappropriate labelling - which something like "Zenyatturds" most certainly is - really an effective defense of your own? Does that strike you as a logical argument? Not that all critiques are sweeping and inappropriate, mind you...

I myself have made the snide "Zourette's" reference on two occasions, and despite my efforts to apply them to specific individuals and those exhibiting comparable compulsions of very specific commentary (which was my intent at the time), poor efforts to that end meant that it was at the end of the day a largely inapropriate comment. It's ok to admit that you've made a mistake.

Perhaps more importantly for its purpose, the term "her detractors" is increasingly devoid of meaning - it simply feeds into this whole dopey "us vs. them" mentality that dominates the dialogue. That this is something you feel should be openly supported strikes me as absurd.

Random outbursts of idiocy aside, this conversation can be more mature. Certainly can't go too far the other way.

[Tom]

there are far more mature-sounding ways to deal with critique than to simply toss out blanket labels.

You mean like Zenyaturds? :D

[thaskalos]

Comparisons to Peppers Pride simply illustrate that a horse doesn't have to be "fast" to win 19 straight, only faster than the horses it is competing against. If some people believe the horses Zenyatta has beaten are fast themselves and historically important then she, in their mind, is a "great". If others believe the horses she has beaten are slow and mediocre, then she isn't. Her connections have absolutely no bearing on a rational assessment of her quality. They certainly don't go out of their way to make her run slower than she can. IMO, what you see is what you get. Rationalizing slow times just doesn't cut, and certainly not over an entire career. Winning in slow times also suggests that win/loss stats are easily overemphasized in a manner similar to lifetime earnings. Of course, some people care only about winning. Others care about how the wins are achieved.Perhaps you should become better acquainted with the meaning of the word "great" Steve...and then maybe we can debate about whether Zenyatta deserves to be labeled as such or not.

If winning 19 straight races, and 14 (even restricted) Grade 1s is not "great"...why hasn't this feat been repeated with regularity? Where are the other Zenyatta "look-alikes" in today's game?

She gets criticized for running on a surface that favors her late-running style...well, the turf favors stretch runners too...do you know of any Grade 1 undefeated turf runners or synthetic runners around...or is Zenyatta the only one to benefit from the generosities of these "deeply biased" surfaces?

And since you are obviously such a well informed person...would you tell me if there exists any evidence whatsoever to suggest that it is easier to maintain a long winning streak on synthetics than it is on the dirt?

[FenceBored]

Oh c'mon Professor...Zenyatta fans have been called names much worse than "critics" and "detractors", and you haven't raised your voice in THEIR defense even once. Don't words like "zealots", "idol-worshipers", "Zenyatturds", etc, dumb down the conversation?

When people compare Zenyatta's record with that of Peppers Pride...when they say that the horse will get "drowned" in the Classic...when they declare that she is somehow "bad for racing", or that she is "a good horse, but nothing special" - all of which have been repeatedly stated on this board - are we to assume that these people are only expressing their dissatisfaction with Zenyatta's connections...and that "detractors" is too vulgar a word to use to describe them?

Frankly, at this point I'd say that you've used the manure related designator (see, I'm not even going to repeat it) more than anybody else. That's a sign it might be time to let it go.

"Idol worshipers?" What?! When was that one used? Isn't that the term used for overzealous fans of American Idol?

As for zealot, well, that's a perfectly good word (even starts with a "Z"). What's wrong with it? I'd say PA is a Holy Bull zealot. And who knows who DaHoss9698 is a zealot for.

[GaryG]

I won't look at the race in detail for a few more days, but it looks like the classic might offer some real value. I just hope all of the Zenyatta faithful put their $$ in the pools. Or maybe they are all talk and no bet. "Drown" may be an unpleasant term to some, but it is legitimately used in this context. I wish the big mare a long life and pleasant retirement.

[cj]

I won't look at the race in detail for a few more days, but it looks like the classic might offer some real value. I just hope all of the Zenyatta faithful put their $$ in the pools. Or maybe they are all talk and no bet. "Drown" may be an unpleasant term to some, but it is legitimately used in this context. I wish the big mare a long life and pleasant retirement.

