Zenyatta: All time great female?

[cj]

We have been told countless times that her figures on synthetics didn't mean much. But, in the end, she ran on dirt three times, and two times the pace was at a minimum very reasonable. Her Beyers topped out at 111, the other a 104, and the 3rd a 95. How does this compare to recent fillies and mares?

These all matched or ran faster than Zenyatta multiple times in top company. They are from a book I have that covers 1992-2004.

Banshee Breeze, 115, 114
Beautiful Pleasure, 113, 113, 112, 112, 111
Escena, 114, 113, 113
Heavenly Prize, 111, 111, 111
Inside Information, 119, 112, 111
Jewel Princess, 116, 114, 114, 112, 112
Serena's Song, 114, 113, 112, 111
Azeri, 112, 111
Riboletta 115, 115, 111
Xtra Heat (sprinter) 120, 118, 117, 113, 113

One other I know of since the book:

Rachel Alexandra, 116, 111

Just some food for thought.

[PhantomOnTour]

Why are you still devoting time to this?
It's over.

[cj]

Why are you still devoting time to this?
It's over.

Because it is fun, and I like perspective which many here seem to lack. You don't have to participate if you don't like. That is the great thing about message boards.

[Bruddah]

If Zenyatta had raced in the 70's and 80's, prior to these numbers and accomplished all that she has, she would have been declared an all time great. Are you saying that her accomplishments are less because of the Beyer ratings developed since the early 90's ?

There is no secret of what I think of these numbers. I don't believe you can accurately predict the calibre of horse, let alone the outcome of the next race, using them. I do believe they can be helpful in judging the performance of the horse in it's last race.

Never would I use them to categorize a horse as to "heart" and "will" to excel over others. After all, a horse really never knows if they have nosed out another at an invisible line. They do know that they have competed. Never would I use them (any number) to gauge the horses soundness and the ability to pass on those traits. Certainly, I would never use them to quantify a horse's greatness. (JMHO)

If you don't agree, go back and quantify Ruffian or Genuine risk.

[magwell]

JMHO... but I wouldn't take any of those over her, if I had a choice.

[cj]

If Zenyatta had raced in the 70's and 80's, prior to these numbers and accomplished all that she has, she would have been declared an all time great. Are you saying that her accomplishments are less because of the Beyer ratings developed since the early 90's ?



No, what I am actually saying is if I had the numbers from the 70s and 80s, the list would be exponentially bigger. I'm also saying if she ran then instead of now, she would have been lucky to win 50% of her races.

[MickJ26]

Zenyatta is an all time great based on her record, speed figures or not. Timing in life is everything. Nashoba's Key would've dusted Zenyatta had she not suffered an unfortunate demise.

[Bruddah]

What I am saying is, horses know only competing. They run as hard as they have to in order to compete. If you want to say Zenyatta ran against inferior competition and won, then we agree. She never had to really extend herself in competing with inferior competition.

Now, you want to say she was inferior to other fillies and mares because she didn't need to extend herself to compete (win), especially because of her ability and running style, then I say Bull.. Her last race shows she can compete with even the best males up to 1 1/4m. Something you numbers guys said was not possible because of her previous numbers. Now you're saying she wasn't as good as some of the fillies and mares of the past. Who never competed against males.

Will someone please tell and explain to Zenyatta that she lost the race. She only thinks she successfully competed with a prime male of her species. Poor dumb animal. She still thinks she competed succesfully everytime those humans asked her. sheeeesch!!

[cj]

When she really did have to extend herself, she came up a head short against a male that never ran faster than he did BC day. All of the fillies I listed were faster than Blame, every one of them.

[thaskalos]

CJ...since we all agree that speed ratings are only ONE piece of the handicapping puzzle, how can we rely on speed ratings alone as an indication of a horse's level of "greatness"?

Rachel Alexandra ran a 116, and Zenyatta "topped" at 112...so?

Does that make Rachel the better, "faster" horse? Where would Rachel rate in the Classic? :lol:

Is Zenyatta an all-time great female? DEFINITELY!

And if you don't believe me...go ask the speed figure "guru" himself - Andy Beyer.

It seems that you have no problem quoting Beyer when he is being critical of Zenyatta...but you tend to totally ignore him when he praises her.

[Bruddah]

When she really did have to extend herself, she came up a head short against a male that never ran faster than he did BC day. All of the fillies I listed were faster than Blame, every one of them.

If she ran a head and an inch better and beat a prime male running his best race, on a track she had never raced on previously, over a prime male which excelled on that same track, then how would you numbers guys "spin" that story?

I see numbers as the same as I would an acorn and oak trees. You numbers guys seem to take your numbers and make them into all encompassing oak trees. I tend to think they are but acorns (seeds) which if they can endure the years and the storms, have possibilities. Until then, they are not the end all-be all (mighty oaks). They do not dwarf, nor cover all you guys want to make of them.

[cj]

If she ran a head and an inch better and beat a prime male running his best race, on a track she had never raced on previously, over a prime male which excelled on that same track, then how would you numbers guys "spin" that story?


Honestly, it wouldn't have mattered. She'd still be a really good mare, just not as good as her record leads many to believe. The surface and poor competition inflated her resume for those that don't know better.

[Stillriledup]

CJ...since we all agree that speed ratings are only ONE piece of the handicapping puzzle, how can we rely on speed ratings alone as an indication of a horse's level of "greatness"?

Rachel Alexandra ran a 116, and Zenyatta "topped" at 112...so?

Does that make Rachel the better, "faster" horse? Where would Rachel rate in the Classic? :lol:

Is Zenyatta an all-time great female? DEFINITELY!

And if you don't believe me...go ask the speed figure "guru" himself - Andy Beyer.

It seems that you have no problem quoting Beyer when he is being critical of Zenyatta...but you tend to totally ignore him when he praises her.


Yes, that makes Rachel the better, faster horse.

[thaskalos]

She'd still be a really good mare, just not as good as her record leads many to believe. The surface and poor competition inflated her resume for those that don't know better.
Well...we are still young and eager to learn.

There may still be a chance for us...

[Bruddah]

Honestly, it wouldn't have mattered. She'd still be a really good mare, just not as good as her record leads many to believe. The surface and poor competition inflated her resume for those that don't know better.

You and I will need to agree to disagree. You think a horse's greatness is tied to inexact numbers created by humans. However, you can't explain the greatness of horses prior to your numbers. In other words, the definition of Greatness begins and ends with your numbers.

I, on the other hand, believe numerically imperfect numbers can not begin to encompass qualities which explain the ability of a horse to compete at top levels. I don't think you can put a number on Greatness. I believe Greatness is at the gene level and is best exemplified in ithe horse's ability and willingness to compete. Additionally, its' success on passing on those traits in the breeding shed.

[cj]

You and I will need to agree to disagree. You think a horse's greatness is tied to inexact numbers created by humans. However, you can't explain the greatness of horses prior to your numbers. In other words, the definition of Greatness begins and ends with your numbers.

I, on the other hand, believe numerically imperfect numbers can not begin to encompass qualities which explain the ability of a horse to compete at top levels. I don't think you can put a number on Greatness. I believe Greatness is at the gene level and is best exemplified in ithe horse's ability and willingness to compete. Additionally, its' success on passing on those traits in the breeding shed.

Fair enough. I only used the time period I did because the numbers have been published since then. They did exist long before that and have been used for a very long time to compare horses across generations. I'm not saying it is perfect, not even close. But it is better than looking at wins against bad horses.

[letswastemoney]

People only remember the last thing they saw.

[cpitt84]

People only remember the last thing they saw.

thats why i didnt understand why they retired zenyatta. If anything, let her come back and win one against the females. Ending a career on a loss, esp in zen's case, is a mistake...in my eyes.

[Relwob Owner]

We have been told countless times that her figures on synthetics didn't mean much. But, in the end, she ran on dirt three times, and two times the pace was at a minimum very reasonable. Her Beyers topped out at 111, the other a 104, and the 3rd a 95. How does this compare to recent fillies and mares?

These all matched or ran faster than Zenyatta multiple times in top company. They are from a book I have that covers 1992-2004.

Banshee Breeze, 115, 114
Beautiful Pleasure, 113, 113, 112, 112, 111
Escena, 114, 113, 113
Heavenly Prize, 111, 111, 111
Inside Information, 119, 112, 111
Jewel Princess, 116, 114, 114, 112, 112
Serena's Song, 114, 113, 112, 111
Azeri, 112, 111
Riboletta 115, 115, 111
Xtra Heat (sprinter) 120, 118, 117, 113, 113

One other I know of since the book:

Rachel Alexandra, 116, 111

Just some food for thought.



CJ-This thread appears to have an agenda and that agenda is to push the idea that when you step back and look at all of Zenyatta's races, it is clear that she is overrated by her supporters when compared with past fillies and mares. That idea is spot on IMO.

[Charlie D]

Her 111 ad 112 Classic figs put her in same league as some on list and so i think she should be given the praise she deserves.

She is a Good horse and she was under-rated by plenty prior to her Classics , but on other hand she was probably one of the most over-rated and over-hyped in recent times.

[Tom]

Guess Kelso was a flop - never broke 100 Beyer. :sleeping:
Nor War Admiral, Man o'War.

[jognlope]

http://twitpic.com/35vccy

[Bruddah]

Cj, let me explain why I think greatness in Horse Racing lies in the genes more than numbers and racing. Greatness encompasses and denotes impact on the Sport and Breed. Mr Prospector would not be considered a great horse using your numbers criteria alone. However, his greatness lies in his ability to pass on the genes of his great grandsire Native Dancer. Using anyones generated numbers, Native Dancer was a Great horse and his grandson's are also considered great.

I have never argued that Zenyatta is great. I have only argued that a set of flawed human generated numbers can never be used to determine if she is, is not or will be Great. Only the results of her offspring and time will determine her impact on the Sport and Breed.

[Steve R]

You and I will need to agree to disagree. You think a horse's greatness is tied to inexact numbers created by humans. However, you can't explain the greatness of horses prior to your numbers. In other words, the definition of Greatness begins and ends with your numbers.

