Bossert blames Z loss on schedule - I disagree

[Phantombridgejumpe]

Jerry Bossert (NY Daily News) says Smith wasn't at fault, the owners were.

She was fit.
She was ready.
She just didn't get by Blame.

I don't see how racing against boys during the year would have made her more ready to pass that horse.

PS: I don't fault Smith either, sometimes they just lose, I don't need to find fault with anyone.

[joanied]

None of it was Mike's fault...IMO, although I am a huge fan, Shirreff's made a mistake not taking her to CD early to get used to the surface, she needed a work over it.

[andymays]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2010/11/11/2010-11-11_the_day_at_the_races_november_11.html

Excerpt:

The blame falls squarely of the shoulders of her owners, Jerry and Ann Moss, along with trainer John Shirreffs, for keeping the mighty mare on such a conservative path, trying to keep her win streak alive, rather than trying to be the best by running with the best.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2010/11/11/2010-11-11_the_day_at_the_races_november_11.html#ixzz150Xk CPVH

[The_Knight_Sky]

If Zenyatta had raced against the boys and/or over dirt strips,
Mr. Sherriffs would have known how much speed to drill into her in the mornings.

You simply cannot train over synths and leave it to chance that
the training will translate to a superior performance on the dirt.

That's akin to a novice scholastic runner training almost exclusively
on the grassy park trails for a track meet. :faint:

[cj]

Here is what I think. She had the perfect pace scenario, a decent trip, and came up a little short. If they ran this race 10 times, I'm not sure she wins more than once or twice. Just about any other pace scenario and she in not beating Blame. With similar, maybe she nips him once or twice.

[cpitt84]

None of it was Mike's fault...IMO, although I am a huge fan, Shirreff's made a mistake not taking her to CD early to get used to the surface, she needed a work over it.

Definitely agree. :)

[ArlJim78]

I don't see any excuse that holds water. You can make the case it was her best ever performance. She simply got beat by a better horse that day.

[andymays]

I'm pretty sure the author is talking more about HOY than anything else.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2010/11/11/2010-11-11_the_day_at_the_races_november_11.html#ixzz150Xk CPVH

Excerpt:

Tears were shed, and many souvenir tickets to win on Zenyatta were thrown to the ground, but more than likely, she'll go another year without winning Horse of the Year.

[The_Knight_Sky]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2010/11/11/2010-11-11_the_day_at_the_races_november_11.html#ixzz150Xk CPVH




Mr. Bossert is in high form. :ThmbUp:
He expresses my sentiments exactly.



It's not her fault, and it's certainly not the fault of jockey Mike Smith.
The blame falls squarely of the shoulders of her owners, Jerry and Ann Moss, along with trainer John Shirreffs, for keeping the mighty mare on such a conservative path, trying to keep her win streak alive, rather than trying to be the best by running with the best.

In 2008, they had the chance to take on Curlin in the Breeders' Cup Classic, in her backyard over a synthetic track that Curlin obviously didn't care for, but passed before running the Ladies' Classic.

Last year, they raced her just five times, four times against her own sex in California before trying the Classic and prevailing.

While becoming the first female to win the Classic, she beat the boys only once, something Rachel Alexandra did three times in 2009.

You think they would have learned, but they didn't.

This year, Zenyatta went to the gate six times, facing just females in her first five starts, winning each time, before taking a chance against the boys in the Classic.

She came up a head short to Blame, who faced open company in all five of his starts this year, defeating Zenyatta by a head on the track, where it means the most.

I fell in love with Zenyatta last week, seeing how kind of a horse she is, and how popular she is, but that doesn't mean she's Horse of the Year.

A lock for the Hall of Fame, Zenyatta did more for the sport than Blame ever will, but that doesn't mean she's Horse of the Year. Blame is.

[Cardus]

Definitely agree. :)

It's reasonable to disagree, though.

Over the last decade, numerous trainers have asserted that the CD surface over which they trained their horses in the week leading up to the Derby didn't resemble the surface over which they ran on Derby Day. The implication is that the surface is changed manually to produce fast times.

It's possible that the surface was consistent throughout the week last week at CD, but I would not make such a generalization here. You don't know that bringing Zenyatta to Louisville earlier or working here more would have made the difference.

[Greyfox]

Here is what I think. She had the perfect pace scenario, a decent trip, and came up a little short. If they ran this race 10 times, I'm not sure she wins more than once or twice. Just about any other pace scenario and she in not beating Blame. With similar, maybe she nips him once or twice.

If Blame wasn't in the race, she wins by lengths.

[Cardus]

And good for Bossert, too. Good job not getting caught up in hype or emotion.

That's the way it should be.

I'm not saying that his conclusion is correct, but at least he reached it devoid of hype or emotion.

[Valuist]

If Blame wasn't in the race, she wins by lengths.

If Haynesfield and Espoir City aren't in the race, Quality Road wins.

[cj]

If Blame wasn't in the race, she wins by lengths.

Depends on the pace. If Blame isn't in it and they go the same fast pace, sure.

[Greyfox]

If Haynesfield and Espoir City aren't in the race, Quality Road wins.

I bet Quality Road. In the rear view mirror I'm not sure he'd get the distance even with a softer pace scenario.

[Cardus]

If Blame wasn't in the race, she wins by lengths.

Irrelevant, really.

If Victory Gallop wasn't in the Belmont Stakes, Real Quiet would have won the Triple Crown by open lengths.

This conjecture could go on all day.

[Greyfox]

Irrelevant, really.

If Victory Gallop wasn't in the Belmont Stakes, Real Quiet would have won the Triple Crown by open lengths.

This conjecture could go on all day.

Yes, I agree. If the Queen had balls she'd be the King.:D

[JustRalph]

why is somebody still writing about this? Why are we discussing it.

The damn horse lost by a foot. She ran one of her biggest races. We can do a postmortem down to the DNA level if we want. She was almost good enough. She probably enhanced her reputation in such a loss.

Looking forward to the spring races. This is my favorite time of the year. Some Winter Racing is coming. There won't be 22 tracks a day to choose from. There will hopefully be some better races.

[Robert Fischer]

the schedule turned out to be an awesome preparation.

Her last-to-first style simply left her with too much to do given that Blame ran a peak effort with an easier trip. Her campaign in terms of preparation for the classic couldn't have been improved upon in my opinion.

If you look at the races vs. Rinterval(sp?)(Clement Hirsch), and the Switch race, she gave those lesser runners substantial advantages, and then ran them down late. With the distance being a submaximal 8.5 Furlongs, there wasn't a stamina issue for those types to deal with, giving Zenyatta a better challenge.

The races vs. Rinterval and Switch could have hardly been scripted as better preparatory workouts for the Classic.
In fact her final work was scripted almost exactly like the Rinterval race (only her work mate was actually better).

Blame is simply better than Rinterval and Switch, and considering he finished full of run, and got a cleaner trip with perhaps about a 5 length advantage, Zenyatta ran lights out. There is simply NOTHING to find fault with considering her strong run in the classic. If Blame doesn't run clean with a peak race(he also had an excellent preparatory campaign), Zenyatta wins.

The campaign sucked in terms of racing multiple times against the world's best horses on a variety of surfaces. It however turned out to go tremendously well in preparation.

[Cardus]

why is somebody still writing about this? Why are we discussing it.

The damn horse lost by a foot. She ran one of her biggest races. We can do a postmortem down to the DNA level if we want. She was almost good enough. She probably enhanced her reputation in such a loss.

Looking forward to the spring races. This is my favorite time of the year. Some Winter Racing is coming. There won't be 22 tracks a day to choose from. There will hopefully be some better races.

Twenty-two is not enough?

[Zman179]

If Haynesfield and Espoir City aren't in the race, Quality Road wins.

If Blame, Zenyatta, Fly Down, Lookin At Lucky, Paddy O'Prado, Etched, Musket Man, First Dude, Pleasant Prince, Espoir City and Haynesfield aren't in the race, Quality Road wins.

[Valuist]

If Blame, Zenyatta, Fly Down, Lookin At Lucky, Paddy O'Prado, Etched, Musket Man, First Dude, Pleasant Prince, Espoir City and Haynesfield aren't in the race, Quality Road wins.

And if Zenyatta, Fly Down, Lookin at Lucky, Paddy O Prado (brilliant decision by the connections to race on dirt), Musket Man and Pleasant Prince ARE in the race, and the other speedballs aren't, they are running for second.

I have no rooting interest for Quality Road. I bet against him in the race because the pace scenario was stacked against him. Different race dynamics, and all those a$$ dragging closers would never catch him.

[cj]

the schedule turned out to be an awesome preparation.

Her last-to-first style simply left her with too much to do given that Blame ran a peak effort with an easier trip. Her campaign in terms of preparation for the classic couldn't have been improved upon in my opinion.



Buzzer...wrong.

[matthewsiv]

One more stride and she wins.

I think that she ran a great race and was unlucky not to get there.


One he'll of a filly, who should be Horse Of The Year and the the century be it that it is only ten years old.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Here is what I think. She had the perfect pace scenario, a decent trip, and came up a little short. If they ran this race 10 times, I'm not sure she wins more than once or twice. Just about any other pace scenario and she in not beating Blame. With similar, maybe she nips him once or twice.

I'm 100% sure if you offered 9-1 or pretty sure 4-1 on her in a similar situation that you would have the smartest horseplayers/gamblers/people in the world bringing almost an unlimited supply of suitcases full of cash to wager on her.

[cj]

I'm 100% sure if you offered 9-1 or pretty sure 4-1 on her in a similar situation that you would have the smartest horseplayers/gamblers/people in the world bringing almost an unlimited supply of suitcases full of cash to wager on her.

I'd take my chances since I happen to think I'm one of that group.

[098poi]

Here is what I think. She had the perfect pace scenario, a decent trip, and came up a little short. If they ran this race 10 times, I'm not sure she wins more than once or twice. Just about any other pace scenario and she in not beating Blame. With similar, maybe she nips him once or twice.

I think it would be more like 6 Blame / 4 Zenyatta. If we're going just based on this race they had effectively the same final times and speed ratings. Z's running style is a minus which I think would account for more losses. Some horses can run fast but have a knack for having "trouble" trips. Z has a way of staying out of it. Who knows?

[keithw84]

In 2008, they had the chance to take on Curlin in the Breeders' Cup Classic, in her backyard over a synthetic track that Curlin obviously didn't care for, but passed before running the Ladies' Classic.

Last year, they raced her just five times, four times against her own sex in California before trying the Classic and prevailing.

While becoming the first female to win the Classic, she beat the boys only once, something Rachel Alexandra did three times in 2009.

I can give them a pass for 2008. While hindsight is 20/20, was there a strong reason to try her against the boys at the time? There is not much of a precedent for running females in the classic (What other females have run there recently other than Azeri?) so it made since to go for locking up divisional honors against her sex.

In 2009, though, they took a step backwards. Who knows? If Rachel hadn't beaten the boys, maybe they wouldn't have tried the boys either. Pure speculation, but all the attention Rachel got had to have influenced the Mosses a little.

From mid-2009 on, the campaign was just too vanilla, and their HOY hopes hinged too heavily on no one else standing out. If QR or Blame had run more and picked up a couple more wins early on, or if Lookin at Lucky would've done better in the races he lost under Gomez, any of them could've made a good case for HOY even if Zenyatta had WON the classic.

[NTamm1215]

Buzzer...wrong.

How did your figures come back for the race? The pace was certainly strong it would seem.

[cj]

How did your figures come back for the race? The pace was certainly strong it would seem.

125-110

[thaskalos]

I'd take my chances since I happen to think I'm one of that group.
I guess it's true, what they say...

It's hard to be modest when you are THAT good! :)

[cj]

I guess it's true, what they say...

It's hard to be modest when you are THAT good! :)

I figured that would sound bad, but in all seriousness, why bother putting all the time and effort in that I do if I didn't trust in myself?

[thaskalos]

I figured that would sound bad, but in all seriousness, why bother putting all the time and effort in that I do if I didn't trust in myself?It doesn't sound bad at all...I was only kidding.

Show me a gambler with no self-confidence...and I'll show you a sure loser!

[Cardus]

I figured that would sound bad, but in all seriousness, why bother putting all the time and effort in that I do if I didn't trust in myself?