Most Zenyatta fans don't bet.

[thaskalos]

Most Zenyatta fans don't bet.We used to bet...but our bankrolls have depleated due to our faulty judgement.

[Steve R]

Perhaps you should become better acquainted with the meaning of the word "great" Steve...and then maybe we can debate about whether Zenyatta deserves to be labeled as such or not.

If winning 19 straight races, and 14 (even restricted) Grade 1s is not "great"...why hasn't this feat been repeated with regularity? Where are the other Zenyatta "look-alikes" in today's game?

She gets criticized for running on a surface that favors her late-running style...well, the turf favors stretch runners too...do you know of any Grade 1 undefeated turf runners or synthetic runners around...or is Zenyatta the only one to benefit from the generosities of these "deeply biased" surfaces?

And since you are obviously such a well informed person...would you tell me if there exists any evidence whatsoever to suggest that it is easier to maintain a long winning streak on synthetics than it is on the dirt?
Consecutive wins (and for that matter, an undefeated record) would be among my least important factors in determining greatness. If they really were that significant then you could eliminate horses like Assault (18 of 42), Equipoise (29 of 51), Exterminator (50 of 99), Forego (34 of 57), Gallant Fox (11 of 17), John Henry (39 of 83), Kelso (39 of 63), Lady's Secret (25 of 45), Omaha (9 of 22), Round Table (43 of 66), Seabiscuit (33 of 89), Shuvee (16 of 46), Sir Barton (13 of 31), Skip Away (18 of 38) and Whirlaway (32 of 60) from consideration. There isn't a horse among these that I wouldn't rather have owned than Zenyatta. IMO her record and win streak, while admirable, have been manipulated by avoiding serious challenges. A large number of her "Grade 1" wins are embarrassing if not fraudulent. But that's what you get when you assign a G1 label to a race months before it is run and without knowing the field. And I couldn't care less about what surface she runs on. Slow is still slow...dirt, turf or AWS. There are plenty of late-running turf horses both in North America and Europe that have won in record times over the years. And if you examine the charts, you will see that Raven's Pass' BC Classic is a virtual duplication of Zenyatta's (except he was wider around both turns). When she won it was "unbelievable". When he won the response was "what happened to Curlin"? To me Zenyatta has had the most over-hyped, under-performing career of a major horse in recent memory. If she wins the Classic by open lengths in two minutes or less, I will be more than happy to revise my opinion.

[Cratos]

I'm not going to apologize for creating this thread, because I don't feel a need. I had a reaction to what was written in the most recent issue of HP magazine and I wanted to share that with everyone here. That's what this board is about. Sharing thoughts, ideas and opinions about racing.

The title of this thread clearly states what it is going to be about. For those who have been highly critical of me in starting this thread, and indeed with the multitude of Zenyatta posts and threads here recently, you could have easily avoided this thread (as well as most of the other Z threads) altogether. It should not have been any surprise to you what this thread was going to be about.

Thus, I have to ask those who have complained in this thread...why couldn't you have simply moved onto another thread if this one didn't interest you?

And yes, I will be closing this thread very shortly, because I can see we're headed down another repetitive path with Cratos' recent comments and Cardus' thrashing follow-up (where, in my opinion, there was absolutely NO REASON for including the insults you did Cardus...you disagree with Cratos...great...but for crying out loud, TONE IT DOWN ALREADY...I don't know how many times I have to state this before it starts to sink in...)

PA, I wasn’t offended by “Cardus” reply because it is apparent to me from both of his posts that he has a difficult time reading and a even more difficult time comprehending. I made a qualitative personal statement; not a specific comparative statement when I mentioned Secretariat’s Belmont in my prior post. For the record the following is what I wrote:

I have only seen Zenyatta run once in person and that was last year’s BC Classic and I will rank her performance in that race with any which I have even seen; and to mention a few that I saw would be the Dr. Fager/Damascus rivalry, all of Ghostzapper races (except his BC Classic), the Alydar/Affirmed rivalry, and Secretariat’s spectacular Belmont win.