I, on the other hand, believe numerically imperfect numbers can not begin to encompass qualities which explain the ability of a horse to compete at top levels. I don't think you can put a number on Greatness. I believe Greatness is at the gene level and is best exemplified in ithe horse's ability and willingness to compete. Additionally, its' success on passing on those traits in the breeding shed.
I'm trying to understand if you actually wrote anything of substance here. Greatness is at the gene level? What does that mean? Greatness is exemplified by competitiveness? I've seen $5K claimers show as much courage and determination as G1 winners. They are just slower They don't know they are slower, but they try just as hard.

Realistically there are only a couple of ways to even consider such a thing as greatness. Either a horse continually defeats other horses with acknowledged superior ability or it continually wins races clustered around record times. The rest is subjective fluff. You will be hard-pressed to identify a "great" that did not do one or both.

Zenyatta, as consistent a performer as one could hope for, neither defeated (or even faced) superior competition for most of her career nor was she particularly fast.

Had she raced exclusively on dirt at the G1 level throughout her career, facing open competition instead of low end stakes mares on synthetic surfaces, I'm sure she would have retired with a very good but not stellar race record and these threads would never have seen the light of day.

As one who appreciates Thoroughbreds primarily for their physiology, I would rank at least half of the fillies and mares on cj's list better than Zenyatta. I would also venture that had those same mares followed a similar career path, their records would have been similar as well.

[Bruddah]

I'm trying to understand if you actually wrote anything of substance here. Greatness is at the gene level? What does that mean? Greatness is exemplified by competitiveness? I've seen $5K claimers show as much courage and determination as G1 winners. They are just slower They don't know they are slower, but they try just as hard.

Realistically there are only a couple of ways to even consider such a thing as greatness. Either a horse continually defeats other horses with acknowledged superior ability or it continually wins races clustered around record times. The rest is subjective fluff. You will be hard-pressed to identify a "great" that did not do one or both.

Zenyatta, as consistent a performer as one could hope for, neither defeated (or even faced) superior competition for most of her career nor was she particularly fast.

So, according to your criteria, Mr Prospector does not rate Greatness?

Had she raced exclusively on dirt at the G1 level throughout her career, facing open competition instead of low end stakes mares on synthetic surfaces, I'm sure she would have retired with a very good but not stellar race record and these threads would never have seen the light of day.

As one who appreciates Thoroughbreds primarily for their physiology, I would rank at least half of the fillies and mares on cj's list better than Zenyatta. I would also venture that had those same mares followed a similar career path, their records would have been similar as well.

Then explain Mr. Roman if you consider Mr prospector to be Great. Would you consider his sire Raise A Native to be Great? Possibly using your criteria only Native Dancer is Great.

Seems to me Steve you just want to argue with me.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

As mentioned above speed figures are only one piece of the puzzle and don't capture the true ability of any horse. They are a blunt instrument

But the other problem with speed figures is they are unstable and change over time as the nature of racing's class system changes. In the case of Beyers they seem to shrink over time. So the idea that you can use Beyers to compare horses from different years is wrong

The obvious example is Secretariat's Belmont Stks win

In his book Picking Winners Andy Beyer wrote "Any sports fan could appreciate Secretariat's 31 length victory, but only a speed handicapper could measure just how extraordinary it was. Secretariat earned a figure of 148 that day". On Pages 157-158 of my copy

But when you go to this link

http://www1.drf.com:80/products/beyers/beyers.html

Andy Beyer tells us "when I attempt to improvise a figure for Secretariat's record-shattering victory in the Belmont, I estimated that he earned a 139 -- probably the best race ever run"

So Secretariat lost 9 Beyer Speed points over time. Only a speed handicapper could truly appreciate this I guess

[PaceAdvantage]

Seems to me, certain people get their feathers all in a ruffle whenever numbers are mentioned. Why aren't numbers a legitimate way to compare horses who have never faced each other?

The fact is, numbers are as legitimate as any other method currently in existence to compare horses who have never faced one another. Especially when compared to SUBJECTIVE methods, of the kind Bruddah is talking about.

What we have here, and what we have always had on this board, is a certain level of DISRESPECT for anything "numbers related" by a certain segment of the population here. It's getting rather old, especially when one considers this very website was CREATED and NAMED for a handicapping discipline that focuses EXCLUSIVELY on numbers (pace).

As someone wisely stated early on, nobody is forcing you to participate in a thread whose subject matter is clearly explained in post number 1.

[FenceBored]

Seems to me, certain people get their feathers all in a ruffle whenever numbers are mentioned. Why aren't numbers a legitimate way to compare horses who have never faced each other?

The fact is, numbers are as legitimate as any other method currently in existence to compare horses who have never faced one another. Especially when compared to SUBJECTIVE methods, of the kind Bruddah is talking about.

What we have here, and what we have always had on this board, is a certain level of DISRESPECT for anything "numbers related" by a certain segment of the population here. It's getting rather old, especially when one considers this very website was CREATED and NAMED for a handicapping discipline that focuses EXCLUSIVELY on numbers (pace).

As someone wisely stated early on, nobody is forcing you to participate in a thread whose subject matter is clearly explained in post number 1.

But, but, but, ...

it's their aura that truly defines a horse.

[tucker6]

As mentioned above speed figures are only one piece of the puzzle and don't capture the true ability of any horse. They are a blunt instrument

But the other problem with speed figures is they are unstable and change over time as the nature of racing's class system changes. In the case of Beyers they seem to shrink over time. So the idea that you can use Beyers to compare horses from different years is wrong

The obvious example is Secretariat's Belmont Stks win

In his book Picking Winners Andy Beyer wrote "Any sports fan could appreciate Secretariat's 31 length victory, but only a speed handicapper could measure just how extraordinary it was. Secretariat earned a figure of 148 that day". On Pages 157-158 of my copy

But when you go to this link

http://www1.drf.com:80/products/beyers/beyers.html

Andy Beyer tells us "when I attempt to improvise a figure for Secretariat's record-shattering victory in the Belmont, I estimated that he earned a 139 -- probably the best race ever run"

So Secretariat lost 9 Beyer Speed points over time. Only a speed handicapper could truly appreciate this I guessApples and oranges comparison. Beyer numbers were invented after the 73 Belmont. When Beyer made his first number for that Belmont, it was using a formula no longer used by Beyer. He went with a newer version, which equates to a 139. I personally believe the 139 is more correct. When you think about it, the KD that year may have been more impressive. Red got 1:59.4 with the last quarter in 23 flat under an accelerating pace. If he does 24 in the next 1/4 as if he's running a 12F race, he betters his Belmont run by a lot.

[cj]

Apples and oranges comparison. Beyer numbers were invented after the 73 Belmont. When Beyer made his first number for that Belmont, it was using a formula no longer used by Beyer. He went with a newer version, which equates to a 139. I personally believe the 139 is more correct. When you think about it, the KD that year may have been more impressive. Red got 1:59.4 with the last quarter in 23 flat under an accelerating pace. If he does 24 in the next 1/4 as if he's running a 12F race, he betters his Belmont run by a lot.

Exactly, the 148 was made under a completely different numerical system.

[Tom]

Just some food for thought.

But apparently not for discussion.
And so it goes.

[Overlay]

I wish we could have seen how Ruffian would have done on synthetics.

[tucker6]

I wish we could have seen how Ruffian would have done on synthetics.Why?? What would be the point??

[Charlie D]

Why aren't numbers a legitimate way to compare horses who have never faced each other?
.



Not seen anything better than numbers to sort the wheat from chaff yet and if there is, it is a well kept secret.

[Overlay]

Why?? What would be the point??

Just because of all the back-and-forth with respect to Zenyatta's performance on synthetics, the contrasting effect of the surfaces on form, and the comparison of a great filly from earlier years with today. (And?? cut?? me?? some?? slack??, OK?? :)?? )

[Steve R]

Then explain Mr. Roman if you consider Mr prospector to be Great. Would you consider his sire Raise A Native to be Great? Possibly using your criteria only Native Dancer is Great.

Seems to me Steve you just want to argue with me.
Mr. Prospector was not great. He was certainly very good, setting a couple of 6f TRs and finishing ITM in all but one of 14 lifetime starts. However, he was never quite able to win at the very high end of the sport, failing in every attempt at the graded stakes level.

Raise a Native might have been a great had he raced on at three. He had spectacular speed plus a pedigree suggesting the ability to stay classic distances. He didn't have the opportunity to prove it.

And of course Native Dancer was great. He ran within a few ticks of TRs on many occasions, could win by large margins giving away 15 or more pounds, he had the versatility to win from 5f to a mile and half and in 18 of his 22 races he won (according to the DRF PPs) "easily", "much the best", "ridden out", "in hand" or "handily". The only issue on his record is the fact that he was so good he really had no serious competition. In his absence, horses like Tahitian King or Jamie K. could have been champions and might be considered the equivalent of Secretariat's Sham.

And I have no interest in arguing with you. I simply found your post vague, ethereal and unconvincing.

[Gorgeous George]

We have been told countless times that her figures on synthetics didn't mean much. But, in the end, she ran on dirt three times, and two times the pace was at a minimum very reasonable. Her Beyers topped out at 111, the other a 104, and the 3rd a 95. How does this compare to recent fillies and mares?

These all matched or ran faster than Zenyatta multiple times in top company. They are from a book I have that covers 1992-2004.

Banshee Breeze, 115, 114
Beautiful Pleasure, 113, 113, 112, 112, 111
Escena, 114, 113, 113
Heavenly Prize, 111, 111, 111
Inside Information, 119, 112, 111
Jewel Princess, 116, 114, 114, 112, 112
Serena's Song, 114, 113, 112, 111
Azeri, 112, 111
Riboletta 115, 115, 111
Xtra Heat (sprinter) 120, 118, 117, 113, 113

One other I know of since the book:

Rachel Alexandra, 116, 111

Just some food for thought.

Is see you still have that chip on your shoulder. I guess some people will always be bitter :ThmbDown:

[Relwob Owner]

Is see you still have that chip on your shoulder. I guess some people will always be bitter :ThmbDown:


From where I sit and what I read on here, CJ seems anything but bitter.........it is funny how many interpret any sort of an anti Zenyatta view as being bitter, a downer and not appreciating her........I think Zenyatta is all at once a terrific mare, an incredibly overrated horse in the grand scheme of things and a disappointing example of what might have been in terms of how she was campaigned.....

[JustRalph]

From where I sit and what I read on here, CJ seems anything but bitter.........it is funny how many interpret any sort of an anti Zenyatta view as being bitter, a downer and not appreciating her........I think Zenyatta is all at once a terrific mare, an incredibly overrated horse in the grand scheme of things and a disappointing example of what might have been in terms of how she was campaigned.....