I haven't been able to take your posts seriously since you made a hamburger as your avatar.

[sammy the sage]

I haven't been able to take your posts seriously since you made a hamburger as your avatar.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :faint: :faint: :faint: :faint: And NOBODY here will EVER take you seriously again after discussing Z's STUD fee...ROFLMAO :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :D :D

[Cardus]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :faint: :faint: :faint: :faint: And NOBODY here will EVER take you seriously again after discussing Z's STUD fee...ROFLMAO :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :D :D

Dear ROFLMAO,

What can I say? You got me on that one.

[pandy]

I don't like making excuses for horses. Blame is a very good horse who could possibly prove to be a great horse if they continued racing him. But I think if Sheriffs had to do it all over again he'd ship in earlier and trainer Z over the CD track to see how she handles it and whether or not some adjustments can be made. A lot of horses have trouble handling the Churchill surface, which is known to be cuppy. But, Sheriffs did a great job with the horse and this is all easy to say after the fact.

[lamboguy]

I don't like making excuses for horses. Blame is a very good horse who could possibly prove to be a great horse if they continued racing him. But I think if Sheriffs had to do it all over again he'd ship in earlier and trainer Z over the CD track to see how she handles it and whether or not some adjustments can be made. A lot of horses have trouble handling the Churchill surface, which is known to be cuppy. But, Sheriffs did a great job with the horse and this is all easy to say after the fact.i totally agree.

john sherriffs did as good a job with ZENYATTA as i have ever seen a trainer do with any horse before her. the man never panicked once with her. often times surface changes do effect horses. when it all came down to it BLAME had first run and used it to his advantage, the mare had to pass 11 horses and fell short by one.

[ihatenyra]

I have no rooting interest for Quality Road. I bet against him in the race because the pace scenario was stacked against him. Different race dynamics, and all those a$$ dragging closers would never catch him.

I had to laugh at this one. It was certainly a lively pace but 47 flat should be well within the scope for a horse like quality road or G1 front runners, even if it's under pressure.

And besides one of those "dragging a$$ closers" ran him down at 9 furlongs with a much slower pace or a "walk in the park" for Quality Road as Durkin so eloquently put it.

There's no pace scenario that would have resulted in Quality Road even hitting the board saturday, let alone winning the race

[ArlJim78]

If it were a match race between Quality Road and Zenyatta at 10 furlongs I wouldn't bet on Quality Road.

[cj]

It doesn't sound bad at all...I was only kidding.

Show me a gambler with no self-confidence...and I'll show you a sure loser!

For the record, I would never make her 9 to 1 as the other guy implied. I did say one or two times for one, and second, I wouldn't have to make her that high to attract plenty of money.

[Valuist]

I had to laugh at this one. It was certainly a lively pace but 47 flat should be well within the scope for a horse like quality road or G1 front runners, even if it's under pressure.

And besides one of those "dragging a$$ closers" ran him down at 9 furlongs with a much slower pace or a "walk in the park" for Quality Road as Durkin so eloquently put it.

There's no pace scenario that would have resulted in Quality Road even hitting the board saturday, let alone winning the race

You sound like someone who has watched one too many synthetic races. Yes, on real dirt pace DOES matter.

[andymays]

Quality Road is a nice horse. He just couldnt run in the spot he ended up in. If he had drawn outside the speed he would have run much better.

[ihatenyra]

You sound like someone who has watched one too many synthetic races. Yes, on real dirt pace DOES matter.

Is that what I said that pace does not matter? Had they run a 46 half your opinion might sound a little less ridiculous. Face it if Quality Road got a 48 uncontested lead in that race he was still not earning any money. Talented G1 horses who face tough paces do not collapse and finish last, getting easily passed in the stretch by every horse. See Medaglia D'oro and Congaree in the 2003 edition for some perspective (which you obviously need)

And by the way did I miss something, was the whitney run on synthetic? Because Quality Road got away with a slow pace and still got run down at shorter distance.

[cj]

Is that what I said that pace does not matter? Had they run a 46 half your opinion might sound a little less ridiculous. Face it if Quality Road got a 48 uncontested lead in that race he was still not earning any money. Talented G1 horses who face tough paces do not collapse and finish last, getting easily passed in the stretch by every horse. See Medaglia D'oro and Congaree in the 2003 edition for some perspective (which you obviously need)

And by the way did I miss something, was the whitney run on synthetic? Because Quality Road got away with a slow pace and still got run down at shorter distance.

I would agree, he was clearly way off form. Pletcher was very hit or miss with his horses. They were great, or they were horrible.

[depalma113]

I don't like making excuses for horses. Blame is a very good horse who could possibly prove to be a great horse if they continued racing him. But I think if Sheriffs had to do it all over again he'd ship in earlier and trainer Z over the CD track to see how she handles it and whether or not some adjustments can be made. A lot of horses have trouble handling the Churchill surface, which is known to be cuppy. But, Sheriffs did a great job with the horse and this is all easy to say after the fact.

No he wouldn't.

Giacomo - 6f 1:11 4/5 Hollywood, shipped in week of the race

Tiago - 6f 1:11 2/5 Hollywood, shipped in week of the race

Zenyatta - 7f 1:27 1/5 Hollywood, shipped in week of the race

See the pattern.

[highnote]

Not to beat a dead horse... but I have to agree with Mike Smith as to why the Zenyatta got beat -- it was the jockey's fault.

The pace scenario was perfect for a closer, however Smith rode Z like she was running on a synthetic track. He should have kept her closer to the back of the pack. The final time seemed slow to me at 2:02. Secretariat ran the Derby in 1:59.

She moved like a rocket on the far turn. She was full of run at the finish, which indicates to me that Smith could have moved a little sooner.

Smith is human and humans make mistakes. He won on her, what, 17 times in a row? Not too bad. :D

I think he had the right strategy, but did not execute it perfectly.

Z was the best horse, in my opinion, but maybe Smith was not the best rider in the race. Or maybe he was? Maybe he got her closer to winning than any other jockey could have, given that she is a one-dimensional closer.

That said...

The great filly Ruffian was a one-dimensional front-runner.

If Ruffian and Zenyatta had a match race I would take short odds on Ruffian.

So I would say Zenyatta is one of the greatest race horses of all time, but not the greatest. Zenyatta is perhaps the greatest closer of all time, though.

[Pell Mell]

Personally, from what I could see, Zen didn't warm up properly. It took her a 1/2 mile to get the kinks out after which she ran great. Could it be as simple as that?

[joanied]

She simply didn't like what she felt under her feet...and after seeing a photo of her getting dirt thrown into her face, you could see by her 'expression' that she was not happy about that...after all, she never, not once, had throw back like that...between the throw back and a new surface, she did geat in overcoming this...just took her 1/2 mile to do it...and you can't really say that Mike didn't get her close enough, soon enough because he was trying to snap her out of it, but sure couldn't rush her...she needed the time to adjust to new things, and ajusting to something new in the heat of battle isn't easy..she showed courage in doing so.

[joanied]

I would agree, he was clearly way off form. Pletcher was very hit or miss with his horses. They were great, or they were horrible.

IMO, QR wasn't raced enough, or trained 'hard' enough...big, strong colt like that, and they treated him with kid gloves...'off form'...according to Pletcher before the BC, QR was training great, was coming into the Classic great...not!!

[rstone]

Here is what I think. She had the perfect pace scenario, a decent trip, and came up a little short. If they ran this race 10 times, I'm not sure she wins more than once or twice. Just about any other pace scenario and she in not beating Blame. With similar, maybe she nips him once or twice.

Though I think there is something to be said for a better start in terms of actually understanding where she is.I think it was pretty clear that very early on something was up until she finally kind of figured out what was going on. Whether she just didn't take to the track or whatever, it looked different than usual. Not in that she was 10 more lengths behind, I think you can chalk a good percentage of that to the pace, but that she looked like she was in shambles for the first 20 or so seconds of the race.

I don't know if she beats Blame more than 4-5 times if they ran that race 10 more times. Blame's really good. I do think it would be more than just nipping him once or twice though. I honestly think they're pretty even, and both amazing.

[cj]

IMO, QR wasn't raced enough, or trained 'hard' enough...big, strong colt like that, and they treated him with kid gloves...'off form'...according to Pletcher before the BC, QR was training great, was coming into the Classic great...not!!

I would assume there is a reason for that training schedule. I could be wrong of course, but you don't win money sitting in the barn. Light schedule generally means a horse with issues, something I foolishly ignored in my handicapping.

[cj]

The pace scenario was perfect for a closer, however Smith rode Z like she was running on a synthetic track. He should have kept her closer to the back of the pack. The final time seemed slow to me at 2:02. Secretariat ran the Derby in 1:59.


It wasn't a slow time compared to all other Classics run at CD. It was right in the middle.

[highnote]

It wasn't a slow time compared to all other Classics run at CD. It was right in the middle.


Maybe "slow" wasn't the right description. It was certainly slower than the best timed BC Classics.

10 of the last 16 KY Derbys have been run faster than the 2010 Breeders' Cup Classic. The Classic is supposed to be for the best 10 furlong horses in the world. I would expect it to be run faster than the Derby 6 times in 16.

I still agree with Mike Smith -- Zenyatta losing the Classic was the fault of the jockey. BUT -- the thing we'll never know is if any other jockey could have done any better.

[joanied]

Though I think there is something to be said for a better start in terms of actually understanding where she is.I think it was pretty clear that very early on something was up until she finally kind of figured out what was going on. Whether she just didn't take to the track or whatever, it looked different than usual. Not in that she was 10 more lengths behind, I think you can chalk a good percentage of that to the pace, but that she looked like she was in shambles for the first 20 or so seconds of the race.

I don't know if she beats Blame more than 4-5 times if they ran that race 10 more times. Blame's really good. I do think it would be more than just nipping him once or twice though. I honestly think they're pretty even, and both amazing.

I hate to repeat myself...but you have a good handle on it too...she was 'lost' for the first 1/2 mile...she obviously didn't like the surface and getting dirt thrown back at her...a photo I saw, you can see she was very confused about the stuff flying into her face, and in fact, I read she came back with one eye nearly closed...two very new things for her to deal with in what I'd call the most important race of her career...and that after a 1/2 mile she began to compose herself and get to the task at hand, just shows what a brilliant mare she is:ThmbUp:

[joanied]

I would assume there is a reason for that training schedule. I could be wrong of course, but you don't win money sitting in the barn. Light schedule generally means a horse with issues, something I foolishly ignored in my handicapping.

I'm sure there is a reason for it, cj...I think we all beleive his feet issues were behind him, and if there was something else going on, then maybe they should have left him in the barn...how will they promote his running in the Classic...they will ignore it and hope it goes away...
IMO, they should have kept QR at a Mile...but that's really beside the point...point is, Pletcher said he couldn't be happier with QR before the Classic...and so all I can do is assume he was too lightly raced and too lightly trained...and if he had an issue, I think you'll agree, he shouldn't have raced, and folks should be privy to that information.

[tucker6]

Maybe "slow" wasn't the right description. It was certainly slower than the best timed BC Classics.

10 of the last 16 KY Derbys have been run faster than the 2010 Breeders' Cup Classic. The Classic is supposed to be for the best 10 furlong horses in the world. I would expect it to be run faster than the Derby 6 times in 16.

I still agree with Mike Smith -- Zenyatta losing the Classic was the fault of the jockey. BUT -- the thing we'll never know is if any other jockey could have done any better.Smith didn't lose it. Zenyatta lost it out of the gate. Blame the trainer for not shipping sooner and getting her acclimated to the surface. Also, moving sooner probably meant she would have lost by more. She was decelerating more than Blame at the wire, so if she had started sooner, it is likely she would be moving slower than him at the wire, thus giving him a bigger lead. However, it is impossible to say anything for sure, as a different set of circumstances (like an earlier run to the finish) will cause other things to change as well.

[cpitt84]

She simply didn't like what she felt under her feet...and after seeing a photo of her getting dirt thrown into her face, you could see by her 'expression' that she was not happy about that...after all, she never, not once, had throw back like that...between the throw back and a new surface, she did geat in overcoming this...just took her 1/2 mile to do it...and you can't really say that Mike didn't get her close enough, soon enough because he was trying to snap her out of it, but sure couldn't rush her...she needed the time to adjust to new things, and ajusting to something new in the heat of battle isn't easy..she showed courage in doing so.