The salient statement is “I will rank her performance in that race with any which I have even seen (I is used as the singular personal pronoun)” and that statement neither by inference or implication said that Zenyatta’s performance was equal to Secretariat’s, but it does say that it was one the best performance which I have seen.

I am quite sure that there are many posters who have seen races which they might deem superior to Zenyatta’s 2009 BC Classic and that is okay with me because what we are speaking about is preference or personal taste which will always be individual.

However for “Cardus” to post a second reply left me wondering if he did not have anything else to do with his time.

[bisket]

personally i think zen is a very fast race horse, but what seals the deal is her dance moves. i think this moves her up considerably if she finds a good partner during the prerace opening dance number.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFrGuyw1V8s&ob=av3n
i know disco sucks, but zenyatta brings out irrational choices in song also....

[Tom]

She is auditioning partners this week.
Must be able to dance and have posted here in the last month! :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0GWIOjCyw0

[bisket]

the partner she needs is a prince in a box to give her supporters some financial relief....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij-jM8CcQIQ

[FenceBored]

We used to bet...but our bankrolls have depleated due to our faulty judgement.

I thought that was just Only11.

[Cardus]

PA, I wasn’t offended by “Cardus” reply because it is apparent to me from both of his posts that he has a difficult time reading and a even more difficult time comprehending. I made a qualitative personal statement; not a specific comparative statement when I mentioned Secretariat’s Belmont in my prior post. For the record the following is what I wrote:

I have only seen Zenyatta run once in person and that was last year’s BC Classic and I will rank her performance in that race with any which I have even seen; and to mention a few that I saw would be the Dr. Fager/Damascus rivalry, all of Ghostzapper races (except his BC Classic), the Alydar/Affirmed rivalry, and Secretariat’s spectacular Belmont win.


The salient statement is “I will rank her performance in that race with any which I have even seen (I is used as the singular personal pronoun)” and that statement neither by inference or implication said that Zenyatta’s performance was equal to Secretariat’s, but it does say that it was one the best performance which I have seen.

I am quite sure that there are many posters who have seen races which they might deem superior to Zenyatta’s 2009 BC Classic and that is okay with me because what we are speaking about is preference or personal taste which will always be individual.

However for “Cardus” to post a second reply left me wondering if he did not have anything else to do with his time.

First, there are the Internet Land tricks of the trade: poster doesn't know how to read or to comprehend what he has read, and he has nothing else to do with his time. Tired stuff.

Second, I always get tripped up on other posters' "personal qualitative statements." Gets me every time.

You juxtaposed Zenyatta's 2009 Classic win with some of the titans of the sport, deeming that Zenyatta's performance was within the range of the horses whom you mentioned. That juxtaposition certainly implies that the performance is comparable. Moreover, your words are rather clear: "...I will rank her performance in that race with any I have even (sic) seen."

Zenyatta's win is not even in the same league as Secretariat's -- it might as well be a different sport in terms of quality -- and I believe that is a better argument to say so. Objectively, their not even close. As far as Affirmed vs. Alydar, let me see Zenyatta run hoof-to-hoof with another horse for one mile of a 1 1/2 classic race.

If you intended to say that you were asserting a personal feeling, then say so. Your presentation suggested otherwise, and explicitly so.

"I will rank her performance in that race with any I have even (sic) seen."

I am almost surprised that you thought another poster would not read it how I read it.

[tucker6]

First, there are the Internet Land tricks of the trade: poster doesn't know how to read or to comprehend what he has read, and he has nothing else to do with his time. Tired stuff.

Second, I always get tripped up on other posters' "personal qualitative statements." Gets me every time.

You juxtaposed Zenyatta's 2009 Classic win with some of the titans of the sport, deeming that Zenyatta's performance was within the range of the horses whom you mentioned. That juxtaposition certainly implies that the performance is comparable. Moreover, your words are rather clear: "...I will rank her performance in that race with any I have even (sic) seen."

Zenyatta's win is not even in the same league as Secretariat's -- it might as well be a different sport in terms of quality -- and I believe that is a better argument to say so. Objectively, their not even close. As far as Affirmed vs. Alydar, let me see Zenyatta run hoof-to-hoof with another horse for one mile of a 1 1/2 classic race.