Ding ! Another winner!

[OntheRail]

From where I sit and what I read on here, CJ seems anything but bitter.........it is funny how many interpret any sort of an anti Zenyatta view as being bitter, a downer and not appreciating her........I think Zenyatta is all at once a terrific mare, an incredibly overrated horse in the grand scheme of things and a disappointing example of what might have been in terms of how she was campaigned.....
Could not of said it any better... :ThmbUp: .

[Cardus]

Is see you still have that chip on your shoulder. I guess some people will always be bitter :ThmbDown:

The bitterness tends to reside with some Zenyatta fans, especially since she lost to Blame.

It's embarrassing, really.

[WillA]

I love Zenyatta but it's tough to pick any filly over Ruffian.

[maiom01]

Who started this thread. That tells me who the bitter one is.

[BluegrassProf]

Who started this thread. That tells me who the bitter one is.Aw...c'mon, man!

At least wait until someone changes the subject before just completely proving their point. :D

[cj]

Why would I be bitter? She lost, as predicted, and by the exact flaw I mentioned many times.

[Relwob Owner]

Why would I be bitter? She lost, as predicted, and by the exact flaw I mentioned many times.



In this case, bitter = rational, I guess....

[Cratos]

We have speed figures being used to measure greatness; go figure?

I believe Zenyatta’s best test would have been against the 3yo Rachel Alexandra at 1 1/8 miles on dirt around two turns and equally that would have been Rachel’s best test.

[bks]

cj, just to pick one example, find another person on the planet who knows anything about horse racing and ask them to put their name to the claim that Escena was a better horse than Zenyatta.

The speed figure stuff gets really, really silly as a basis for demonstrating comparative quality at classic distances. This should prove it to you. Escena would have been playing bridge with Quality Road at the back of the field in the Classic had she been entered. If the Classic was run 100 times, Escena would have hit the board approximately zero of them.

I trust you know this.

[Cardus]

cj, just to pick one example, find another person on the planet who knows anything about horse racing and ask them to put their name to the claim that Escena was a better horse than Zenyatta.

The speed figure stuff gets really, really silly as a basis for demonstrating comparative quality at classic distances. This should prove it to you. Escena would have been playing bridge with Quality Road at the back of the field in the Classic had she been entered. If the Classic was run 100 times, Escena would have hit the board approximately zero of them.

I trust you know this.

At classic distances only? (Also, is there more than one "classic distance"?)

[cj]

cj, just to pick one example, find another person on the planet who knows anything about horse racing and ask them to put their name to the claim that Escena was a better horse than Zenyatta.

The speed figure stuff gets really, really silly as a basis for demonstrating comparative quality at classic distances. This should prove it to you. Escena would have been playing bridge with Quality Road at the back of the field in the Classic had she been entered. If the Classic was run 100 times, Escena would have hit the board approximately zero of them.

I trust you know this.

Sure, she would have had no chance, but that is due to her style, not ability. If Escena had faced Zenyatta in a 6 horse, paceless race on dirt, she would have dusted her.

We heard many times that Zenyatta only ran as fast "as she had to", as if she was some horse that could not only race well but was super smart. Well, it turns out as fast as she could was about a 110 range Beyer. The whole point is, big deal, tons of horses, including many females, have done this. They just didn't face cupcake schedules and run on mostly one surface that favored them. That is the only point...perspective. She is probably the most overrated horse of all time, but that doesn't mean she isn't a very, very good horse.

[PaceAdvantage]

Sure, she would have had no chance, but that is due to her style, not ability. If Escena had faced Zenyatta in a 6 horse, paceless race on dirt, she would have dusted her.

We heard many times that Zenyatta only ran as fast "as she had to", as if she was some horse that could not only race well but was super smart. Well, it turns out as fast as she could was about a 110 range Beyer. The whole point is, big deal, tons of horses, including many females, have done this. They just didn't face cupcake schedules and run on mostly one surface that favored them. That is the only point...perspective. She is probably the most overrated horse of all time, but that doesn't mean she isn't a very, very good horse.Oh crap. Now you've done it... :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

To add fuel to an already burnt out fire, allow me to repost something that didn't seem to get much reaction the first time around:

Past females who would have either defeated Zenyatta on dirt, or come damn close:

Princess Rooney - would have absolutely SMOKED Zenyatta
Lady's Secret - probably would have beaten her
Personal Ensign - would have beaten her
Bayakoa - would have beaten her
Inside Information - would have crushed Zenyatta
Jewel Princess - probably would have beaten her
Azeri - would have given her a good run for her money

And that's just since 1984 and only limited to winners of the BC Distaff/Ladies Classic.

IMO of course.

[bks]

We heard many times that Zenyatta only ran as fast "as she had to", as if she was some horse that could not only race well but was super smart. Well, it turns out as fast as she could was about a 110 range Beyer.

She's at the end of her 6-y-o campaign, on a track she never ran over before. It's very hard to say off that one effort that that was her top in terms of ability.

Sure, she would have had no chance, but that is due to her style, not ability. If Escena had faced Zenyatta in a 6 horse, paceless race on dirt, she would have dusted her.

According to BSFs, Escena is a faster horse than Zenyatta, yet in virtually any full field of good horses going a route of ground, she's going to finish behind Zenyatta. In a paceless race of the sort you're describing, yeah, it's possible, but Zenyatta is going to come harder than Banshee Breeze. In that exact pace scenario, I would be happy to bet Zenyatta goes by.

Escena was a really nice mare. I can still picture Gary Stevens with that outstretched arm guiding her to the wire in the 1998 Distaff. I took a stand with her in all of my PK3's, which made the disappointment of Alex Solis not getting Hawksley Hill to stay past Da Hoss all the more crushing [I still can't believe it].

But cj, c'mon. Escena wasn't beating Zenyatta on most days. And there is no way Zenyatta would have been just 11-for-29 against the horses Escena faced.

While I'm all over the place: what about Sharp Cat? On her day, she runs faster than all of them.

[bigmack]

And that's just since 1984 and only limited to female winners of the BC Distaff/Ladies Classic.
Just imagine the lengthy list of those in that period able to annihilate Blame and he'll be HoY.

[PaceAdvantage]

Also please note Escena did NOT make my list of F&M who I think could have beaten Zenyatta.

[thaskalos]

To add fuel to an already burnt out fire, allow me to repost something that didn't seem to get much reaction the first time around:

Past females who would have either defeated Zenyatta on dirt, or come damn close:

Princess Rooney - would have absolutely SMOKED Zenyatta
Lady's Secret - probably would have beaten her
Personal Ensign - would have beaten her
Bayakoa - would have beaten her
Inside Information - would have crushed Zenyatta
Jewel Princess - probably would have beaten her
Azeri - would have given her a good run for her money

And that's just since 1984 and only limited to female winners of the BC Distaff/Ladies Classic.

IMO of course.And to think we were led to believe that if Zenyatta lost narrowly in the Classic - while giving a gallant effort - she would not lose an ounce of respect on this board...

Surprisingly, you have failed to include Rachel Alexandra on your list of females who are better than Zenyatta...in your opinion of course.

Does that mean that you have revised your earlier opinion about Rachel being better than Zenyatta on dirt?

Don't forget that, as CJ has already indicated, Rachel has run a "Beyer" of 116, whereas Zenyatta never topped a 112. Doesn't that mean that Rachel would beat Zenyatta too?

[PaceAdvantage]

Just imagine the lengthy list of those in that period able to annihilate Blame and he'll be HoY.Exactly...now you're getting it... :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

And to think we were led to believe that if Zenyatta lost narrowly in the Classic - while giving a gallant effort - she would not lose an ounce of respect on this board...

Surprisingly, you have failed to include Rachel Alexandra on your list of females who are better than Zenyatta...in your opinion of course.

Does that mean that you have revised your earlier opinion about Rachel being better than Zenyatta on dirt?

Don't forget that, as CJ has already indicated, Rachel has run a "Beyer" of 116, whereas Zenyatta never topped a 112. Doesn't that mean that Rachel would beat Zenyatta too?I explained in the last line of text that my list was limited to winners of the BC Distaff/Ladies Classic. Since Rachel never ran in that race, she wouldn't be on that list.

As for Zenyatta, she didn't lose an ounce of respect. In fact, I have more respect for Zenyatta now more than ever after seeing her put in such a courageous run to almost win the BC Classic for the second year in a row, this time over dirt.

That still isn't going to stop me from commenting when I disagree with those who think she deserves HOTY or those who think she's the best female to race in the last 50-100 years.

[thaskalos]

That still isn't going to stop me from commenting when I disagree with those who think she deserves HOTY or those who think she's the best female to race in the last 50-100 years.
I never suggested that you should stop commenting when you disagree...I enjoy the lively debate.

I was genuinely interested to know if you still think that Rachel was the better horse on dirt.

[PaceAdvantage]

I was genuinely interested to know if you still think that Rachel was the better horse on dirt.As a 3yo...without a doubt. As a 4yo...not so much...

[bigmack]

Exactly...now you're getting it... :lol:
All these threads, all this ill-will, all this debate over a year of underwhelming talent and who gets in HoY?

As one who hasn't followed much of it, ya'll ought to feel silly about the whole elongated spat.

On one side you've got what many believe to be naive hicks, rootin' for Z based on Pop-Ularity. On the other you have mordant sophisticates defending the impending reign of HoY to a hohum, beatable in any year of recollection, "just give it to 'im & get it over with" types.

That's what all this fuss is about? Wow. :sleeping:

[PaceAdvantage]

All these threads, all this ill-will, all this debate over a year of underwhelming talent and who gets in HoY?

As one who hasn't followed much of it, ya'll ought to feel silly about the whole elongated spat.

On one side you've got what many believe to be naive hicks, rootin' for Z based on Pop-Ularity. On the other you have mordant sophisticates defending the impending reign of HoY to a hohum, beatable in any year of recollection, "just give it to 'im & get it over with" types.

That's what all this fuss is about? Wow. :sleeping:You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I hold no ill-will towards anyone.

And I find it a little unsavory to read you passing judgement on what or who is worthy of heated debate, although it is certainly within your right to do so.

When topics aren't worthy of heated debate, they die a quiet death all their own.