Do you have a pic of Zenyattas reaction to that dirt?

I think her difficult start was her sealed fate. At least that's how I felt when I watched the race. When I saw how poorly she took to the dirt and how far back she was, my heart sank. It was tough to watch and yes she recovered beautifully and she was all heart.

[cj]

I watched the start of all her races this year a few times, especially the Apple Blossom, and I just don't see it as a big deal. She always starts like that, just usually the other horses are going a lot slower.

How does a horse hate the surface for 1/2 mile then suddenly like it? As I said in another thread, she doesn't need all these excuses, she ran great. She just lost to a slightly better horse.

[joanied]

Do you have a pic of Zenyattas reaction to that dirt?

I think her difficult start was her sealed fate. At least that's how I felt when I watched the race. When I saw how poorly she took to the dirt and how far back she was, my heart sank. It was tough to watch and yes she recovered beautifully and she was all heart.

No...it's in the paper edition of the BloodHorse magazine, cpitt84...maybe I can scan it to my puter and post it or send it to you...I'll see what I can do...it's kinda sad because her eyes are half closed...very plain to see she was thinking.."what the hell is this"?

[highnote]

A lot of people seem to agree with you Tucker. We can't say for sure what the reason is. That is what makes horseracing so interesting.

However, it is not often a jockey blames himself for losing a race. He usually will say something like his horse didn't handle the track, didn't like dirt in his face, etc. But when the jockey admits it is his fault for losing the race then I am inclined to agree with him. Smith left her with too much work to do after the first 1/2 mile. She did well to almost win it and in my opinion she was the best horse, but was a victim of a bad ride.

Smith didn't lose it. Zenyatta lost it out of the gate. Blame the trainer for not shipping sooner and getting her acclimated to the surface. Also, moving sooner probably meant she would have lost by more. She was decelerating more than Blame at the wire, so if she had started sooner, it is likely she would be moving slower than him at the wire, thus giving him a bigger lead. However, it is impossible to say anything for sure, as a different set of circumstances (like an earlier run to the finish) will cause other things to change as well.

[joanied]

I watched the start of all her races this year a few times, especially the Apple Blossom, and I just don't see it as a big deal. She always starts like that, just usually the other horses are going a lot slower.

How does a horse hate the surface for 1/2 mile then suddenly like it? As I said in another thread, she doesn't need all these excuses, she ran great. She just lost to a slightly better horse.

This was not like her other starts, cj...and needless to say, I have also watched them all...it wasn't how slow she was going, and it had nothing to do with how fats the others were going...look at it again, it's painfully obvious she was not getting a hold of the surface, she was struggling with it.
And I didn't say, or imply that after 1/2 mile she decided she liked it...her class came out and she dealt with it, dug in and did the best she could...and if you look at the photo of her & Blame at the wire, she was already making that last stride...she's about a foot longer than Blame, that last stride would have taken her past Blame, by inches, but past him.

Oh, and I'm not really making excuses for her...just putting up the facts of it...yes, she ran great becuase she is great:)

[Cardus]

This was not like her other starts, cj...and needless to say, I have also watched them all...it wasn't how slow she was going, and it had nothing to do with how fats the others were going...look at it again, it's painfully obvious she was not getting a hold of the surface, she was struggling with it.
And I didn't say, or imply that after 1/2 mile she decided she liked it...her class came out and she dealt with it, dug in and did the best she could...and if you look at the photo of her & Blame at the wire, she was already making that last stride...she's about a foot longer than Blame, that last stride would have taken her past Blame, by inches, but past him.

Oh, and I'm not really making excuses for her...just putting up the facts of it...yes, she ran great becuase she is great:)

I suppose that the notion that was floated repeatedly that Zenyatta runs as fast as she has to run to win, and that Zenyatta knows where the wire is (hence, the close finishes against ridiculous competition on synthetics in California), is shot to hell, no?

Obviously, she did not know where the wire was last week.

[highnote]

Zenyatta was 10-11 lengths in back of the early pace in the 2009 BC Classic.

In the 2010 BC Classic she was 18-20 lengths back! What was Smith thinking? Was he trying to factor in that the horses would decelerate more and run at a faster pace on dirt than on synthetic?

I understand that performance over a given distance of ground is a matter of a horse's genetic predisposition, but a jockey does have some control.

Smith made an error in judgement, he knows it, he admits it and when I watch replays of the two races it seems obvious.

[Spalding No!]

Zenyatta was 10-11 lengths in back of the early pace in the 2009 BC Classic.

In the 2010 BC Classic she was 18-20 lengths back! What was Smith thinking? Was he trying to factor in that the horses would decelerate more and run at a faster pace on dirt than on synthetic?

I understand that performance over a given distance of ground is a matter of a horse's genetic predisposition, but a jockey does have some control.

Smith made an error in judgement, he knows it, he admits it and when I watch replays of the two races it seems obvious.

Weren't the first 4 horses (ie First Dude, Espoir City, Haynesfield, Quality Road), all of whom brought up the rear by the time they got to the wire, well clear of the rest, by about 8 lengths during the early stages?

They hounded each other into rapid 1/2 mile and 6f fractions before getting swallowed up immediately by the rest of the field.

If you ignore them, and take Etched as your frontrunner, Zenyatta was never more than 12 lengths or so from a rival with any real shot of winning.

[Cratos]

None of it was Mike's fault...IMO, although I am a huge fan, Shirreff's made a mistake not taking her to CD early to get used to the surface, she needed a work over it.

Joanied, I agree with you, but I not saying she would have beaten Blame. However she would have been into the race earlier.

[cpitt84]

No...it's in the paper edition of the BloodHorse magazine, cpitt84...maybe I can scan it to my puter and post it or send it to you...I'll see what I can do...it's kinda sad because her eyes are half closed...very plain to see she was thinking.."what the hell is this"?

aww, that is sad. I have tried looking for Bloodhorse at a local Borders and you would think out of 100 magazines they would have it!

I did order the Zenyatta edition for $9.95 and am looking forward to it. Thanks for offering to scan the pic! If you cannot, no worries.

[ihatenyra]

I suppose that the notion that was floated repeatedly that Zenyatta runs as fast as she has to run to win, and that Zenyatta knows where the wire is (hence, the close finishes against ridiculous competition on synthetics in California), is shot to hell, no?

I can't comment on the knowing where the wire is part since none of us know what's inside her head. But she was beating her own sex by small margins and lost to G1 males by head. I'd say thats a horse who runs to the competition.

[cpitt84]

This was not like her other starts, cj...and needless to say, I have also watched them all...it wasn't how slow she was going, and it had nothing to do with how fats the others were going...look at it again, it's painfully obvious she was not getting a hold of the surface, she was struggling with it.
And I didn't say, or imply that after 1/2 mile she decided she liked it...her class came out and she dealt with it, dug in and did the best she could...and if you look at the photo of her & Blame at the wire, she was already making that last stride...she's about a foot longer than Blame, that last stride would have taken her past Blame, by inches, but past him.

Oh, and I'm not really making excuses for her...just putting up the facts of it...yes, she ran great becuase she is great:)

I agree joanied about her stride. She is bigger than Blame and her stride is as long as Secretariats so theres no doubt she could have went past him..too bad she ran out of time!

[FenceBored]

Maybe "slow" wasn't the right description. It was certainly slower than the best timed BC Classics.

10 of the last 16 KY Derbys have been run faster than the 2010 Breeders' Cup Classic. The Classic is supposed to be for the best 10 furlong horses in the world. I would expect it to be run faster than the Derby 6 times in 16.

I still agree with Mike Smith -- Zenyatta losing the Classic was the fault of the jockey. BUT -- the thing we'll never know is if any other jockey could have done any better.

There have been 7 BC Distaffs at Churchill and only one in quicker than 1:49.75. Now, maybe Churchill plays slower in the Fall, or maybe, by coincidence, every time the BC is at Churchill the Distaff field stinks. Side note: the year the Distaff went in 1:47.66 at CD, the Classic went 2:00.75. Hmmm.

[ihatenyra]

Smith didn't lose it. Zenyatta lost it out of the gate. Blame the trainer for not shipping sooner and getting her acclimated to the surface. Also, moving sooner probably meant she would have lost by more. She was decelerating more than Blame at the wire, so if she had started sooner, it is likely she would be moving slower than him at the wire, thus giving him a bigger lead. However, it is impossible to say anything for sure, as a different set of circumstances (like an earlier run to the finish) will cause other things to change as well.

What you say is true about moving sooner but where exactly are you getting that she was "decelerating more than blame at the wire"

[highnote]

There have been 7 BC Distaffs at Churchill and only one in quicker than 1:49.75. Now, maybe Churchill plays slower in the Fall, or maybe, by coincidence, every time the BC is at Churchill the Distaff field stinks. Side note: the year the Distaff went in 1:47.66 at CD, the Classic went 2:00.75. Hmmm.


I thought about that. The track variant may be greater in the fall than the spring. It does seem like the track is souped up for Derby Day.

[BluegrassProf]

Nothing new in this BH blog from Avalyn Hunter, but scroll down and look through the comments section...one horsey-head rocket-spaz after another, posts stuffed to the brim with wacky hyperbole and - notably - just completely without substance. :D

Those convinced that her legacy will stand unquestioned oughta look long and hard at the dialogue and wonder what'll be left after the hype and mayhem die down (particularly amongst the non-horsey-head set)...

It's A Shame Zenyatta Didn't Lose Earlier (A. Hunter)
http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/market-watch/archive/2010/11/13/it-s-a-shame-zenyatta-didn-t-lose-earlier.aspx

Hunter's point is perfectly legitimate, and one that many, many others have made. Shame it's too hyperemotional to discuss at the moment.

[highnote]

Smith didn't lose it. Zenyatta lost it out of the gate. Blame the trainer for not shipping sooner and getting her acclimated to the surface. Also, moving sooner probably meant she would have lost by more. She was decelerating more than Blame at the wire, so if she had started sooner, it is likely she would be moving slower than him at the wire, thus giving him a bigger lead. However, it is impossible to say anything for sure, as a different set of circumstances (like an earlier run to the finish) will cause other things to change as well.


The stretch at CD is about a 1/4 mile if I'm not mistaken. It should be possible to time the stretch run and calculate the FPS for Z and Blame. It should be simple to time the last 1/8 and last 1/16, too.

[highnote]

Also, moving sooner probably meant she would have lost by more. She was decelerating more than Blame at the wire, so if she had started sooner, it is likely she would be moving slower than him at the wire, thus giving him a bigger lead.

I just reviewed the video using a stopwatch and I calculated the deceleration. In the last 100 yards, Blame was decelerating more than Zenyatta.

Blame had the lead at the top of the stretch to the end of the race.

He ran from the 1/4 pole to the 300 yard marker in 7.49 seconds

He ran the next 100 yards in 5.5 seconds

The next 100 in 5.63.

He ran the last 100 in 5.91.

1/4 pole to 300 yards = 56.07 feet per second
next 300 feet = 54.55 feet per second
next 300 feet = 53.29 feet per second
last 300 feet = 50.76 feet per second.

Let's compare this to Zenyatta:

Z was 2 lengths back at the top of the stretch = 16 feet behind Blame.

next 300 feet she gained 1/2 length = 4 feet
next 300 feet she gained 1/2 length = 4 feet
last 300 feet she gained 1 length = 8 feet

1/4 pole plus 16 feet to 300 yards = 436 feet in 7.49 seconds = 58.21 fps.
next 304 feet in 5.5 seconds = 55.27 fps.
next 304 feet in 5.63 seconds = 54 fps.
last 308 feet in 5.91 = 52.12 fps.


Now let's compare deceleration:

1/4 pole to 300 yards -- Blame 56.07
...................................... Z 58.21


next 300 feet...........-- Blame 54.55
...................................... Z 55.27
difference B = 1.52
difference Z = 2.94 -- Z had to weave through traffic which delayed her

next 300 feet...........-- Blame 53.29
...................................... Z 54.00
difference B = 1.26
difference Z = 1.27 -- they're decelerating at the same rate here

next 300 feet...........-- Blame 50.76
...................................... Z 52.12
difference B = 2.12
difference Z = 1.88 -- Blame has spit out the bit and Z is passing him

It's clear that Zenyatta was running faster than Blame at the wire, though both horses were decelerating. In the last 100 yards to the wire, Blame was decelerating at a faster rate than Z.