If you intended to say that you were asserting a personal feeling, then say so. Your presentation suggested otherwise, and explicitly so.

"I will rank her performance in that race with any I have even (sic) seen."

I am almost surprised that you thought another poster would not read it how I read it.I read it how you read it. It wasn't close either.

[Steve R]

Arrgh...


SO what?!? Seriously...SO WHAT?!?

No one had ever won from the 20 post in the KD...but a horse DID win from there.

Things CHANGE. "Circumstances" change. Criteria shifts.

Perhaps there will come a time (unlikely, but not impossible) that the BC Classic will have little or NO bearing on the HOY...

...things change.
Let's hope so. The BC was supposed to increase public interest in racing but instead, public interest has seriously decreased over the years. In addition, the series has effectively destroyed the importance of decades-old traditional races, making them prep races instead of historical events. Having not achieved any of its goals, other than helping to make wealthy owners and breeders wealthier (redistribution of wealth being a very American trend these days), perhaps it's time to dump the whole idea and try to restore some variety back into the game. It can't come soon enough for me.

[gm10]

more irrationality?

“I think it will stamp her,” Lukas said. “If she whips them twice in a row in the Classic, I would have to say you'd have to mention her with the Spectacular Bids and Secretariats.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/more-sports/zenyatta-quest-headlines-breeders-cup/article1779258/page2/

[PaceAdvantage]

more irrationality?

“I think it will stamp her,” Lukas said. “If she whips them twice in a row in the Classic, I would have to say you'd have to mention her with the Spectacular Bids and Secretariats.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/more-sports/zenyatta-quest-headlines-breeders-cup/article1779258/page2/Why would you think anyone would classify this as irrational, on equal footing with the subject of the first thread of this post?

Not even close. It's quite rational BY COMPARISON, since Lukas is at least waiting for her to beat the best available horses on their preferred surface, something she has never done....

It didn't happen in 2009...that's for sure...

And I would disagree with Lukas. Unless she also runs very fast, I don't see how you can mention her with Spectacular Bid and Secretariat...as they would run super-sonic times on a regular basis, while Zenyatta has not even done so once.

But I wouldn't classify his comment as irrational...just incorrect (unless she happens to run a hole in the wind in one week).

[BluegrassProf]

You could also classify it as well-mannered and tasteful, given that he is a trainer being interview by turf media.

Call me crazy.

[keithw84]

I can understand comparisons between Zenyatta and Tiznow if she "whips them twice in a row," but to compare her to Secretariat or the Bid based on one race seems pretty extreme.

The problem with the emphasis on the Breeders Cup Classic is that people seem encouraged to make judgments of comparative greatness based on relatively few races.

[Cardus]

I can understand comparisons between Zenyatta and Tiznow if she "whips them twice in a row," but to compare her to Secretariat or the Bid based on one race seems pretty extreme.

The problem with the emphasis on the Breeders Cup Classic is that people seem encouraged to make judgments of comparative greatness based on relatively few races.

Yet another man who understands.

Ain't that difficult, no?

[gm10]

Why would you think anyone would classify this as irrational, on equal footing with the subject of the first thread of this post?

Not even close. It's quite rational BY COMPARISON, since Lukas is at least waiting for her to beat the best available horses on their preferred surface, something she has never done....

It didn't happen in 2009...that's for sure...

And I would disagree with Lukas. Unless she also runs very fast, I don't see how you can mention her with Spectacular Bid and Secretariat...as they would run super-sonic times on a regular basis, while Zenyatta has not even done so once.

But I wouldn't classify his comment as irrational...just incorrect (unless she happens to run a hole in the wind in one week).

Funny how you call one irrational and the other incorrect.
I'd call both personal opinions. You don't have to agree with them, but it's not like they are isolated options. But hey, I guess you get a busier thread doing it your way.

[RXB]

Let's hope so. The BC was supposed to increase public interest in racing but instead, public interest has seriously decreased over the years. In addition, the series has effectively destroyed the importance of decades-old traditional races, making them prep races instead of historical events. Having not achieved any of its goals, other than helping to make wealthy owners and breeders wealthier (redistribution of wealth being a very American trend these days), perhaps it's time to dump the whole idea and try to restore some variety back into the game. It can't come soon enough for me.