[bigmack]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I hold no ill-will towards anyone.
And I find it a little unsavory to read you passing judgement on what or who is worthy of heated debate, although it is certainly within your right to do so.
When topics aren't worthy of heated debate, they die a quiet death all their own.
Here again, I ought not stick my nose into matters that matter not to me, but...

The ill-will I referred to is not in your pocket but with the amount of blown up posters, blogs gone awry, comments akimbo, et al.

Just seems silly.

Particularly in light of a battle to pooh-pooh the campaign, surface of one and ensure the integrity of the honored trophy ( :D ) going to a horse chosen by those at the ready to crown the winner, while they view the winner as a mere yawn.

Then again, I debate with vigor subjects I could care less about so I guess I get it.

Forgive my intrusion. (& I mean that) :jump:

[JustRalph]

comments akimbo

Nice....... never heard that one before......... had to look up "akimbo" with my handy google extension. Very nice :ThmbUp:

[Relwob Owner]

All these threads, all this ill-will, all this debate over a year of underwhelming talent and who gets in HoY?

As one who hasn't followed much of it, ya'll ought to feel silly about the whole elongated spat.

On one side you've got what many believe to be naive hicks, rootin' for Z based on Pop-Ularity. On the other you have mordant sophisticates defending the impending reign of HoY to a hohum, beatable in any year of recollection, "just give it to 'im & get it over with" types.

That's what all this fuss is about? Wow. :sleeping:



This is a horse racing forum, isnt it? You talk fairly condescendingly(telling others they should feel silly) about a debate that fits this forum perfectly IMO.....sorry such a debate puts you to sleep :bang:

I will add you to the list of people that take people who feel Zenyatta is overrated and twists that thought into those people being angry, being downers or as you say, having "ill-will".....

[ihatenyra]

Why didn't any of those "faster" mare's compete in back to back breeders cup classics? Zenyatta supposedly had a cupcake scheduled career yet she is the only one with 2 breeders cup classics on her resume and came within a head of winning both.

Where's the outrage for Inside Information never even facing males? How about princess rooney who supposedly would have "smoked" her? What's her record like against males?

[Steve R]

Why didn't any of those "faster" mare's compete in back to back breeders cup classics? Zenyatta supposedly had a cupcake scheduled career yet she is the only one with 2 breeders cup classics on her resume and came within a head of winning both.

Where's the outrage for Inside Information never even facing males? How about princess rooney who supposedly would have "smoked" her? What's her record like against males?
Apparently you are among what appears to be a host of forum participants with very little understanding of racing's glorious past. It is to Zenyatta's credit that she faced males twice in her career, although none of those males look at this point as if they will be historically important and both races were slow by BC Classic standards. That Inside Information and Princess Rooney didn't face males is irrelevant. It was a choice made by their connections and has no bearing on their ability. But if you want to single out Zenyatta as "special" then perhaps you should review the career of a few other distaffers who did face males and whose record against them makes one wonder why Zenyatta's people avoided so many obvious opportunities against the males in her own backyard.

Busher, as a 3yof, faced males six times including two against older horses. She defeated 3yo colts in the San VIcente and the Hollywood Derby, losing to them in the Santa Anita Derby by 1/2 length and the Will Rogers by a head giving 11 pounds to the winner. In her next start she defeated that same horse by 2 1/2 lengths giving him two pounds. She defeated older horses twice at a mile and a quarter. In one of those she bested Armed, a multiple champion and Horse of the Year rated the 39th best Thoroughbred of the 20th century and she did it by breaking the TR. During her career she won from 4 1/2 to 10f racing almost equally on the East Coast, in the Mid-West and in Southern California. You can have Zenyatta. I'll take Busher in an instant.

I have previously written about the exploits of Twilight Tear. You can search that post if you like. Here again, I'll take Twilight Tear without a moment's hesitation.

How about Ta Wee, one of the greatest sprinters of all time? She defeated males in three of four starts, twice in the Fall Highweight Handicap carrying as much as 140 pounds and once in the Vosburgh. She ran second in the Gravesend giving 20 pounds to the winner. She won 6 of 8 starts toting 130 pounds or more and finished second in the other two. The second place horse in four of those wins was getting 29 pounds, 19 pounds, 23 pounds and 17 pounds. I'll take Ta Wee.

Typecast whipped males on the turf three of five times with a close second and a close third. She beat them at 10, 12 and 16 furlongs giving from 2 to 8 pounds to the second place horse. In the Hollywood Invitational Turf Handicap she beat that year's grass champion, Cougar II.

What about What a Summer? Two for five against males, losing the Sport Page by a neck to Topsider giving him 15 pounds and the Vosburgh by three-quarters of a length to that year's sprint champion, Dr. Patches, while giving him 7 pounds. She beat Buckfinder ridden out in the Fall Highweight Handicap giving him 5 pounds. She gave Broadway Forli 11 pounds in the previous year's Fall Highweight and won that as well. She won twice under 134 pounds. This was a sprinter that was second in the 10f Beldame by three-quarters of a length to four-time G1SW Cum Laude Laurie in 2:01.4 on a track labeled good. I'll take What a Summer.

De La Rose defeated males four of five times on the turf with one second. She won the Saranac and Long Branch by 6 1/2 and 8 1/2 lengths and lost the Lexington by 1 3/4 lengths while giving Acaroid 4 pounds. She ran a mile in 1:33.1 and a mile and a quarter in 2:00.2. I'll take De La Rose.

This list could go on and on. I simply don't comprehend the delusion that Zenyatta has done what no female Thoroughbred has done before. She finished first and second in two of the weakest editions ever of the over-hyped BC Classic, beat up on low-end mares on a bastardized racing surface and never ran a truly fast race in her entire, manipulated career. I do, however, appreciate these threads because they give me a chance to review and recall what really special mares in the past have accomplished.

[Relwob Owner]

This list could go on and on. I simply don't comprehend the delusion that Zenyatta has done what no female Thoroughbred has done before. She finished first and second in two of the weakest editions ever of the over-hyped BC Classic, beat up on low-end mares on a bastardized racing surface and never ran a truly fast race in her entire, manipulated career. I do, however, appreciate these threads because they give me a chance to review and recall what really special mares in the past have accomplished.[/QUOTE]


There have been many, many threads and opinions on this but this paragraph really does stand out in terms of expressing what I see as a composed and rational thought about Z.....very well said

[Cardus]

I'll second that.

[ihatenyra]

Inside Information and Princess Rooney never faced Males = Irrelevant and no bearing on their abilities.

Zenyatta faced males only twice = Overrated and manipulated career, wondering why she did not face males more.

At least it's nice to see that the self appointed scholars of history have not lost their objectivity.

[thaskalos]

Inside Information and Princess Rooney never faced Males = Irrelevant and no bearing on their abilities.

Zenyatta faced males only twice = Overrated and manipulated career, wondering why she did not face males more.

At least it's nice to see that the self appointed scholars of history have not lost their objectivity.
You should be congratulated for figuring this out after only 75 posts. :ThmbUp:

[keithw84]

Inside Information and Princess Rooney never faced Males = Irrelevant and no bearing on their abilities.

Zenyatta faced males only twice = Overrated and manipulated career, wondering why she did not face males more.

At least it's nice to see that the self appointed scholars of history have not lost their objectivity.

The point is that Zenyatta's two races against males do not take away from her either. They simply don't prove that she is an all-time great or more accomplished than some of the already mentioned mares.

[thaskalos]

The point is that Zenyatta's two races against males do not take away from her either. They simply don't prove that she is an all-time great or more accomplished than some of the already mentioned mares.
How have Inside Information and Princess Rooney proven that they could have beaten Zenyatta...as some have suggested? Through their "Beyer' figures alone?

If the Beyer figures are the true indicator of the quality of a horse, shouldn't we expect Rachel Alexandra to have beaten Zenyatta as well?

After all, Rachel ran faster figures than Zenyatta too...

[cj]

How have Inside Information and Princess Rooney proven that they could have beaten Zenyatta...as some have suggested? Through their "Beyer' figures alone?

If the Beyer figures are the true indicator of the quality of a horse, shouldn't we expect Rachel Alexandra to have beaten Zenyatta as well?

After all, Rachel ran faster figures than Zenyatta too...

If they raced when she was running at her best, sure she could have beaten her. The only real point of this post was to show that her record was inflated due to a soft schedule and running on synthetics. It doesn't mean she wasn't a damn good horse, and given a hot pace capable of running with the best females...males, not so much.

Now, most races on dirt don't have the kind of pace she had in the Classic, and they aren't at 10f. So again, what is her record if she competes against really good females at 9f in your typical fields?

[Steve R]

Inside Information and Princess Rooney never faced Males = Irrelevant and no bearing on their abilities.

Zenyatta faced males only twice = Overrated and manipulated career, wondering why she did not face males more.

At least it's nice to see that the self appointed scholars of history have not lost their objectivity.
Self-appointed scholar? Where does that come from? How ridiculous are you? The posted information is available to anyone who can read past performances and takes the time to check facts. Perhaps you can't and don't.

Irrelevant (i.e., "unrelated to the matter being considered"). Bearing (i.e., "relevant relationship or interconnection"). Please explain the distorted logic of Princess Rooney and Inside Information not racing against males having any relationship to whether or not they had the ability to defeat Zenyatta. Among champions, Bold 'n Determined never raced against males but she had the ability to beat Genuine Risk who did defeat males. Jewel Princess never raced against males but she had the ability to beat Serena's Song who did defeat males. Heavenly Cause never raced against males but she had the ability to beat De La Rose who did defeat males? How could that happen?

And what does the fact that a female raced against males have to do with a particular race being OVER-HYPED, not OVERRATED? Read more carefully.

Now tell me that Zenyatta's career was not manipulated to pad her record and that males were not avoided like the plague until it was apparent that year end honors were at risk.

Some Zen-ophiles are so much in love they are incapable of serious analysis. And if they believe she has done more for racing than any horse in memory, how is it that her career has created more rancor, divisiveness and anger within the industry than any horse in memory? Or is that one of racing's dirty little secrets that doesn't get mentioned in USA Today and that the general public is unaware of?