I think it is almost irrefutable that had Smith moved earlier or kept closer contact with the pace Z would have won.

[BluegrassProf]

Wait....so there's a chance - mathematically! - Zenyatta coulda beaten Blame? For serious??

Dudes. She's the greatest.

Even if she didn't.

;):ThmbUp:

[JustRalph]

John, I gotta give you an A for effort. If you took the time to do that, good for you

[tucker6]

I just reviewed the video using a stopwatch and I calculated the deceleration. In the last 100 yards, Blame was decelerating more than Zenyatta.


Let's compare this to Zenyatta:

Z was 2 lengths back at the top of the stretch = 16 feet behind Blame.

next 300 feet she gained 1/2 length = 4 feet
next 300 feet she gained 1/2 length = 4 feet
last 300 feet she gained 1 length = 8 feet


John,

Nice post, but if you review the video several times as I just did, you'll see that the underlying premise of your numbers is invalid. Zenyatta was NOT behind by 2 lengths at the 300 yard mark (if the yard markers are accurately portrayed by TV), she was at least 3 back, maybe 4. At 200 yards, she was a solid 2 back. At 100 yards, she surges to a length back. At 50 yards, she is within a half length. She makes up most of her remaining deficit just past the 50 yard mark, and in the last 25 yards, they are bobbing heads. You don't need fancy numbers to prove the point. Just reviewing the video shows that at each frame of reference heading further into the stretch, the distance she was making up was lessening. This is the very essense of deceleration compared to another object (Blame). Her speed was greater, but she was coming off her fast pace more quickly than Blame was. The visuals don't lie, and tell the tale.

[tucker6]

Wait....so there's a chance - mathematically! - Zenyatta coulda beaten Blame? For serious??

Dudes. She's the greatest.

Even if she didn't.

;):ThmbUp:Unfortuantely, he got the math right, but the underlying conditions wrong. Thus, the final result is incorrect. She was decelerating more than Blame at the wire when compared to 100 or 300 yards earlier.

[GARY Z]

Hate to date myself, no real problem with Mike Smith as a Jockey.

That said, wondering if this result woud have been if Mr. Pincay
were on this incredible mare.

[cj]

The stretch at CD is about a 1/4 mile if I'm not mistaken. It should be possible to time the stretch run and calculate the FPS for Z and Blame. It should be simple to time the last 1/8 and last 1/16, too.

The 1/4 and 1/8 are readily available in the charts.

[cj]

I think it is almost irrefutable that had Smith moved earlier or kept closer contact with the pace Z would have won.

Well, sure, except for that little fact that the more energy you use up early the less that is available late. I would argue she would have had a better chance if winning if she went even slower early rather than faster.

[joanied]

Joanied, I agree with you, but I not saying she would have beaten Blame. However she would have been into the race earlier.

Thanks. I wonder if Shirreff's is thinking the same thing...had she worked overe the track, had she been there maybe a full week, she may have been used to the surface enough not to struggle over it like she did...we'll never know, but I don't know what else Mike could have done that first 1/2 mile...he just sorta had to wait for her to get comfortable...no one can force a horse to go (as in fast) over ground they don't like, IMO.

:)

[highnote]

Well, sure, except for that little fact that the more energy you use up early the less that is available late. I would argue she would have had a better chance if winning if she went even slower early rather than faster.


Of course you are right that energy used early will not be available later.

However, that applies more to front runners than to deep closers.

Just look what happens if the pace is too slow in a turf race. The final time can be very slow because the horses don't have enough distance in the stretch to make up for the slow pace. The horses can be full of run, but the wire comes too soon.

My opinion is that Zenyatta did NOT use up enough energy early to try to keep up with the pack. I think she had more energy left, but ran out of time to use it to her advantage. Blame was rapidly running out of energy and Z was about to pass him. She was decelerating, but at a slower rate than Blame.

The 4 minute mile was not broken by humans until the runners learned to run a quick pace the entire race. They could have run slower for the first 3/4 mile and then sprinted the last lap, but would have run out of time to break 4 minutes.

Same with Zenyatta in the 2010 Classic, Smith did NOT apportion her energy optimally -- in my opinion -- and his.

[highnote]

Wait....so there's a chance - mathematically! - Zenyatta coulda beaten Blame? For serious??

Dudes. She's the greatest.

Even if she didn't.

;):ThmbUp:


Ruffian, in my opinion, is the greatest -- maybe of all time and of both sexes.

[tucker6]

My opinion is that Zenyatta did NOT use up enough energy early to try to keep up with the pack. I think she had more energy left, but ran out of time to use it to her advantage. Blame was rapidly running out of energy and Z was about to pass him. She was decelerating, but at a slower rate than Blame.

You keep saying it, but it isn't true. The visuals alone disprove your theory. If a horse makes up two lengths in a 100 yards, and in the next 100 yards, makes up another length, then that horse is decelerating compared to the other horse. Simple really. I hope you're not confusing speed with acceleration. Acceleration/deceleration is the rate of change of speed, and if a horse isn't reeling in the horse in front of her like she was, then she is slowing down relative to the other horse. NOT slower as in speed, but not catching up as quick.

[highnote]

Tuck,
According to the result chart in the Louisville Courier Journal she was in third place and behind Blame by 2 lengths at the 1/4 pole. That is consistent with what I can see on the video replay. She was closing in on him with every step in the stretch. It does not look to me like she was back 3 or 4 lengths at 300 yards. It is unlikely that Blame could have gained 1 or 2 lengths on her in the 110 yards from the quarter pole to 300 yards. On the video, it doesn't look to me like he gained any ground on her from the 1/4 pole to 300 yards. In fact, it looks to me like she gained 1/2 length on him.

If she was gaining on him in the stretch and almost catching him at the wire then her velocity would have to have been greater than his. If it wasn't greater than his then he would have been pulling away from her.

If her velocity is greater than his then he must have been decelerating at a rate greater than hers because we know they were both decelerating and we know she gained on him.

Maybe we are describing two different things? I am not sure what is not clear about what I'm saying, though. But I'll be glad to take another shot at it if you want me to.






John,

Nice post, but if you review the video several times as I just did, you'll see that the underlying premise of your numbers is invalid. Zenyatta was NOT behind by 2 lengths at the 300 yard mark (if the yard markers are accurately portrayed by TV), she was at least 3 back, maybe 4. At 200 yards, she was a solid 2 back. At 100 yards, she surges to a length back. At 50 yards, she is within a half length. She makes up most of her remaining deficit just past the 50 yard mark, and in the last 25 yards, they are bobbing heads. You don't need fancy numbers to prove the point. Just reviewing the video shows that at each frame of reference heading further into the stretch, the distance she was making up was lessening. This is the very essense of deceleration compared to another object (Blame). Her speed was greater, but she was coming off her fast pace more quickly than Blame was. The visuals don't lie, and tell the tale.

[tucker6]

Tuck,
According to the result chart in the Louisville Courier Journal she was in third place and behind Blame by 2 lengths at the 1/4 pole. That is consistent with what I can see on the video replay. She was closing in on him with every step in the stretch. It does not look to me like she was back 3 or 4 lengths at 300 yards. It is unlikely that Blame could have gained 1 or 2 lengths on her in the 110 yards from the quarter pole to 300 yards. On the video, it doesn't look to me like he gained any ground on her from the 1/4 pole to 300 yards. In fact, it looks to me like she gained 1/2 length on him.

If she was gaining on him in the stretch and almost catching him at the wire then her velocity would have to have been greater than his. If it wasn't greater than his then he would have been pulling away from her.

If her velocity is greater than his then he must have been decelerating at a rate greater than hers because we know they were both decelerating and we know she gained on him.

Maybe we are describing two different things? I am not sure what is not clear about what I'm saying, though. But I'll be glad to take another shot at it if you want me to.Find one reputable poster that agrees with you that at 300 yards, Zenyatta is only two lengths back. As I see it, Blame is in front by a solid length over horse #2. #2 is a solid length ahead of horse #3. #3 is a solid length ahead of Zenyatta. Therefore, my statement that Blame was 3-4 lengths in front of Zenyatta at 300 yards is correct, and irrefutable. The reason you cannot agree with this is that if you do, then your numbers will change and show that Zenyatta was decelerating more than Blame at the wire, and we can't have that, can we. And I haven't even challenged your stop watch skills. ;)

[highnote]

Tuck,
Let's look at what you wrote below.

Horse A makes up 2 lengths on Horse B in 100 yards.

Horse A makes up 1 length on Horse B in the next 100 yards.

You are correct that Horse A is decelerating compared to Horse B, but only to a degree -- say, if Horse B's velocity is constant.

If Horse B's velocity is constant and Horse A is closing in on B at a slower rate, then yes, A is decelerating at a greater rate than B, because B is NOT decelerating.

However, in the Zenyatta/Blame race to wire they were both decelerating at different rates. Blame was decelerating at a greater rate than Zenyatta as they approached the wire. That is why she was catching him. Blame's velocity WAS NOT CONSTANT as he approached the wire.

This starts to get into calculus and that is what makes it difficult and challenging, but very interesting.










You keep saying it, but it isn't true. The visuals alone disprove your theory. If a horse makes up two lengths in a 100 yards, and in the next 100 yards, makes up another length, then that horse is decelerating compared to the other horse. Simple really. I hope you're not confusing speed with acceleration. Acceleration/deceleration is the rate of change of speed, and if a horse isn't reeling in the horse in front of her like she was, then she is slowing down relative to the other horse. NOT slower as in speed, but not catching up as quick.

[highnote]

Find one reputable poster that agrees with you that at 300 yards, Zenyatta is only two lengths back. As I see it, Blame is in front by a solid length over horse #2. #2 is a solid length ahead of horse #3. #3 is a solid length ahead of Zenyatta. Therefore, my statement that Blame was 3-4 lengths in front of Zenyatta at 300 yards is correct, and irrefutable. The reason you cannot agree with this is that if you do, then your numbers will change and show that Zenyatta was decelerating more than Blame at the wire, and we can't have that, can we. And I haven't even challenged your stop watch skills. ;)


On the contrary. Even if Z is back by 3-4 lengths at 300 yards it is not going to change the fact that as Z and Blame approach the wire Blame was decelerating at a greater rate than Z and that was my point.

Now, do you think the chart that the Louisville Courier printed is incorrect? Do you think Z was back 2 lenths at the 1/4 pole and then lost one or two lengths in the next 140 yards?

I would say that it is possible the chart is wrong or that Z did lose a length or two over 140 yards. But it doesn't appear that way to me as I watch the video.

But if I am wrong, it doesn't change the fact that as Z and Blame neared the wire Z was decelerating less than Blame.

It will change the math from the quarter pole to 300 yards (which I agree Z was decelerating more than Blame even with my math), but it won't change the math in the last 200 yards. This is the point where Blame starts to decelerate more than Z.

You have stated that Blame was decelerating less than Z at the wire. The video and the math in the last 200 yards differs from what you said.

My calculations shows that in the span of 200 yards to 100 yards from the wire, Z and Blame were decelerating at the same rate about 1.27 feet per second.

Then in the last 100 yards Blame decelerated at 2.21 feet per second and Z decelerated at 1.88 feet per second.

Blame was decelerating at 0.33 feet per second more than Z.

[tucker6]

Tuck,
Let's look at what you wrote below.

Horse A makes up 2 lengths on Horse B in 100 yards.

Horse A makes up 1 length on Horse B in the next 100 yards.

[QUOTE]
You are correct that Horse A is decelerating compared to Horse B, but only to a degree -- say, if Horse B's velocity is constant.


There's no degree here. Doesn't matter if Horse B is constant or if his rate of change of speed is decelerating. Horse A's rate of change of speed was declining faster.


If Horse B's velocity is constant and Horse A is closing in on B at a slower rate, then yes, A is decelerating at a greater rate than B, because B is NOT decelerating.


Rate of change of speed (Deceleration in this case) is relative in this case. Whether B is constant and A is declining, or B is declining but A is declining moreso, or even B is accelerating and B is constant leads to the same result if comparing the two horses.

However, in the Zenyatta/Blame race to wire they were both decelerating at different rates.

Correct.