I agree.

[delayjf]

In 26 years, the Classic winner has been HOY 11 times. Rational people understand that to mean that the Classic is not the be-all end-all that others might like to believe.

I'd be curious to know how many HOY winners did not at least compete on BC day.

[RXB]

I'd be curious to know how many HOY winners did not at least compete on BC day.

I count eight of the 26 since the BC inception: John Henry, Spend A Buck, Criminal Type, Holy Bull, Charismatic, Point Given, Mineshaft, Rachel Alexandra.

[keithw84]

Yet another man who understands.

Ain't that difficult, no?

I would add that you can make judgments of brilliance, but not greatness. In running a sub-2 minute Derby, Monarchos showed the former. In running a sub-2 minute Derby in addition to many other incredible acheivements, Secretariat demonstrated the latter.

[PaceAdvantage]

Funny how you call one irrational and the other incorrect.
I'd call both personal opinions. You don't have to agree with them, but it's not like they are isolated options. But hey, I guess you get a busier thread doing it your way.What's wrong with a busy thread? Better than a ghost town.

[PaceAdvantage]

I count eight of the 26 since the BC inception: John Henry, Spend A Buck, Criminal Type, Holy Bull, Charismatic, Point Given, Mineshaft, Rachel Alexandra.Not exactly a list of chumps either...

[Cratos]

Let's hope so. The BC was supposed to increase public interest in racing but instead, public interest has seriously decreased over the years. In addition, the series has effectively destroyed the importance of decades-old traditional races, making them prep races instead of historical events. Having not achieved any of its goals, other than helping to make wealthy owners and breeders wealthier (redistribution of wealth being a very American trend these days), perhaps it's time to dump the whole idea and try to restore some variety back into the game. It can't come soon enough for me.


Steve, I agree with your post, but do you think racing can be revitalized without first being reorganized into an economic entity similar to MLB, NHL, NBA, and the NFL?

[Pick6]

I count eight of the 26 since the BC inception: John Henry, Spend A Buck, Criminal Type, Holy Bull, Charismatic, Point Given, Mineshaft, Rachel Alexandra.
Of these 8, half were unable to compete due to injury.

Spend a Buck skipped other big races in 1985, so not much of a surprise there.

Rachel Alexandra was shut down at the end of Summer.

[Steve R]

Steve, I agree with your post, but do you think racing can be revitalized without first being reorganized into an economic entity similar to MLB, NHL, NBA, and the NFL?
I haven't a clue about the most effective way to revitalize racing because competition for the sports and wagering dollar continues to grow. There certainly is no possibility of returning to the glory years when racing was pretty much the only game in town. That said, I would start by completely banning race day medication and imposing severe penalties for violations. I would reduce the number of venues and racing dates dramatically to increase both quality and demand. I would impose uniform racing rules throughout the U.S. with no exceptions and I would try to develop schedules that enhance the likelihood of the best horses facing one another. If it takes a professional team sport organization scheme to do it, that's fine with me.

[Stillriledup]

Case in point:

I'm reading my latest issue of Horseplayer Magazine, specifically the Editor's Note, by Editor Frank R. Scatoni. I'm not at all familiar with the name, but I will assume Mr. Scatoni has a pretty good knowledge of Thoroughbred racing, seeing as he is the Editor of HM.

Here is something he wrote that I could not believe:Phew...that was quite the lengthy sentence. Utterly irrational when you realize what you do in 2010 has no impact on the 2009 award. The 2009 award is for 2009 performances, and Rachel outperformed Zenyatta. Simple as that. Nothing done or not done by either runner in 2010 should have any impact on the legitimacy of the 2009 award. That's the bottom line, and that's how rational racing fans view the world.

But, just when you thought it couldn't get any better, a little further down the line, we get this gem (this was obviously written prior to RA's retirement):Zenyatta must translate somewhere into "Scrambled Brains"...can anyone check that out for me?


I don't think this is irrational behavior, its just normal behavior for someone who doesn't know the game all that well. Its only irrational if you think the guy was smart to begin with.