[PaceAdvantage]

And if they believe she has done more for racing than any horse in memory, how is it that her career has created more rancor, divisiveness and anger within the industry than any horse in memory? Or is that one of racing's dirty little secrets that doesn't get mentioned in USA Today and that the general public is unaware of?Good to know. I was beginning to develop a complex from all those telling me that PaceAdvantage is the only place where people are divided as to Zenyatta's place in history...a few people have even left the board as they told me this...I knew it couldn't be true...

[DeanT]

Some Zen-ophiles are so much in love they are incapable of serious analysis. And if they believe she has done more for racing than any horse in memory, how is it that her career has created more rancor, divisiveness and anger within the industry than any horse in memory? Or is that one of racing's dirty little secrets that doesn't get mentioned in USA Today and that the general public is unaware of?

WTF?

Because people argue about her she is now somehow bad for racing? Holy crap, I have heard it all.

Were Ted Williams and Joe Dimaggio bad for baseball because during the 1947 MVP vote rancor was caused in sportswriting circles? That a New York fan would get beat up in a Boston bar for saying Joe D was better? That a Boston fan would probably receive worse in a Brooklyn pool hall?

It's not those two great ball players fault some people are idiots, and it is not Zenyatta's fault that some people in racing are idiots as well. She's a horse, and a damn good one, but she does not have the power to stop people from acting like imbeciles; that's their fault. They should have an IQ higher than a horse.

[Cardus]

Good to know. I was beginning to develop a complex from all those telling me that PaceAdvantage is the only place where people are divided as to Zenyatta's place in history...a few people have even left the board as they told me this...I knew it couldn't be true...

People left the board due to the debate about Zenyatta's "place in history"?

It can't be.

[keithw84]

How have Inside Information and Princess Rooney proven that they could have beaten Zenyatta...as some have suggested? Through their "Beyer' figures alone?


I don't think you can prove that they would have beaten her. What I am saying is that Zenyatta's record against males on dirt is not enough to prove that she would've been much the best in any hypothetical matchup. Depending on pace setup, surface, and distance of said matchup, they probably would trade wins and losses. Do we really know how Zenyatta would do when facing lone speed on dirt at 9f?

[Jackal]

I am one of the biggest Zenyatta haters you can find. But even I will admit she had one of best careers of any horse. It's a shame she watched all those great races from her stall. No one could have denied her HOTY if she had won a Hoolywood Gold Cup or some of the other million dollar races she watched.

[thaskalos]

I simply don't comprehend the delusion that Zenyatta has done what no female Thoroughbred has done before. She finished first and second in two of the weakest editions ever of the over-hyped BC Classic, beat up on low-end mares on a bastardized racing surface and never ran a truly fast race in her entire, manipulated career. I do, however, appreciate these threads because they give me a chance to review and recall what really special mares in the past have accomplished.
In our society today, the comments that we make are often judged not by their content, but by the credentials of those who make them. An unknown person on the street could make a comment about the stock market and be ridiculed for it; Warren Buffet makes the exact same comment, and it's considered a pearl of wisdom.

In ancient Greece, the pre-Socratic philosopher Thales had a terrible time convincing people that his theories had any merit. In order to give validity to his teachings, he concentrated on improving his financial situation. Once he became a man of considerable means, the same teachings that people looked at with great scepticism were now widely embraced...and he became immortal.

Let's look at the following comment, and see what reaction it arouses in us:

"The Zenyatta fans can make a reasonable claim that she should be considered the greatest U.S. filly or mare all time".

If this comment was made by me, or GM10, or bisket, or Ghostyapper, or Eastie...we would be vilified. We would be called Zenyatta worshipers, who lack any historical perspective whatsoever...and our handicapping prowess would be ridiculed by many posters on this site, who obviously consider themselves to be much better handicappers than we are.

The problem is that the comment which I quoted above was NOT made by me...or any of the other Zenyatta "groupies". It was made by a man whose handicapping knowledge is widely revered...and whose experience in this game is unequaled. Not only has this man revolutionized the art of handicapping...but he has remained completely neutral and unbiased throughout this entire Zenyatta "crazyness".

This man, of course, is the irrepressible Andy Beyer...and the quote was taken from his column titled: "Valiant loss puts Zenyatta's prowess in perspective."

And now I ask:

If an unbiased, expert handicapper like Andy Beyer can declare, on the pages of the Washington Post, that it is reasonable to consider Zenyatta to be the "greatest U.S. filly or mare all time"...why can't we Zenyatta "freaks" come to the pages of Paceadvantage...and make the much more modest claim that she belongs AMONG the greatest U.S. fillies and mares all time?

[FenceBored]

In our society today, the comments that we make are often judged not by their content, but by the credentials of those who make them. An unknown person on the street could make a comment about the stock market and be ridiculed for it; Warren Buffet makes the exact same comment, and it's considered a pearl of wisdom.

In ancient Greece, the pre-Socratic philosopher Thales had a terrible time convincing people that his theories had any merit. In order to give validity to his teachings, he concentrated on improving his financial situation. Once he became a man of considerable means, the same teachings that people looked at with great scepticism were now widely embraced...and he became immortal.

Let's look at the following comment, and see what reaction it arouses in us:

"The Zenyatta fans can make a reasonable claim that she should be considered the greatest U.S. filly or mare all time".

If this comment was made by me, or GM10, or bisket, or Ghostyapper, or Eastie...we would be vilified. We would be called Zenyatta worshipers, who lack any historical perspective whatsoever...and our handicapping prowess would be ridiculed by many posters on this site, who obviously consider themselves to be much better handicappers than we are.

The problem is that the comment which I quoted above was NOT made by me...or any of the other Zenyatta "groupies". It was made by a man whose handicapping knowledge is widely revered...and whose experience in this game is unequaled. Not only has this man revolutionized the art of handicapping...but he has remained completely neutral and unbiased throughout this entire Zenyatta "crazyness".

This man, of course, is the irrepressible Andy Beyer...and the quote was taken from his column titled: "Valiant loss puts Zenyatta's prowess in perspective."

And now I ask:

If an unbiased, expert handicapper like Andy Beyer can declare, on the pages of the Washington Post, that it is reasonable to consider Zenyatta to be the "greatest U.S. filly or mare all time"...why can't we Zenyatta "freaks" come to the pages of Paceadvantage...and make the much more modest claim that she belongs AMONG the greatest U.S. fillies and mares all time?

Beyer, since his trip to Hollywood Park, has nightmares about a hate-filled mob of heretic hunting Zenyatta fans descending on his home. We don't. ;)

[andtheyreoff]

This list could go on and on. I simply don't comprehend the delusion that Zenyatta has done what no female Thoroughbred has done before. She finished first and second in two of the weakest editions ever of the over-hyped BC Classic, beat up on low-end mares on a bastardized racing surface and never ran a truly fast race in her entire, manipulated career. I do, however, appreciate these threads because they give me a chance to review and recall what really special mares in the past have accomplished.

I usually don't defend Zenyatta, but I take serious issue with the statement that the 2009 BC Classic field was one of the weakest ever, despite its slow number.

The winner was Zenyatta, a 14-time G1 winner (most of those in name only), who earned $7,300,000+.
:2:nd place was Gio Ponti, graded stakes winner at 2, 3, 4, and 5, stakes winner on No-Ride, 6 time G1 winner, dual Eclipse champion, and earner of $5,037,000.
:3:rd place was Twice Over, the winner of the prestigious Champion Stakes at Newmarket before shipping to the United States. At three, he won 2 G2s and was G1 placed, and earned a solid $1,688,115.
:4:th place was Summer Bird, who won New York's three most prestigious races, defeating Quality Road in 2 of them, who would come back next year and win 4 G1s, his only off the board finish being on a track with a bias against his style. SB was also the 2009 3yo champion, was G1 and G2 place, and racked up over $2.3 million.
The :5:th place finisher was Colonel John, winner of the Santa Anita Derby and Travers the previous year, and who was coming off a solid 2nd place finish in the Goodwood, along with a stakes on turf for his first start of the year. A stakes winner at 2 and 3, he collected $1,779,012.
:6:th place finisher Richard's Kid was a stakes winner on dirt and synthetic, including back-to-back wins in the Pacific Classic, and wins in the Goodwood and San Antonio, along with stakes placings at 12F. To date, he has earned $1,716,370.
:7:th place belonged to Awesome Gem. This one won the Hollywood Gold Cup in 2010, and going into the Classic, had scored in the Hawthorne Gold Cup and San Fernando. Along with stakes placings on dirt, turf, and synthetic, he has earned $2,290,682.
:8:th place Regal Ransom is the only one in this field not to be a G1 winner, but that could change tomorrow. He has won 2 G2s on two continents, in one of them defeating Blame, who is your favorite for the 2010 HOTY honors. He's earned $1.8 million.
:9:th place finisher Mine that Bird, despite being a mediocrity who has had it easy in his big performances, hit the board in all three Triple Crown races, is a G3 winner in Canada, and earned $2,228,637.
:10:th place horse Rip van Winkle is a graded stakes winner at 2, 3, and 4, with his most notable wins being in the 2009 Queen Elizabeth, the 2009 Sussex, and the 2010 Juddmonte International. He earned just over $1,000,000.
:11:th place Einstein won graded stakes in 4 consecutive years and did those on turf, dirt, and synthetic, one of the few in racing history to do so. Between those and multiple stakes placings, his career earnings total $2,945,237.
Last place Girolamo has won a G1 sprinting and a G2 routing.

Not only does this bunch contain 11 millionaires who have won G1s on turf, dirt, and synthetic, 11 out of them are also G1 winners, making this the highest percentage of G1 winners in a Classic field this decade.

Hardly one of the weakest BC Classics ever.

[Bullet Plane]

Lets look at this line up for last years BC again.

:2: Gio Ponti: Mainly a turf horse. Did rack up some G1s in 09, but only on the weeds.

:3: Twice Over: Here we go again! Mainly a turf horse. Came into the Classic with zero, I say again, zero wins on the synthetics.

:4: Summer Bird: Dirt horse. Not the same on the synthetics. Zero synthetic wins going into this race.

:5: Col John: This poor guy hadn't won a Grade 1 event, of any kind, the entire, yes, the entire year of 09.

Talk about a motley crew!
The Beyer earned for this race was a 112- far off from the Beyer par of 116 for the race. For instance, Curlin earned a 119, Ghostzapper earned a 124.

Let's be real when we talk about Z. To do less, serves only to diminish her in everyone's eyes.