Blame was decelerating at a greater rate than Zenyatta as they approached the wire. That is why she was catching him. Blame's velocity WAS NOT CONSTANT as he approached the wire.


And this is where you trip yourself up. Zenyatta catching Blame has nothing to do with acceleration/deceleration, which is simply understanding the rate of change in relative speeds. Zenyatta was catching up because her speed was still greater than Blame's until the final 25 yards, when they approached equal speed. As long as she's going faster, then she will catch up, deceleration notwithstanding. However, a clear case can be made that she had already produced her best effort in the race, and was coming down off that pace faster than Blame was coming off his pace.

This starts to get into calculus and that is what makes it difficult and challenging, but very interesting

Agreed. If one had the time, and I do not, you could produce a speed/acceleration graph for the race for both horses, which would likely show a long acceleration by Zenyatta that hit its zenith at 3/16th to a 1/4 mile left, and her decelerating momentum nearly carried to the wire for the win.

[tucker6]

On the contrary. Even if Z is back by 3-4 lengths at 300 yards it is not going to change the fact that as Z and Blame approach the wire Blame was decelerating at a greater rate than Z and that was my point.

Now, do you think the chart that the Louisville Courier printed is incorrect? Do you think Z was back 2 lenths at the 1/4 pole and then lost one or two lengths in the next 140 yards?

I would say that it is possible the chart is wrong or that Z did lose a length or two over 140 yards. But it doesn't appear that way to me as I watch the video.

But if I am wrong, it doesn't change the fact that as Z and Blame neared the wire Z was decelerating less than Blame.

It will change the math from the quarter pole to 300 yards (which I agree Z was decelerating more than Blame even with my math), but it won't change the math in the last 200 yards. This is the point where Blame starts to decelerate more than Z.

You have stated that Blame was decelerating less than Z at the wire. The video and the math in the last 200 yards differs from what you said.

My calculations shows that in the span of 200 yards to 100 yards from the wire, Z and Blame were decelerating at the same rate about 1.27 feet per second.

Then in the last 100 yards Blame decelerated at 2.21 feet per second and Z decelerated at 1.88 feet per second.

Blame was decelerating at 0.33 feet per second more than Z.John,

At times, you appear to be talking about speed, and not deceleration, so I'm not sure we are arguing the same point. :D Until the final 25 yards, Zenyatta was clearly running faster. At that point, they were in a death struggle, with Zenyatta likely a smidge faster still. That has nothing to do with how they got to that point, which is really what I'm talking about. My overall point is that Z didn't have much more left in the tank, as her declining speed shows. She ran a great race, but she didn't run a 73 Derby, where Horse A accelerated throughout all 10F. I believe the only such occurrence in history for a classic distance. Even Ruffian couldn't do that, even though she tried, and tried, and tried.

[chickenhead]

[QUOTE=swetyejohn]
Agreed. If one had the time, and I do not, you could produce a speed/acceleration graph for the race for both horses, which would likely show a long acceleration by Zenyatta that hit its zenith at 3/16th to a 1/4 mile left, and her decelerating momentum nearly carried to the wire for the win.

I believe you can simply look at the fractional splits, and see that her speed peaked somewhere in the second fraction, between a 1/4 and 1/2 mile into the race. She walked out, lost contact, then rushed up on the turn to regain contact with the field. That is where she maxed out both her acceleration, and reached her top speed.

I think we're all fascinated by the interplay of pace, running styles, surface, and best efforts. It's an intractable topic. To me, its pretty clear that a one run closer won't run their best effort by shooting their wad in the first turn of a 10F race. I'd guess that running more evenly over the first half (rather than faster or slower) would have produced a better effort, but who knows for sure.

[highnote]

Tuck,
Let's look at what you wrote below.

Horse A makes up 2 lengths on Horse B in 100 yards.

Horse A makes up 1 length on Horse B in the next 100 yards.



There's no degree here. Doesn't matter if Horse B is constant or if his rate of change of speed is decelerating. Horse A's rate of change of speed was declining faster.

Tuck, your second statement is the crux of the argument.

There is a degree that is important. As I wrote in the previous post, Blame was decelerating at the wire 0.33 fps more than Z.

If Z was gaining 2 lengths in the first 100 yards and then 1 length in the next 100 yards, but Blame's velocity was constant, then Z is decelerating more. I think we agree here.

If Z was gaining 2 lengths in the first 100 yards and then 1 length in the next 100 yards, but Blame's velocity was decreasing, then it is possible that Blame was decelerating at greater rate than Z. This is where we disagree.

We agree they were both decelerating at the wire.

My math shows that from 440 yards to 300 yards:

Blame ran 56.07 fps
Z ran 58.21 fps.

Z is runnning faster -- but you say Z was 3-4 lengths back. That means Z ran 54.81 fps. So you're saying she was running slower than Blame from the quarter pole to the 300 yard mark. It's possible and it won't affect the numbers at the wire.

From 300 yards to 200 yards:

Blame ran 54.55 fps
Z ran 55.27 fps. However, if you are correct that Z was 3-4 lengths further back at 300 yards then she was really flying and she actually accelerated from 300 yards to 200 yards!

From 200 yards to 100 yards:

Blame ran 53.29
Z ran 54.

At this point I claim they were decelerating at the same rate even though their velocities were different.

From 100 yards to the wire:

Blame ran 50.76 fps
Z ran 51.12

Again they are both decelerating, but Blame is decelerating at a greater rate -- 2.12 fps vs. 1.88 fps for Z. Blame is decelerating 0.33 fps greater than Z.

And that is all I the time I can spend on this topic. :D

[highnote]

Chick,
I agree that a more evenly run race would have produced a better final time for her. Like I wrote previously in my reply to CJ about humans breaking the 4 minute mile. They did it by running each 1/4 at a steady pace.

My argument is that Z had plenty of gas left in the tank, but ran out of time to use it. You can't run a slow pace and try to make up time in the final sections and expect to run a fast time. World records are broken in races that have fast paces.

D. Wayne Lukas has been quoted as saying that in order to win the Derby all you have to do is run 12 second furlongs.

[QUOTE=tucker6]

I believe you can simply look at the fractional splits, and see that her speed peaked somewhere in the second fraction, between a 1/4 and 1/2 mile into the race. She walked out, lost contact, then rushed up on the turn to regain contact with the field. That is where she maxed out both her acceleration, and reached her top speed.

I think we're all fascinated by the interplay of pace, running styles, surface, and best efforts. It's an intractable topic. To me, its pretty clear that a one run closer won't run their best effort by shooting their wad in the first turn of a 10F race. I'd guess that running more evenly over the first half (rather than faster or slower) would have produced a better effort, but who knows for sure.

[cj]

Chick,
I agree that a more evenly run race would have produced a better final time for her. Like I wrote previously in my reply to CJ about humans breaking the 4 minute mile. They did it by running each 1/4 at a steady pace.

My argument is that Z had plenty of gas left in the tank, but ran out of time to use it. You can't run a slow pace and try to make up time in the final sections and expect to run a fast time. World records are broken in races that have fast paces.

D. Wayne Lukas has been quoted as saying that in order to win the Derby all you have to do is run 12 second furlongs.



If she had so much gas left, why did she not blow by him after the finish?

[highnote]

If she had so much gas left, why did she not blow by him after the finish?


I don't know? Because the race was over? Afterall, she knows where the wire is, right? :D

[tucker6]

If she had so much gas left, why did she not blow by him after the finish?Ah, still spitting out the koolaid when no one is watching eh?? Tsk. Tsk. Go get in line for some more behavior modification. :lol:

[cj]

I don't know? Because the race was over? Afterall, she knows where the wire is, right? :D

The only point I'm trying to make is this. If you keep thinking closers that don't quite get up after a very fast pace and a pretty clean trip were best, or even worse should be bet back, you are really making a Stretch Armstrong type reach. I think you know this as well. If the horse in question was named anything but Zenyatta, we'd all just say she had a perfect setup and didn't get it done. She was just another overbet favorite.

[PhantomOnTour]

Alright...I finally gotta chime in here with a few of my meaningless thoughts:

A) with my losing bet on Lucky down the drain by the 1/8 pole I began to root for Zen to win it...she didn't, and no matter how folks wanna carve up the race and discuss gallop outs and final fractions and problems with the surface and the ride and yadda yadda...she came up short. Hell of an effort, but credit due to Blame.
B) she may have fared better with a work over the surface...who knows? Did she work at OP before her races there? I can't remember.
C) it's tough to beat someone on their home course, ain't it?
D) Zenyatta is a bona-fide, Grade A, top notch, first ballot HOF'er, and a gal for the ages...but Blame is HOY for 2010.

I began to swing to the Zen camp last year after the BC Classic but was highly disappointed in her 2010 campaign prior to the big race. No excuse for not trying the Pac Classic or Hollywood Gold Cup.
Just me thoughts.

[tucker6]

Alright...I finally gotta chime in here with a few of my meaningless thoughts:

A) with my losing bet on Lucky down the drain by the 1/8 pole I began to root for Zen to win it...she didn't, and no matter how folks wanna carve up the race and discuss gallop outs and final fractions and problems with the surface and the ride and yadda yadda...she came up short. Hell of an effort, but credit due to Blame.
B) she may have fared better with a work over the surface...who knows? Did she work at OP before her races there? I can't remember.
C) it's tough to beat someone on their home course, ain't it?
D) Zenyatta is a bona-fide, Grade A, top notch, first ballot HOF'er, and a gal for the ages...but Blame is HOY for 2010.

I began to swing to the Zen camp last year after the BC Classic but was highly disappointed in her 2010 campaign prior to the big race. No excuse for not trying the Pac Classic or Hollywood Gold Cup.
Just me thoughts.great post. speaks my sentiments. :ThmbUp:

[JustRalph]

D) Zenyatta is a bona-fide, Grade A, top notch, first ballot HOF'er, and a gal for the ages...but Blame is HOY for 2010.

Do they have a new category for those who ran a duck and cover campaign?

In the crazy world that is horse racing, where Hall of Famer's are still in the sport........they will vote her in. It's the most ridiculous Hall of Fame in all of sports. Riders and trainers are voted in while they still participate?

I say they go to the five year rule like other sports

It's a freakin popularity contest with no ground rules.

[WinterTriangle]

I think if Sheriffs had to do it all over again he'd ship in earlier and trainer Z over the CD track to see how she handles it

I don't think it would have made a difference, as the way the track was on SAT would not reflect what it might have been on Wed. Talk to some of the photographers who stood on the track for 2 days...they can tell you more about what the track was actually like.

[highnote]

CJ, in most cases I would agree with you about closers, but in this case I think Z was the best horse. I agree with Mike Smith that he did not give her the best chance of winning. The only objective way I know of proving my point that Z was the best horse is showing that Z was decelerating at slower rate at the wire than Blame. Smith almost got the win. If Z would have nipped Blame by a nose at the wire rather than losing by 1/2 a head we might not be having this conversation.

As to her being an overbet favorite, that is a matter of opinion. That's why they put them on the track.

She won the BC Classic last year. She almost won this year. She won 19 in a row. She deserves to be called a champion.

I didn't bet the race and I probably would not have bet her at short odds. I don't think the risk of betting her justified the potential reward. However, I look at it from a purely financial point of view.

Others don't mind taking the risk because holding a winning ticket on a champion like Zenyatta trumps the risk. For many people, value is not measured in dollars.

The one thing I like about big racings days with big name horses is that a lot of people make a popular horse a sentimental favorite. I think a lot of $2 bettors made Zenyatta the sentimental favorite. For these sentimental ticket holders, seeing her lose was much more painful than the $2 win bet they lost.



The only point I'm trying to make is this. If you keep thinking closers that don't quite get up after a very fast pace and a pretty clean trip were best, or even worse should be bet back, you are really making a Stretch Armstrong type reach. I think you know this as well. If the horse in question was named anything but Zenyatta, we'd all just say she had a perfect setup and didn't get it done. She was just another overbet favorite.

[WinterTriangle]

it was the jockey's fault.

I can't blame a jockey for not being able to change a horse's running style at the last minute, "during" a big race.

As a matter of fact, I'm against drastically altering a horse's running style, period.... unless there is something mechanically / musculoskeletally incorrect in the first place that would vastly hinder their career on the track, or cause them to come to harm. And that would happen very early on in their career, not the end of it. :)


Zenyatta is perhaps the greatest closer of all time, though.

And everyone who knows how the track played on SAT, and what the consistency of the track was, knew that it would not be playing to her kind of running style, hence: it is precisely a testimony to Zen's greatness that she GOT a head behind Blame (horse-for-the-course) at the finish line....

and ahead of all those other dirt horses who should have been there, but weren't...(and didn't have any excuses).

[cj]

And everyone who knows how the track played on SAT, and what the consistency of the track was, knew that it would not be playing to her kind of running style, hence: it is precisely a testimony to Zen's greatness that she GOT a head behind Blame (horse-for-the-course) at the finish line....

and ahead of all those other dirt horses who should have been there, but weren't...(and didn't have any excuses).

Oh, now it was the track...it never ends. That was a biased track? If so, Dakota Phone must be a top 5 all time miler. The pace was brutal, he closed, and actually got up. What a champion.

[highnote]

I can't blame a jockey for not being able to change a horse's running style at the last minute, "during" a big race.

As a matter of fact, I'm against drastically altering a horse's running style, period.... unless there is something mechanically / musculoskeletally incorrect in the first place that would vastly hinder their career on the track, or cause them to come to harm. And that would happen very early on in their career, not the end of it. :)

I agree, a jockey should not try to alter a horse's running style. However, I do think Smith could have kept her in closer contact with the second pack of horses -- rather than 20 lengths behind.

He had her 10 lengths behind last year in the BC Classic. He had her 20 lengths behind this year. He could have urged her closer to the pack early in the race without changing her come from behind style. In my opinion, she would not have had as much work to do to try to catch Blame who had gotten the lead at the top of the stretch.

Again, this is all a matter of opinion, and you could very well be right.

[JustRalph]

It's been a week......7 days of postmortem trying to put salve in the wound is enough.......

Get over it....no matter how valiant in defeat...... she lost............. :bang:

[WinterTriangle]

He had her 10 lengths behind last year in the BC Classic. He had her 20 lengths behind this year.

He? Watchmaker, Beyer........or did you mean .......



.......the jockey? :D



The BCC was the last race of the weekend, by which time everyone had plenty of notice on the horse-for-the-course angle.

The fact that Zenyatta was the very opposite of horse for the course :D is what has made her so admired in defeat.

The enormity of what she accomplished is precisely what has caused opinion of her to rise exponentially. So many predicted her loss based on the fact that she had so much going against her....that closers don't remain undefeated, etc. Yet, she did what she did, with mud clods flying in her face, on a surface she didn't like.

And didn't lose by 5, 10, or 15 lengths.

(If you wanted to go back and see some hilarious things that were said before the race it sort of makes you wonder why only Zenyatta fans are called *silly* for some of the stuff they say. :D )

Oh, now it was the track...it never ends. That was a biased track?

I did not use the term biased. Look again.

CDX, based on surface, consistency, or Zen's lack of early speed and running style----did not favor Zenyatta---who thought it did? How many closers are undeafeated? :D

But so much for "avoiding places you might not win" complaints, huh?

Losing a race is not so terrible after all. :) For her, it certainly hasn't been, as I said above.

[cj]

Losing a race is not so terrible after all. :) For her, it certainly hasn't been, as I said above.

Nope, which is exactly what many of us have been saying all along. Unfortunately, some aren't handling it very well. As I said, way too many excuses for a horse that doesn't need one.

Obviously the connections would have been a laughing stock if they avoided this race after the talk all year. Bravo for actually showing up though. I'm just sad we didn't get to see her in more competitive races which is all I've asked for this year.

Call me jaded, but I just don't get excited at horses beating tomato cans at 1 to 20 odds.

[rastajenk]

What is CDX? The stock market abbreviation? A new railroad? :confused:

[pandy]

For the record, in her career Zenyatta defeated a total of 21 GR1 winners, 9 of which were multiple GR1 winners, and she also defeated 5 CHAMPIONS.

[Nets]

It's been a week......7 days of postmortem trying to put salve in the wound is enough.......

Get over it....no matter how valiant in defeat...... she lost............. :bang:

Well said Ralph. It's been 20 yrs since the Buffalo Bills lost Super Bowl 25 to the Giants. We in Buffalo tore ourselves up with how we knew we were better than NY, how unfair to steamroll through the playoffs and then lose on a missed field goal, woulda, coulda, shoulda, etc, etc. But guess what? 20 yrs later, when I look in the record books.....the Giants won.....the Bills lost. And 20 yrs from now, Blame will have won the 2010 BCC and Zenyatta lost. Save yourselves the aggravation. Trust me, I know.

[PaceAdvantage]

Maybe "slow" wasn't the right description. It was certainly slower than the best timed BC Classics.

10 of the last 16 KY Derbys have been run faster than the 2010 Breeders' Cup Classic. The Classic is supposed to be for the best 10 furlong horses in the world. I would expect it to be run faster than the Derby 6 times in 16.

I still agree with Mike Smith -- Zenyatta losing the Classic was the fault of the jockey. BUT -- the thing we'll never know is if any other jockey could have done any better.Perhaps the horses in this year's renewal just weren't as good as you thought them to be. The speed figures (curse those damn tools of the DEVIL) certainly seem to bear this out...

Blame is no world beater in terms of history...so what does that make Zenyatta?

[PaceAdvantage]

And everyone who knows how the track played on SAT, and what the consistency of the track was, knew that it would not be playing to her kind of running style, hence: it is precisely a testimony to Zen's greatness that she GOT a head behind Blame (horse-for-the-course) at the finish line....

and ahead of all those other dirt horses who should have been there, but weren't...(and didn't have any excuses).Wow.

[pandy]

"Blame is no world beater in terms of history...so what does that make Zenyatta?"

This is similar to what Beyer said in his recent column, degrading Zenyatta's place in history because she lost to Blame. Here is what Beyer wrote:

"Before Saturday, Zenyatta's admirers argued that she was one of the all-time great racing talents of either sex. The Classic brought her abilities into perspective. She's as good as Blame, and few people would rank Blame among the immortals of the turf."

But it's unfair to quantify Zenyatta's place in history, or overall class, based on the fact that she lost to Blame.

Secretariat lost to horses that were far inferior to Blame, so are we to take Secretariats defeats and say, gee, how good could he have really been, he lost to Onion?

Man O War lost one race, to Upset. Again, you can't say that Man O War wasn't one of the all time greats because he lost one race to a horse that wasn't a great horse.

As for Blame, since he is retiring after only 13 starts, and has 9 wins, including wins over Zenyatta and Quality Road, it's hard to say just how good he is because they are simply retiring him too soon. If Blame came back next year and had another year like he did this year he certainly would go down in history as a great horse.

People who think that speed figures are the measure of greatness should have a ton of respect for Blame because he beat Quality Road both times he faced him. Not long ago, Beyer and other speed handicappers were gushing over Quality Road after he ran a 121 Beyer in the Donn. Yet Blame and Zenyatta proved that they are clearly better horses than Quality Road.

[FenceBored]

"Blame is no world beater in terms of history...so what does that make Zenyatta?"

This is similar to what Beyer said in his recent column, degrading Zenyatta's place in history because she lost to Blame. Here is what Beyer wrote:

"Before Saturday, Zenyatta's admirers argued that she was one of the all-time great racing talents of either sex. The Classic brought her abilities into perspective. She's as good as Blame, and few people would rank Blame among the immortals of the turf."

But it's unfair to quantify Zenyatta's place in history, or overall class, based on the fact that she lost to Blame.

Secretariat lost to horses that were far inferior to Blame, so are we to take Secretariats defeats and say, gee, how good could he have really been, he lost to Onion?

Man O War lost one race, to Upset. Again, you can't say that Man O War wasn't one of the all time greats because he lost one race to a horse that wasn't a great horse.

As for Blame, since he is retiring after only 13 starts, and has 9 wins, including wins over Zenyatta and Quality Road, it's hard to say just how good he is because they are simply retiring him too soon. If Blame came back next year and had another year like he did this year he certainly would go down in history as a great horse.

People who think that speed figures are the measure of greatness should have a ton of respect for Blame because he beat Quality Road both times he faced him. Not long ago, Beyer and other speed handicappers were gushing over Quality Road after he ran a 121 Beyer in the Donn. Yet Blame and Zenyatta proved that they are clearly better horses than Quality Road.

I'm sorry? "It's hard to say just how good" Blame is for beating Zenyatta, but Zenyatta is one of the greatest ever because she was beating mid-level competitors for the past two years in her 'regular season' campaigns?

There's a term for this: cognitive dissonance.

[pandy]

I'm sorry? "It's hard to say just how good" Blame is for beating Zenyatta, but Zenyatta is one of the greatest ever because she was beating mid-level competitors for the past two years in her 'regular season' campaigns?

There's a term for this: cognitive dissonance.

In her career, Zenyatta defeated 21 GR1 winners, 9 of which were multiple GR1 winners, and 5 horses that were Champions. That is not mid-level competition.

[FenceBored]

In her career, Zenyatta defeated 21 GR1 winners, 9 of which were multiple GR1 winners, and 5 horses that were Champions. That is not mid-level competition.

I said her 2009 and 2010 'regular season,' i.e. non-BC, campaigns were against mid-level competition. Let's see if your rejoinder is on point.

How many G1 winners and champions did Zenyatta beat in non-BC competition over the past two years (that would be 2009 and 2010). Answer: 1 G1 winner and 0 champions.

So, your reply was non-responsive. We've established that she is not undefeatable. Was the length of her win streak inflated by the softness of her competition in 9 of the 11 races she's run over the past two years? We'll never know for sure, but it's a legitmate question and one that must bear on her place in the pantheon of top horses.

[BluegrassProf]

There's a term for this: cognitive dissonance. :D This is, without question, the single most appropriate descriptor for this whole side show.
In her career, Zenyatta defeated 21 GR1 winners, 9 of which were multiple GR1 winners, and 5 horses that were Champions. That is not mid-level competition.The more ya say it, the more it means! ;) Speaking of which, in add'n to what Fence just wrote: I'm reasonably sure Blame beat 14 GR1 winners - that's seven less than Zen's 21 - in 2010. Anyone have the number for Blame's 2009 (and that li'l bit of '08, if applicable)?

A "horse of the century" that has beaten 21 G1 winners in her entire career? Yowza. But see, that's the whole darned point (for Blame and Zenyatta alike): these aren't inimitable world-beaters; they're good horses that we should appreciate for exactly what they are...good horses. Not claimers or big ol' stoopid-heads, nor mega-greatness made manifest...good horses. Just happens that one makes people LOSE THEIR EFFIN' MINDS.

She's less the Aretha Franklin of the equine world than she is the Lady Gaga. At least she looks good on stage. :ThmbUp:

[pandy]

First of all, why leave the BC races out? Why should they not count? As for 2010, she couldn't beat GR1 horses in her races this year because she had won all the GR1 races. I don't really understand what you're trying to say, but if its that she didn't face good competition the past two years, that is simply not true, in the two BC classics alone she faced the best horses in the world, twice. Again, in her career she beat 5 world champion horses and 13 grade 1 winners including 9 multiple grade 1 winners, so any talk of her not facing good top stock is absurd.

[pandy]

Hey, if you believe that Zenyatta is a good horse, not a great horse, that's fine with me. You are in the minority and Zenyatta will certainly go down in history as a great horse, and, yes, the fact that she beat all those multiple GR1 winners and five champions does matter regardless of what you think. If you think Z is a good horse, I guess that means that Quality Road (and his 121 Beyer) is not even a good horse, just average, since Blame and Zenyatta are better than him.

[FenceBored]

First of all, why leave the BC races out? Why should they not count?


This gives a better guage of the level of competition she was facing race-in-race-out. If you're beating up on Div-2 college teams except for 1 game a year, people have a right to question what you've really proved by it. Are you really capable of beating good quality competition time and time again, or do you need to rest up for a year between attempts.

As for 2010, she couldn't beat GR1 horses in her races this year because she had won all the GR1 races.


There are 13 Grade 1s for Filly's and Mares 3&up at a route distance on the main track (3up F/M RD to use the USGSC designation). Zenyatta won 5. That means there are 8 races she didn't win, and between 1 and 8 G1 winners just in that division she didn't beat.