[Charlie D]

Some nice race records there andytheoff, however, it has a slight problem imho, in that, some of the horses with those nice race records you mention did not perform anywhere near to that standard in the 2009 Classic. This fact btw, also applies to horses like QR, Haynesfield in 2010.


Apologies for pointing out the obvious, but this has to be done in this case as people imho seem to suffer from selective memory or temporary blindness when discussing Zen.

[tucker6]

Some nice race records there andytheoff, however, it has a slight problem imho, in that, some of the horses with those nice race records you mention did not perform anywhere near to that standard in the 2009 Classic. This fact btw, also applies to horses like QR, Haynesfield in 2010.


Apologies for pointing out the obvious, but this has to be done in this case as people imho seem to suffer from selective memory or temporary blindness when discussing Zen.Not to mention that most of the horses in the 2009 Classic amassed their profiles on a surface different to what was raced upon in that race. A small but important fact.

[Tom]

Nice post, andtheyreoff.
Those are some of the bullet points that history will remember. Anal retention tends to wear off faster than legacies That needed to be pointed out. :D

[Charlie D]

What history will remember i think Tom is the Queen did not do what many thought she would in 2010 and the reason for that imho is, she was simply one of many good horses that we see every year and not the exceptional that we get blessed with every now and then.

[FenceBored]

Not to mention that most of the horses in the 2009 Classic amassed their profiles on a surface different to what was raced upon in that race. A small but important fact.

You know, with Awesome Gem's win in the G1 Hollywood Gold Cup this year, (which andtheyreoff counts) there's only one horse in the 2007 edition without a G1 (Diamond Stripes). The rest were 2 time HOY Curlin, 2yo Champ and Derby winner Street Sense, Older Male Champion Lawyer Ron, European 3yo Champion George Washington, G1 King's Bishop winner Hard Spun, G1 Haskell winner Any Given Saturday, G1 Goodwood winner Tiago, the aforementioned G1 Hollywood Gold Cup winner Awesome Gem, and multiple G2 winner Diamond Stripes.

[keithw84]

Not to mention that most of the horses in the 2009 Classic amassed their profiles on a surface different to what was raced upon in that race. A small but important fact.

IMO, this is the biggest problem with assigning historical significance to the 2009 Classic. There were some very accomplished horses in the field, but their connections did not have the option of running on dirt. It was either turf or Pro Ride, which plays like turf. The 0-43 statistic is too glaring to ignore.

[Steve R]

WTF?

Because people argue about her she is now somehow bad for racing? Holy crap, I have heard it all.

Were Ted Williams and Joe Dimaggio bad for baseball because during the 1947 MVP vote rancor was caused in sportswriting circles? That a New York fan would get beat up in a Boston bar for saying Joe D was better? That a Boston fan would probably receive worse in a Brooklyn pool hall?

It's not those two great ball players fault some people are idiots, and it is not Zenyatta's fault that some people in racing are idiots as well. She's a horse, and a damn good one, but she does not have the power to stop people from acting like imbeciles; that's their fault. They should have an IQ higher than a horse.
Bad analogy. The rancor over Williams and DiMaggio (although I'll have to take your word for it and I'm sure the argument was about which one was greater, not whether both were great) was mostly about New York vs Boston. Their names could have been Smith and Jones, but if they were the star outfielders of the two teams you would have had the same animosity. The better analogy would be over Roger Maris' place in history. However, in decades of watching Thoroughbred racing I have never witnessed the emotional outrage expressed over one horse that I've seen over Zenyatta, on both sides. And frankly, I think it's based on a rejection of the mostly subjective arguments made by Zenyatta's hysterical cult-like fans. No matter how many teenage girls scream and faint at a Justin Bieber concert, it doesn't make Justin Bieber Bob Dylan.

But is is bad for the sport because it means the cult of personality can override long-standing historical standards. Suddenly, out of nowhere, race time, track records,the quality of individual races and even the quality of competition are no longer important, at least for one mare. I think that's bullshit.

[Relwob Owner]

But is is bad for the sport because it means the cult of personality can override long-standing historical standards. Suddenly, out of nowhere, race time, track records,the quality of individual races and even the quality of competition are no longer important, at least for one mare. I think that's bullshit.[/QUOTE]


Outstanding point....kind of like the "instant classic" concept that ESPN unfortunatelky brings to the table where a game from three days ago is instantly judged as being on par with real classics

[PaceAdvantage]

"The Zenyatta fans can make a reasonable claim that she should be considered the greatest U.S. filly or mare all time".

If this comment was made by me, or GM10, or bisket, or Ghostyapper, or Eastie...we would be vilified. We would be called Zenyatta worshipers, who lack any historical perspective whatsoever...and our handicapping prowess would be ridiculed by many posters on this site, who obviously consider themselves to be much better handicappers than we are.You would not be vilified or any other such nonsense, because this statement is somewhat reasonable. You're not stating "she IS the greatest F&M of all time." You're saying "a reasonable claim can be made."

Big difference in my book.

[thaskalos]

You would not be vilified or any other such nonsense, because this statement is somewhat reasonable. You're not stating "she IS the greatest F&M of all time." You're saying "a reasonable claim can be made."

Big difference in my book.
But PA...

If this is "a reasonable claim" to make...why are we Zenyatta fans called UNREASONABLE for making it?

Isn't THAT what we are being called...by Steve R., CJ., and a few others?

Isn't Steve R. questioning our knowledge and historical perspective...just because we dare say that Zenyatta belongs AMONG the best fillies and mares of all time?

I shudder to think what he would say of us, if we had the audacity to state - as Andy Beyer has done - that she may be the BEST female of ALL TIME!

I haven't seen ONE Zenyatta fan claim that she was better than Ruffian!

When a few Zenyatta fans made the irresponsible claim that she belonged among the "Greats" of all time...they were vilified for "tarnishing" the memories of Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Spectacular Bid - and perhaps deservedly so.

Are we now being reprimanded by Steve R., for tarnishing the memories of Busher, Twilight Tear, Ta Wee, Typecast, What A Summer and De La Rose?

[PaceAdvantage]

I believe Zenyatta is not the greatest female of all time. But that doesn't mean that she doesn't belong AMONG that group.

I believe she clearly does. Her winning streak and her performance in both BC Classics obviously place her among the group of elite F&M of all time. Just near the lower end... ;)

[Bullet Plane]

But PA...

If this is "a reasonable claim" to make...why are we Zenyatta fans called UNREASONABLE for making it?

Isn't THAT what we are being called...by Steve R., CJ., and a few others?

Isn't Steve R. questioning our knowledge and historical perspective...just because we dare say that Zenyatta belongs AMONG the best fillies and mares of all time?

I shudder to think what he would say of us, if we had the audacity to state - as Andy Beyer has done - that she may be the BEST female of ALL TIME!

I haven't seen ONE Zenyatta fan claim that she was better than Ruffian!

When a few Zenyatta fans made the irresponsible claim that she belonged among the "Greats" of all time...they were vilified for "tarnishing" the memories of Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Spectacular Bid - and perhaps deservedly so.

Are we now being reprimanded by Steve R., for tarnishing the memories of Busher, Twilight Tear, Ta Wee, Typecast, What A Summer and De La Rose?
Beyer said that her "fans" could reasonably say that. He did not say that was his opinion.

[cj]

I have no problem with those that want to argue she is the best. They would be wrong, but it is still an argument that can be made.

[highnote]

I have no problem with those that want to argue she is the best. They would be wrong, but it is still an argument that can be made.


There have been some pretty good foreign fillies. Makybe Diva may be the best filly ever. She is a 3 time winner of the Melbourne Cup. She won around $14 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makybe_Diva

Surely, the French and English have raced some good fillies. The top Euro fillies have to race against males since their aren't many races there restricted to fillies.

Winning Colors did something Zenyatta didn't do -- win the Kentucky Derby. Does that make Winning Colors better?

There are so many different ways of judging a race horse. I would think that deciding on the best filly ever would depend on the criterion used.

Surely, Z is not the best sprinting filly ever. She's probably not the best marathoner ever. Hypothetically, she probably would get beat in a match race against Ruffian because in a match race the first horse to get the lead usually wins.

So before confirming that Z is the best filly ever, the rules need to be determined.

[Tom]

But is is bad for the sport because it means the cult of personality can override long-standing historical standards. Suddenly, out of nowhere, race time, track records,the quality of individual races and even the quality of competition are no longer important, at least for one mare. I think that's bullshit.

How is it bad?
Does it drive people away?
Does it raise the takeout?
How much money do track records bring in?
What were the speed figures of the great horses that raced with Damascus?

Face it, This whole Zenyatta thing has nothing whatsoever to do with racing at all. Unless it broguht some new people into the game. But I have been assurred that that is not possible. I read it here, it must be true.

[Marlin]

Princess Rooney - would have absolutely SMOKED Zenyatta
Lady's Secret - probably would have beaten her
Personal Ensign - would have beaten her
Bayakoa - would have beaten her
Inside Information - would have crushed Zenyatta
Jewel Princess - probably would have beaten her
Azeri - would have given her a good run for her money


They might have been able to beat her but I can't rank them ahead of Zenyatta. The one that comes close in career accompshiment is Personal Ensign and I would have her ranked in the top 5 of all time.

Busher and Twilight Tear had incredible years, similar to a modern day Rachel, but were really unable to compete past three. Their spectacular season would most likely still place them in the top 5.

Ta Wee, Typecast, and De La Rose were all specialists, either turfers or sprinters, and in America that leaves them out of the greatest of all time discussion IMO.

It leaves me with five. Ruffian, Zenyatta, Busher, Twilight Tear, and Personal Ensign. I'd have her second. I could understand fifth.

[tucker6]

They might have been able to beat her but I can't rank them ahead of Zenyatta. That makes no sense to me. If they all have similar bodies of work, then head-to-head is the definitive difference.

Here is Twilight Tears career accomplishments. Please let me know how she stacks up against Zenyatta career-wise:

http://www.spiletta.com/UTHOF/twilighttear.html

Twilight Tear

1944 Horse of the Year


Twilight Tear began her racing career on June 25, 1943, in a maiden special weight at Washington Park. Slow to break, she recovered and drew off to win by three quarters of a length. Durazna, another Calumet horse, was third.

Next came the richest in her division, the Arlington Lassie Stakes, run that year not at Arlington but at Washington Park. Twilight Tear cantered to a two and a half length victory over her stablemate, Miss Keeneland.

The filly didn't race again until fall, when she ran at Pimlico. After running third in an allowance race in which she had forced the early pace on a sloppy track, Suzie cantered to another victory over stablemate Miss Keeneland in a mile and seventy yard prep race.

The main event was the Selima Stakes, in which Miss Keeneland sought revenge and scored by a length with Twilight Tear second, disliking the muddy track. In her final start at two, Twilight Tear wired an allowance field which included both Miss Keeneland and Red Wonder, to whom she had been third earlier in the year.

Durazna and Miss Keeneland were equally weighted on the Experimental Free Handicap, with Twilight Tear two pounds below them, and the division had no clear champion, with official honors shared by Durazna and Twilight Tear. Suzie had beaten both of the other fillies, but in her absense Durazna had won the Breeders Futurity and the Hawthorne Juvenile Stakes, and Miss Keeneland had scored her one win over Twilight Tear in a stakes race.

After finishing third to older colts in her season debut, the Leap Year Handicap at Hialeah, Twilight Tear began an eleven race winning streak. She won a pair of allowance races at Tropical Park, one in the slop and the other on a fast track, then came north and won an allowance race at Pimlico. None of the victories required any significant effort.

The field for Pimlico's Rennert Handicap included Calumet Farm's future Horse of the Year Armed, but it proved no contest, and Twilight Tear cantered to a length and a half victory. She next won the Pimlico Oaks by three twilighttear1.jpglengths over Plucky Maud, and was obviously never extended.

Next came the Acorn Stakes at Belmont Park. Once again with speed in reserve, Twilight Tear cantered to a two and a half length victory over the good filly Whirlabout, whose wins that season included the Test, Gazelle, and Diana Stakes as well as the New England Oaks.

In the mile and three-eighths Coaching Club American Oaks, Calumet's Suzie was again unchallenged, winning as she pleased by four lengths.

In the Princess Doreen Stakes, she gave three pounds to Durazna and beat her a length and a half despite having to alter course. The victory prompted her trainer, the great Ben A. Jones, to say, "This is the best horse I've ever trained." Although Citation was not foaled until the following spring, Ben Jones had already trained the brilliantly fast colt Whirlaway to a Triple Crown.

In the Skokie Handicap, Suzie met a field of colts that included her stablemate, the 1944 Kentucky Derby and Preakness winner, Pensive. In winning the race, Suzie set a new track record for seven furlongs. She beat Pensive again the next time out, in an allowance race at Washington Park.

Twilight Tear again beat the boys when she scored a two length victory in the Arlington Classic, the eleventh straight triumph for the filly.

The winning streak was broken when Suzie tried unsuccessfully to give away twelve pounds in the Alabama Stakes, finishing second to Vienna by three quarters of a length after pressing a sizzling pace. After a two month rest, Twilight Tear won both the Meadowville Handicap and Queen Isabella Handicaps, the latter by five lengths, and then ran out of the money for the first time when she failed to carry 130 pounds over a muddy track in the Maryland Handicap. In Suzie's final race that year, she met two time handicap champion Devil Diver in the Pimlico Special. The older colt was beaten in the first quarter, and Twilight Tear went on to win by six lengths, tying the track record set by Seabiscuit in his 1938 victory over War Admiral.

twilighttear.jpg

Thus ending a brilliant season, she was named 1944 Horse of the Year. Not since Beldame, forty years earlier, had a three-year-old filly claimed the title. Twilight Tear also was named Champion Three Year Old Filly and Champion Handicap Mare.

Retired from racing after bleeding in her only start at four, Twilight Tear produced several stakes winners for Calumet Farm. She had two foals by Whirlaway. The first, foaled in 1947, was Foremost, who was a winner, although not a stakes winner. Coiner, foaled in 1948, won several small stakes races.

Suzie's next foal was A Gleam, a chestnut daughter of Blenheim II who won twelve starts and $ 251,395. Her wins including the Princess Pat Stakes, the Cinema Handicap, the Debonair Stakes, the Hollywood Oaks, two runnings of the Milady Handicap, and the Westerner Stakes. She in turn produced A Glitter, who won the Coaching Club American Oaks, Monmouth Oaks, Modesty Handicap, and Betsy Ross Stakes. A Gleam also produced Moonbeam, dam of the 1981 Champion Two-Year-Old Filly Before Dawn, who also carried the Calumet silks.

Twilight Tear's son Bardstown earned $628,752 despite not running until he was four. The gelding scored numerous victories, including the Trenton Handicap, the Equipoise Mile, the Gulfstream Handicap, and twobardstown.jpg runnings of the Widener Handicap. Suzie's other foals included Prince Mike, Diamond Tear, and Curlew Call. She died in 1954. Twilight Tear was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1963, and at the end of the century Blood-Horse ranked her fifty-ninth on their list of the top racehorses of the century.




Twilight Tear's Race Record

YearStartsWinsSecondsThirdsEarningsLifetime241822$ 202,165


Twilight Tear, 1941 bay filly

[tucker6]

Here is Twilight Tears career accomplishments. Please let me know how she stacks up against Zenyatta career-wise:
I counted at least six races against males, including five wins. She also carried more weight than most other horses in her races. As a 3yo filly, she carried 130. When was the last time you saw that?

When are we going to recognize that Zenyatta was a great horse, but nothing special when you consider history. There are 5-10 fillies and mares that have a better resume than Zenyatta.

By the way, Twilight Tear was ranked 59th by the Bloodhorse Top 100 of the last century.

[keithw84]

Thus ending a brilliant season, she was named 1944 Horse of the Year. Not since Beldame, forty years earlier, had a three-year-old filly claimed the title.

What about Regret?

And anyway, Twilight Tear is clearly inferior... Only 18 wins? Zenyatta and Pepper's Pride both have 19. (Kidding, of course)

[rastajenk]

Bad for racing?

Suppose she had raced the schedule, in the last two years, that many have wished that she had; that she had shipped more often, faced males more often, ran on dirt more often...maybe even tried a turf course or two.

Then it would not be hard to suppose she had compiled a record in that time that other good horses do; win some, lose some while running well, lose some by never getting in contention, etc. She continued to rack up some earnings, but the win streak didn't exist, so basically she was just another performer at the upper end of racing's scale.

How on earth would that be better for racing? This current period of racing history is already characterized by the lack of any dominant runners, and by the lack of anything at the top that can meet historical pars for some of our big races. Why the desire for one more when we have plenty of average good horses already?

I'm not entering into the argument that Z is the best or even one of the best racemares in history. But the "bad for racing" line, the threat that a "cult of personality" poses to historians, that's just goofy, and arrogant. Why should we leave history to the historians? Who elected them to tell us what we should think?

[DeanT]

There are so many different ways of judging a race horse. I would think that deciding on the best filly ever would depend on the criterion used.



Bingo.

Judging them in different ways - as people are want to do - and you will never have agreement. Add the fact that comparing horses of today to horses of 40+ years ago is like comparing basketballs to banana's and we have an argument, circular in nature, and one which will never be agreed upon.

Take Quality Road. He was the darling of everyone on this board and in much of the press for the first half of 2009. I can say "he is a better horse than Zenyatta." Some people will call me insane. But I can say that he is clearly a faster horse, when at his best, and I can point to his Donn victory and that wicked 120 Beyer.

Others (rightly in my opinion because I look at more than the speed of a horse to judge them) will say "how can you say a horse who raced a limited time well, did not make the gate in the biggest race of 2009, and got beat by Zenyatta by the length of an aircraft carrier this year be a better horse?"

Rachel - I could say she is a better horse than Z because she ran better Beyers and she won races that Z could not have won. Take that Z lovers!

Rachel opine 2 - Z made tons more money won more grade 1 races and proved she was not a one year wonder like so many horses do in modern times, like Rachel this season. Take that Rachel lovers!

Both of them are right - based on their view of what makes a great horse.

Of all the mares mentioned on this thread (modern mares, not ancient ones) they are great, fast horses. Could they have won a BC on synth against males, then come a whisker of beating them on another surface? Could they have raced three years amassing $7 million if they raced today? Could they have raced for three years and twenty consecutive starts and never throw in a bad race? In contrast, could Z have beaten some of the good mares they beat when they ran some fast numbers?

Some would say "maybe they would, and they were faster than her on paper" so I think a couple are better. Others would say longevity and history (with wins and losses) are more important, and Z did what she had to over a long period of time.

In their world view of what makes a great race horse, they are both right. And they will never agree with each other. It makes for excellent fodder on a chat board, but it is a symptom of ones internal bias (some of the biases extremely entrenched and dogmatic); and it has absolutely nothing to do with Zenyatta.

[FenceBored]

I haven't seen ONE Zenyatta fan claim that she was better than Ruffian!


Here's two that occured in the same thread within 6 hours of her loss in the Classic.
Till today I always thought Ruffian was the best filly or mare, but that changed today,This puts her as the best ever. -- http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=999554&postcount=204
When I saw Ruffian live in person I thought for sure that I'd never see a better filly, but I think that Zenyatta is at least as good, and probably better. The interesting thing is that they are complete opposites, Ruffian was better at shorter distances and the fastest early speed horse I've ever seen, ran them into the ground and coasted home. Zen crawls early and finishes faster than any horse I've ever seen, prefers more distance. Ruffian would be unbeatable at a mile or shorter. In my opinion she was the fastest sprinter/miler that ever lived, regardless of sex. -- http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=999564&postcount=210

[Spalding No!]

...suppose she had compiled a record in that time that other good horses do; win some, lose some while running well, lose some by never getting in contention, etc. She continued to rack up some earnings, but the win streak didn't exist, so basically she was just another performer at the upper end of racing's scale.

How on earth would that be better for racing? This current period of racing history is already characterized by the lack of any dominant runners, and by the lack of anything at the top that can meet historical pars for some of our big races. Why the desire for one more when we have plenty of average good horses already?
So instead you support the recourse of promoting fake "dominant" runners?

Why actually test a racehorse on the racetrack when we can just synthesize them through hype and media circus?

Forget all-time great female racehorse.