I don't really understand what you're trying to say, but if its that she didn't face good competition the past two years, that is simply not true, in the two BC classics alone she faced the best horses in the world, twice.


And that's why I'm setting the BCs to one side, isn't it. I'm not denying that they occured and they contained a high level of competition. However, your using those 2 races, one in each year, to define the level of competition for the entire year, which is inaccurate. She stepped up once, once, in each of these years. And please, don't believe the hype, neither of these Classics has contained "the best horses in the world."



Again, in her career she beat 5 world champion horses and 13 grade 1 winners including 9 multiple grade 1 winners, so any talk of her not facing good top stock is absurd.

5 world champions? That would be:




Ginger Punch
Einstein
Gio Ponti
Summer Bird
Mine that Bird.
Blame has beaten 4.

Mine that Bird,
Einstein,
Lookin at Lucky
Zenyatta.
13 Grade 1 winners? Well now, I'm familar with these kind of things, so we're counting horses who ever won a Grade 1 in their career aren't we? Okay then.


Bullsbay
Dominican
Einstein (multi)
Espoir City (multi)
General Quarters (multi)
Haynesfield
Lookin at Lucky (multi)
Macho Again
Misremembered
Mine That Bird
Paddy O' Prado
Quality Road (multi)
Wicked Style
Zenyatta (multi)
I count 14 (w/ 6 multi).

And, let's be clear here, the majority of the champions (3) and G1 winners (8 maybe 10) and the multi-G1 winners (5 maybe 6) she beat by winning 1 race (the 2009 BC Classic). That's not quite the same thing as facing that level of competition time and time again, race after race. One lucky trip and she's a world beater. If Rip Van Winkle had carried her out of the race instead of Einstein, you wouldn't have much on that list, would you?

So, putting the pieces together to mimic your summary of Zenyatta: In Blame's career he beat 4 world champion horses and 14 grade 1 winners including 6 multiple grade 1 winners.

Does he get his cookie now?

[pandy]

You proved my point, Zenyatta (and Blame) raced against top-level competition, not mid-level as you said earlier.

[FenceBored]

You proved my point, Zenyatta (and Blame) raced against top-level competition, not mid-level as you said earlier.

No, I disproved your point. If >50% of the Zenyatta resume of "top-level" competition comes from 1 race, then what does that say about what was she beating in her other 18 wins?

[FenceBored]

Einstein didn't win Turf Male in 2008 as I was misremembering, Conduit did.

The fifth champion Zenyatta beat was Wait A While.

And that lowers Blame's number of champions beat to 3.

Champions beaten by Zenyatta:

Ginger Punch
Gio Ponti
Mine that Bird
Summer Bird
Wait a While
Champions beaten by Blame.

Mine that Bird,
Lookin at Lucky
Zenyatta.

[ihatenyra]

I think you're spending so much time and effort crunching all these numbers that you're burning yourself out. When did zenyatta face what a while, a champion turf mare?

[FenceBored]

I think you're spending so much time and effort crunching all these numbers that you're burning yourself out. When did zenyatta face what a while, a champion turf mare?

You're right. :bang:

And, I'll take your advice, and not try to figure out who the other one was right now. I'll go do some fun stall mucking. :jump:

[pandy]

No, I disproved your point. If >50% of the Zenyatta resume of "top-level" competition comes from 1 race, then what does that say about what was she beating in her other 18 wins?

You can't NOT count the horses she beat in the two BC classic races, even though you obviously want to, for some reason.

[tucker6]

You can't NOT count the horses she beat in the two BC classic races, even though you obviously want to, for some reason.Why should a horse get credit during a losing effort?? If "greatness" were defined by how many horses you finish in front of, then I can see racing strategy changing a lot to encompass this change. You only get credit for winning in this world. Otherwise, why even care that Zenyatta was 19 for 19. As Vince Lombardi once said, "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing". That applies to horse racing too.

[rastajenk]

What exactly is a champion, and why is Mine That Bird listed above?

[Spalding No!]

What exactly is a champion, and why is Mine That Bird listed above?

Mine That Bird won a Sovereign Award at 2 as Canada's outstanding juvenile.

Cocoa Beach was HOY in Chile also.

Not sure when Zenyatta beat Wait A While, but she did beat Canadian HOY Sealy Hill.

[rastajenk]

Ah, yes; thanks.

[Tom]

First of all, why leave the BC races out?

Cherry picking data.
But in #1223, he lists Zenyatta as being beaten by Blame. The guy is all over the place. Bottom line, Blame is no better than Zenyatta than 6 inches. But that makes for a dull story.

And what is a world champion?
Mine that Bird is a one race fluke who couldn't win a stake a Finger Lakes.

[highnote]

Perhaps the horses in this year's renewal just weren't as good as you thought them to be. The speed figures (curse those damn tools of the DEVIL) certainly seem to bear this out...

Blame is no world beater in terms of history...so what does that make Zenyatta?


You might be right.

However, here is my argument... and I know that you, of all people, (Paceadvantage) will get this... and I have won a lot of bets using this logic...
not saying I'm right or you're wrong, though...

Experience has taught us that if the pace is too slow the final time will also be slow because the horses will not have enough distance in the race to make up for the time lost in the early part of the race.

Final time is a function of pace.

James Quinn's book on making speed figures on the turf explains this well.

My contention is that if Zenyatta had been closer to the pace she could have had a faster final time and could have won the race.

Smith said he had her too far back. I agree with him.

Now, I could be wrong and you could be right. That's the beauty of horseracing. We get to bet our opinions.

[BluegrassProf]

Bottom line, Blame is no better than Zenyatta than 6 inches. But that makes for a dull story.Pfft...I don't think it dull in the least. You'll get no major argument from me, all completely reasonable, clear-as-day questions of record aside. No cherry-picking needed. :ThmbUp:


On a somewhat related note, speaking of crazy-pants:

Psycho Talk (Zast, HorseRaceInsider)
Wendi Gardner, an associate professor of psychology at Northwestern University, believes that the over-the-top fan worship for Zenyatta has to do with belonging. She believes that the Zenyatta fans may have attached to a group and are finding identity within the group. They are, as a matter of fact, not dissimilar from faithful TV viewers who become attached to the characters of a popular show such as Friends, for which the audience would live and die with each challenge that the cast faced.

“Getting devoted either to a person or character, or in this case an animal, is a fairly common phenomenon. It’s called parasocial attachment,” Gardner explained in a telephone interview. When asked why the fans of the once-beaten mare often overstepped the facts when defending Zenyatta, Gardner answered, “We, as humans, throw out logic when evaluating, protecting or defending those we love.” About the insults the Zeniacs lob at people with dissimilar opinions, she then added, “Even though this seems to make no sense because these people have no real relationship with this horse in any way, their emotional attachment to the horse, like you’d have for a child, would explain the over-emotional protection they display in their behavior.”
http://www.horseraceinsider.com/Zasts-TrackWords/comments/2010-11-15psycho-talk/#comments

Vic conveniently fails to mention a major contributor to the furor he so vocally admonishes - turf media - but hey, he's a turf writer. Shock!

I also think boiling it down to point-blank parasocial attachment is a bit of an oversimplification - as a sociologist in a former life, I think the attachment in Zen's case is driven by a convergence of factors, from gender to groupthink to socially-constructed savior-longing (stuff psychologists tend to minimize in favor of individual/internal factors), but the point is perfectly valid. And completely fascinating.

(Note the comments...#27 is faaaabulous... :D )

[PaceAdvantage]

But it's unfair to quantify Zenyatta's place in history, or overall class, based on the fact that she lost to Blame.

Secretariat lost to horses that were far inferior to Blame, so are we to take Secretariats defeats and say, gee, how good could he have really been, he lost to Onion?BUZZZZZZ....wrongo...faulty argument. Secretariat has a much larger body of accomplishments to fall back on. Triple Crown winner. Multiple track record holder. Bone crushing performance in the Belmont Stakes.

Zenyatta has no such luxuries. Except for her BC Classic victory over her preferred and very unique, not so widely used, and now out of favor surface, Zenyatta has been raced solely against restricted company...and for the most part, very WEAK restricted company.

Thus, we don't have the luxury of saying..."well, Zenyatta lost to Blame, but LOOK AT ALL THIS OTHER FANTASTIC STUFF SHE HAS ACCOMPLISHED." Well, except for the winning streak of course. You have that...run with it...

Man O War lost one race, to Upset. Again, you can't say that Man O War wasn't one of the all time greats because he lost one race to a horse that wasn't a great horse.You are exactly right...you can't say that in Man o' War's case.

Not long ago, Beyer and other speed handicappers were gushing over Quality Road after he ran a 121 Beyer in the Donn. Yet Blame and Zenyatta proved that they are clearly better horses than Quality Road.Not true. Not on here. I believe I was one to comment how I would need to see that type of performance duplicated someplace other than Gulfstream. I believe a number of other "speed handicappers" said the same thing on this board. Nobody was gushing...and I'm not exactly sure how Zenyatta proved that she is clearly better than Quality Road off one race where QR was clearly not himself.

[PaceAdvantage]

Experience has taught us that if the pace is too slow the final time will also be slow because the horses will not have enough distance in the race to make up for the time lost in the early part of the race.

Final time is a function of pace.How does this apply to this year's Classic, which featured a rather robust pace, a point everyone agrees on, which as you know, is quite a rarity these days.

[FenceBored]

Cherry picking data.
But in #1223, he lists Zenyatta as being beaten by Blame. The guy is all over the place. Bottom line, Blame is no better than Zenyatta than 6 inches. But that makes for a dull story.

And what is a world champion?
Mine that Bird is a one race fluke who couldn't win a stake a Finger Lakes.

Cotton picking silly.
Setting aside elements of a whole to take a closer look at the rest of the components doesn't mean never acknowledging what you've set to the side.

Bottom line?
http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/2010/more/11/06/breeders.cup.zenyatta.ap/blame-story-reuters.jpg

It's an exciting story of how Seth Hancock, in the month after the Secretariat movie comes out chronicling his first major stallion syndication, finally won the Breeders Cup Classic defeating a horse that some called undefeatable.
Gives you shivers, doesn't it?

As to what "world champion" means, you'd have to ask pandy, I used it because the sentence from his/her post that I was responding to used it.

[FenceBored]

Mine That Bird won a Sovereign Award at 2 as Canada's outstanding juvenile.

Cocoa Beach was HOY in Chile also.

Not sure when Zenyatta beat Wait A While, but she did beat Canadian HOY Sealy Hill.

Sealy Hill. Yep, it's got to be Sealy Hill. :ThmbUp:

Ihatenyra had it pegged about Wait a While. I saw she'd been 2006 3 year old filly champ, remembered she'd run in the Ky Oaks that year, pulled up her record at Equibase, saw her last race was at the 2008 BC and jumped to the conclusion it was the Ladies Classic. Completely spaced her move to the turf. As Sting used to sing "too much information running through my brain, too much information driving me insane." :bang:

I didn't construct the talking points pandy's using, but it wouldn't suprise me if those who did come up with it missed a Chilean HOY. So, that would make 6 champions Zenyatta beat.

Which raises the issue of English and Irish awards versus the Cartier Awards. The English and Irish both have 5 distance highweights for both 3 year olds, older males and older mares, plus the 2 year old highweights. From across the pond, do we treat them like state champions here, saving the honors for the Cartiers, or treat all five 3 year old highweights from both England and Ireland as equivalent to the Eclipse 3 year old Champion?

And on the Blame ledger, I guess a "Best Dirt Horse" JRA award counts for Espoir City (http://japanracing.jp/en/news-photos/awards/jra/2009.html), so that would take Blame number back up to 4.

[highnote]

How does this apply to this year's Classic, which featured a rather robust pace, a point everyone agrees on, which as you know, is quite a rarity these days.


I was talking about Zenyatta's pace. She was 18-20 lengths behind early and Smith waited so long to get her into high gear that she didn't run the distance optimally. She is capable of a better final time, but Smith did not help her achieve it.

I understand the point is arguable. And you very well might be right, but this is how I interpret it and I haven't heard an argument yet that is convincing enough to change my mind.

[andymays]

I was talking about Zenyatta's pace. She was 18-20 lengths behind early and Smith waited so long to get her into high gear that she didn't run the distance optimally. She is capable of a better final time, but Smith did not help her achieve it.

I understand the point is arguable. And you very well might be right, but this is how I interpret it and I haven't heard an argument yet that is convincing enough to change my mind.

His job is to get her to relax and get into stride and I'm sure he was trying to do that. Pushing a deep closer early rarely works out well.

[cj]

I was talking about Zenyatta's pace. She was 18-20 lengths behind early and Smith waited so long to get her into high gear that she didn't run the distance optimally. She is capable of a better final time, but Smith did not help her achieve it.

I understand the point is arguable. And you very well might be right, but this is how I interpret it and I haven't heard an argument yet that is convincing enough to change my mind.

This is exactly where I predicted she would be in the Classic. She never runs the distance optimally, and there is ZERO guarantee that asking her for more early would have been the answer. Is it possible? Sure it is. Likely? Experience tells me no.

[highnote]

His job is to get her to relax and get into stride and I'm sure he was trying to do that. Pushing a deep closer early rarely works out well.


I agree with you that his job was to get her to relax and get into stride and that pushing a deep closer early rarely works out well.

However, Smith could have kept her closer to the pace without compromising her chances, in fact, he probably would have improved her chances.

Look, he rode her to 17 victories! He probably knows a lot more about how to ride the filly than you or I. And if he says he should have been closer to the pace then I would tend to agree with him.

I can't say you are wrong because there is no way of disproving it. I'm just saying I agree with the jockey -- the jockey the won 17 in a row on her and almost won the BC Classic two years in a row on her.

[andymays]

I agree with you that his job was to get her to relax and get into stride and that pushing a deep closer early rarely works out well.

However, Smith could have kept her closer to the pace without compromising her chances, in fact, he probably would have improved her chances.

Look, he rode her to 17 victories! He probably knows a lot more about how to ride the filly than you or I. And if he says he should have been closer to the pace then I would tend to agree with him.

I can't say you are wrong because there is no way of disproving it. I'm just saying I agree with the jockey -- the jockey the won 17 in a row on her and almost won the BC Classic two years in a row on her.

If a horse is having trouble relaxing and getting into stride then pushing on them usually makes it worse not better.

Smith is blaming himself instead of Zenyatta. He loves her and would never say anything to put any blame (no pun intended) on her.

[highnote]

This is exactly where I predicted she would be in the Classic. She never runs the distance optimally, and there is ZERO guarantee that asking her for more early would have been the answer. Is it possible? Sure it is. Likely? Experience tells me no.


Her running style, to paraphrase Steve Roman, is a valid expression of her genetic predisposition. In that sense she does have ability to run the distance optimally. Ruffian would have had a different way of running the distance optimally.

You are right -- there is ZERO guarantee that asking her for more early would have been the answer.

She was closer to the pace in the 2009 BC Classic (on synthetic, albeit) and she won. Would she have won had she been closer this year? We'll never know. If she was closer to pace, maybe she would have spit out the bit in deep stretch? No one can know.

I can't say you're wrong, but I have to agree with Smith, having her closer to the pace would have given her a better chance.

[thaskalos]

...and I'm not exactly sure how Zenyatta proved that she is clearly better than Quality Road off one race where QR was clearly not himself. Of course! We can't be sure that Zenyatta is clearly better than Quality Road off of ONLY ONE RACE (eventhough QR was trounced)...but we have no trouble making the determination that BLAME was clearly better than Zenyatta, off of the SAME ONE RACE - eventhough Blame won by a diminishing head.

That makes sense I guess...

As far as QR being "clearly not himself"...he sure was able to fool his "superstar" trainer! Todd Pletcher repeatedly stated that QR was "as good as he had ever been", going into the Classic. But then again, what does Pletcher know!

We should give the benefit of the doubt to QR, while making "phantom" excuses for his non-effort...but Zenyatta's effort speaks for itself. She ran her usual race, enjoyed a "perfect trip", and still came up short...thus proving that she is clearly inferior to Blame.

Nice...:ThmbUp:

[cj]

I'm not sure when trainer and jockey speak became gospel, but I like it. Keep listening to them fellow bettors.

[PaceAdvantage]

Of course! We can't be sure that Zenyatta is clearly better than Quality Road off of ONLY ONE RACE (eventhough QR was trounced)...but we have no trouble making the determination that BLAME was clearly better than Zenyatta, off of the SAME ONE RACE - eventhough Blame won by a diminishing head.Who said that? I never even commented on who I think is the better horse. I would have to say off that race, they're pretty much equal. They both ran their race, unlike Quality Road, who clearly did not run his race.That makes sense I guess...It doesn't?As far as QR being "clearly not himself"...he sure was able to fool his "superstar" trainer! Todd Pletcher repeatedly stated that QR was "as good as he had ever been", going into the Classic. But then again, what does Pletcher know!So you'll put 100% trust into Pletcher in this case, but then when we look back on the Life At Ten debacle, what should we say then? :lol: We should give the benefit of the doubt to QR, while making "phantom" excuses for his non-effort...but Zenyatta's effort speaks for itself. She ran her usual race, enjoyed a "perfect trip", and still came up short...thus proving that she is clearly inferior to Blame.Again, I have never stated she is clearly inferior to Blame. Where do you get this? How can anyone say this when she came so close to beating him?

In the same way, how can anyone say that QR ran his race? Are you trying to state that QR is THAT BAD of a racehorse? We all know this isn't the case.

[thaskalos]

I'm not sure when trainer and jockey speak became gospel, but I like it. Keep listening to them fellow bettors.
Trainers may have trouble assessing the condition of the other horses in the race...but they know more about THEIR OWN HORSES' condition, than we can ever be expected to know.

Looking at a few Past Performance lines spaced 2 months apart is a poor substitute to spending every hour of every day with the horse.

[FenceBored]

First of all, why leave the BC races out?

Since some people are having trouble understanding what I'm saying here. Let's look at an example based on auction prices. Say there's a breeder/consigner who puts 11 horses into a sale.

The horses are bid upon and the results are as follows.

1. $9,500
2. $3,200
3. $11,000
4. $7,500
5. $1.5m
6. $2,500
7. $1,000
8. $12,000
9. $9,500
10. $10,000
11. $2.75m (RNA)

Now, asked to evaluate the quality of the horses auctioned how do we do it?

Some might say, "look there were two who got bid up over $1m, so there's great quality throughout." But what do the numbers really show.

Total bid on 11 horses: $4,316,200
Average of all 11 horses bid upon: $392,382

Total paid for 10 sold horses: $1,566,200
Average of 10 horses which sold: $156,620

Both of those look real good, decent quality there. Now, let's look at the average without the two 7-figure horses.

Total paid for 9 non-7-figure sold: $66,200
Average of 9 non-7-figure horses: $7,356.

That's quite different. That's not very good.

Does that mean that the RNA didn't get bid up pretty high? No.

Does that mean that the $1.5m horse wasn't sold? No.

What it means is that focusing solely on the high ticket horses gives you a false picture of the overall quality of the horses consigned. It shows that 96% of the gross for the 10 sold horses comes from 1 horse.

So, yes, the two big horses were consigned, and one sold, but that doesn't mean the overall quality of the consignment was high.

Bonus: Quartiles for our three scenarios. They show less unbalancing due to a outlier or two.


All Sold non-7-fig
Q1: $ 5,350 $ 4,275 $ 3,200
Q2: $ 9,500 $ 9,500 $ 9,500
Q3: $11,500 $10,750 $10,000



It's just a shame we don't have universally accepted field strength numbers from which we could get a median for a horse's year and/or lifetime career.

[andymays]

Trainers may have trouble assessing the condition of the other horses in the race...but they know more about THEIR OWN HORSES' condition, than we can ever be expected to know.

Looking at a few Past Performance lines spaced 2 months apart is a poor substitute to spending every hour of every day with the horse.

Traditionally comments from Trainers and Jockeys are less than forthcoming. Not saying they always lie but they seem to speak like you would expect most politicians to speak. The are worried about offending Owners, Track Executives, or Racing Officials for the most part.

[cj]

Trainers may have trouble assessing the condition of the other horses in the race...but they know more about THEIR OWN HORSES' condition, than we can ever be expected to know.

Looking at a few Past Performance lines spaced 2 months apart is a poor substitute to spending every hour of every day with the horse.

No doubt, and yet, they are often just as wrong as we are. Therefore, the value of what they say usually somewhere between slim, none, and outright negative.

[highnote]

Traditionally comments from Trainers and Jockeys are less than forthcoming. Not saying they always lie but they seem to speak like you would expect most politicians to speak. The are worried about offending Owners, Track Executives, or Racing Officials for the most part.


In this case, I think Mike Smith was speaking from the heart and saying what he really believed. Is what he believed the actual truth? Who knows?

But I don't think he was lying when he said it was his fault that Z lost the race.

Should you always listen to jocks and trainers? Of course, not. This game is not black and white. There are many shades of grey.

[thaskalos]

Who said that? I never even commented on who I think is the better horse. I would have to say off that race, they're pretty much equal. They both ran their race, unlike Quality Road, who clearly did not run his race.

So you'll put 100% trust into Pletcher in this case, but then when we look back on the Life At Ten debacle, what should we say then? :lol:

Again, I have never stated she is clearly inferior to Blame. Where do you get this? How can anyone say this when she came so close to beating him?

In the same way, how can anyone say that QR ran his race? Are you trying to state that QR is THAT BAD of a racehorse? We all know this isn't the case. Who said that Blame was better than Zenyatta? How can anyone say this when she came so close to beating him?

CJ has said it no less than 5 times already! He has also added that Blame had the tougher trip. I guess those 2 tiring horses in front of him should have parted a little more, so Blame could win without even a straw in his path.

As far as the Life At Ten incident, I think we all know that Pletcher was aware of her problems...and he ran her anyway.

[cj]

Who said that Blame was better than Zenyatta? How can anyone say this when she came so close to beating him?

CJ has said it no less than 5 times already! He has also added that Blame had the tougher trip. I guess those 2 tiring horses in front of him should have parted a little more, so Blame could win without even a straw in his path.

As far as the Life At Ten incident, I think we all know that Pletcher was aware of her problems...and he ran her anyway.

I believe I said they both had clean trips. Blame was better that day, and would probably win more often than not. If the pace is slower, he would certainly win. If it were faster, maybe not, but it couldn't get much faster. If it were the same, I'd call it a tossup but Blame won the tossup. Maybe he loses that a few times.

Now, switch riders, and maybe it is a different story. But since the Z camp chose to stick with a lesser guy, that is their problem, not mine. They did plenty of things wrong that could have maybe altered the outcome, like not testing her against a real horse all year.

[thaskalos]

I believe I said they both had clean trips. Blame was better that day, and would probably win more often than not. If the pace is slower, he would certainly win. If it were faster, maybe not, but it couldn't get much faster. If it were the same, I'd call it a tossup but Blame won the tossup. Maybe he loses that a few times.

Now, switch riders, and maybe it is a different story. But since the Z camp chose to stick with a lesser guy, that is their problem, not mine. They did plenty of things wrong that could have maybe altered the outcome, like not testing her against a real horse all year.
Agreed! :ThmbUp:

Didn't I mention in the "war room" on race day that I wished for Gomez to be on Zenyatta for the Classic?

Can we now call a "truce" by agreeing that she was a special horse...the kind that we very rarely get to see?

[cj]

Agreed! :ThmbUp:

Didn't I mention in the "war room" on race day that I wished for Gomez to be on Zenyatta for the Classic?

Can we now call a "truce" by agreeing that she was a special horse...the kind that we very rarely get to see?

Sure, getting beat a head as a 6yo mare in the BC Classic is pretty special. I've never disliked the horse, just the connections and the schedule. I think maybe she could have reached all time great status if they had been even a little ambitious instead of worrying about padding her phony record.

[thaskalos]

Sure, getting beat a head as a 6yo mare in the BC Classic is pretty special. I've never disliked the horse, just the connections and the schedule. I think maybe she could have reached all time great status if they had been even a little ambitious instead of worrying about padding her phony record.
Great!

I was going to also ask you to retract that "crack" about the Z-fans being inferior handicappers and bettors...but that would have been asking too much. :)

[cj]

Great!

I was going to ask you to retract that "crack" about the Z-fans being inferior handicappers and bettors...but that would have been asking too much. :)

You are a wise man.