What is the best spin doctoring of all-time?

a) Zenyatta
b) The Monkees
c) The Harlem Globetrotters
d) Pro Wrestling

[rastajenk]

It depends on who's doing the promoting. When rank-and-file racegoers, including any of those who have never gotten much worked up over a racehorse before, come out to the track with signs and stuff like that, it's OK. When arrogant expat Costa Rican asshats like Steve R tell them they're bad for the sport, then that makes it even more OK. :ThmbUp:

[tucker6]

When arrogant expat Costa Rican asshats like Steve R tell them they're bad for the sport, then that makes it even more OK. :ThmbUp:Nationality in a negative connotation has no place in a post. He may be arrogant, and he may be an asshat, but that should be all. His opinion is as good as any American opinion on here.

Edit: I don't believe he's an asshat either.

[Spalding No!]

It depends on who's doing the promoting. When rank-and-file racegoers, including any of those who have never gotten much worked up over a racehorse before, come out to the track with signs and stuff like that, it's OK.
Some dude use to hold up a license plate whenever Best Pal ran.

Just think of the hoopla had his connections had the good sense to run him only in Cal-bred races.

[rastajenk]

That bum. The damage he did to the game was apparently irreparable. :rolleyes:

[thaskalos]

This is an online message board about horse racing, is it not? And isn't horse racing all about differences of opinion? How many COMMON opinions do we horseplayers share about this game in general...should it surprise us that we differ in our opinions about Zenyatta too?

We all know who Steve Roman is...and we know about his contributions to this game. The problem is that HE doesn't know who some of US are...so, when he assumes this "didactic" role of his, he may be thinking that he is correcting some novice players who are completely ignorant about the history of this game, and about handicapping in general...but he would be dead wrong.

Some of us are professional-level players who have depended on our handicapping knowledge to take us from being $20 bettors, to wagering thousands of dollars per day - EVERY DAY. And while this may not favorably compare to Ph.Ds, and "DRF influential man of the century" awards, I think we would take our chances against these "academic" types at the betting windows - ANY DAY!

There is nothing wrong with arguing about our differences of opinion...but do we have to ridicule people in order to make our point?

[Spalding No!]

That bum. The damage he did to the game was apparently irreparable. :rolleyes:
Could have been worse if he had been able to breed.

[rastajenk]

:confused:

I was referring to the dude with the license plate.

:D

[Cardus]

This is an online message board about horse racing, is it not? And isn't horse racing all about differences of opinion? How many COMMON opinions do we horseplayers share about this game in general...should it surprise us that we differ in our opinions about Zenyatta too?

We all know who Steve Roman is...and we know about his contributions to this game. The problem is that HE doesn't know who some of US are...so, when he assumes this "didactic" role of his, he may be thinking that he is correcting some novice players who are completely ignorant about the history of this game, and about handicapping in general...but he would be dead wrong.

Some of us are professional-level players who have depended on our handicapping knowledge to take us from being $20 bettors, to wagering thousands of dollars per day - EVERY DAY. And while this may not favorably compare to Ph.Ds, and "DRF influential man of the century" awards, I think we would take our chances against these "academic" types at the betting windows - ANY DAY!

There is nothing wrong with arguing about our differences of opinion...but do we have to ridicule people in order to make our point?

Some posters are behaving like novices who have either no historical context or understand historical context and choose to ignore it.

Lately, his posts have been highly instructive, though not everyone gets the message.

[Tom]

Some posters are behaving like novices who have either no historical context or understand historical context and choose to ignore it.

And you are the Historical Context Police?:rolleyes:
Those two posters who think she is the greatest ever?
She IS....to them. Case closed. They get to make their own criteria.

[FenceBored]

And you are the Historical Context Police?:rolleyes:
Those two posters who think she is the greatest ever?
She IS....to them. Case closed. They get to make their own criteria.

And you are the Chief Board Cop? :rolleyes:

[pandy]

I usually don't defend Zenyatta, but I take serious issue with the statement that the 2009 BC Classic field was one of the weakest ever, despite its slow number.

The winner was Zenyatta, a 14-time G1 winner (most of those in name only), who earned $7,300,000+.
:2:nd place was Gio Ponti, graded stakes winner at 2, 3, 4, and 5, stakes winner on No-Ride, 6 time G1 winner, dual Eclipse champion, and earner of $5,037,000.
:3:rd place was Twice Over, the winner of the prestigious Champion Stakes at Newmarket before shipping to the United States. At three, he won 2 G2s and was G1 placed, and earned a solid $1,688,115.
:4:th place was Summer Bird, who won New York's three most prestigious races, defeating Quality Road in 2 of them, who would come back next year and win 4 G1s, his only off the board finish being on a track with a bias against his style. SB was also the 2009 3yo champion, was G1 and G2 place, and racked up over $2.3 million.
The :5:th place finisher was Colonel John, winner of the Santa Anita Derby and Travers the previous year, and who was coming off a solid 2nd place finish in the Goodwood, along with a stakes on turf for his first start of the year. A stakes winner at 2 and 3, he collected $1,779,012.
:6:th place finisher Richard's Kid was a stakes winner on dirt and synthetic, including back-to-back wins in the Pacific Classic, and wins in the Goodwood and San Antonio, along with stakes placings at 12F. To date, he has earned $1,716,370.
:7:th place belonged to Awesome Gem. This one won the Hollywood Gold Cup in 2010, and going into the Classic, had scored in the Hawthorne Gold Cup and San Fernando. Along with stakes placings on dirt, turf, and synthetic, he has earned $2,290,682.
:8:th place Regal Ransom is the only one in this field not to be a G1 winner, but that could change tomorrow. He has won 2 G2s on two continents, in one of them defeating Blame, who is your favorite for the 2010 HOTY honors. He's earned $1.8 million.
:9:th place finisher Mine that Bird, despite being a mediocrity who has had it easy in his big performances, hit the board in all three Triple Crown races, is a G3 winner in Canada, and earned $2,228,637.
:10:th place horse Rip van Winkle is a graded stakes winner at 2, 3, and 4, with his most notable wins being in the 2009 Queen Elizabeth, the 2009 Sussex, and the 2010 Juddmonte International. He earned just over $1,000,000.
:11:th place Einstein won graded stakes in 4 consecutive years and did those on turf, dirt, and synthetic, one of the few in racing history to do so. Between those and multiple stakes placings, his career earnings total $2,945,237.
Last place Girolamo has won a G1 sprinting and a G2 routing.

Not only does this bunch contain 11 millionaires who have won G1s on turf, dirt, and synthetic, 11 out of them are also G1 winners, making this the highest percentage of G1 winners in a Classic field this decade.

Hardly one of the weakest BC Classics ever.

Great post, facts. Another thing I like to point out, most professional handicappers did NOT pick Zenyatta to win the '09 classic and they reason why was because the field was so tough.

[Spalding No!]

Great post, facts. Another thing I like to point out, most professional handicappers did NOT pick Zenyatta to win the '09 classic and they reason why was because the field was so tough.
I'd like to point out the conditions of the race, namely, ten furlongs at mile and a quarter over Pro-Ride synthetic surface.

The only horse to win a Grade 1 under those strict conditions was Einstein.

If you generalize to any synthetic surface, then you have Einstein and Richard's Kid.

If, for some reason, you consider 2010 race records, then you have Einstein, Richard's Kid, Zenyatta, and Awesome Gem.

And as long as we're considering 2010 performance, both Gio Ponti and Twice Over attempted a Grade 1 at 10f over a synthetic surface--and both were unplaced.

[ihatenyra]

And I'd like to point out the previous year on this same alien surface 2 European turf horses were the exacta.

And Gio Ponti ran so awful in his lone subsequent "synthetic" race (losing by less than 2 lengths) that his connections were so discouraged they are flying him 12 hours back to dubai as a 6yo to try it again.

[Spalding No!]

And I'd like to point out the previous year on this same alien surface 2 European turf horses were the exacta.

Must have been another weak year. Curlin played the Summer Bird role and Colonel John played the Colonel John role.

And Gio Ponti ran so awful in his lone subsequent "synthetic" race (losing by less than 2 lengths) that his connections were so discouraged they are flying him 12 hours back to dubai as a 6yo to try it again.

Probably because Richard's Kid, who was even farther back, is the likely heavy, what with that 9yo Brazilian horse that won it retiring and all.

[Tom]

And you are the Chief Board Cop? :rolleyes:

Back at ya.
I was talking to the other guy, not you. I find "planks" boring.
Get it?

[Charlie D]

Great post, facts. Another thing I like to point out, most professional handicappers did NOT pick Zenyatta to win the '09 classic and they reason why was because the field was so tough.



More probable reason is, they or the methodology they use underestimated her ability.

[FenceBored]

Back at ya.
I was talking to the other guy, not you. I find "planks" boring.
Get it?

Do you think, as Officer Tom Chief Board Cop, that you get to tell others what they can and can't respond to? :rolleyes:

[Tom]

You mean like you tried to do to me?
I didn't tell you who to post to, btw.
RIF. Night schools abound.

[FenceBored]

You mean like you tried to do to me?
I didn't tell you who to post to, btw.
RIF. Night schools abound.

Nope, didn't try to tell you anything of the kind. You just don't 'get it,' do you? Sure, pandy and magwell can post that they think Zenyatta's better than Ruffian. Other people can post that they're wrong. Even you, Officer Tom Board Cop, can try to boss people around, and they're free to say :p. It's a great country, America.

As for night schools, here (http://www.flcc.edu/), let me help you out. There are operators standing by to take your call.

[cj]

More probable reason is, they or the methodology they use underestimated her ability.

I don't think most people underestimated her ability. I think they just thought she was an underlay, which in retrospect maybe she wasn't. She certainly was in 2010, even had she won.

[Charlie D]

:ThmbUp: Being considered an underlay will have been a contributor to some not selecting her as well CJ.

[classhandicapper]

I think pace and speed figures are a "monumentally" flawed way of measuring the ability of horses in general and especially as a way of measuring individual performances.

The accuracy issues alone are ridiculous.

Changing wind direction, intensity and gusts, surface speed changes, some parts of the track not being as fast as others, run up variations, timer malfunctions, humidity and temperature changes during the day, between race track maintenance, mild bumping at the start, changing relationships between distances from day to day due to surface changes etc... all impact time and are difficult to isolate and measure.

I often have access to the speed figures of the best 5 figure makers I know. When I compare them, it's often like looking at 5 different races. The differences can be so large it's shocking.

The number of huge errors I identify before the fact where I am ultimately proven correct is mind boggling.

When you get into the pace issues, race development issues, early and between call interactions and moves and how the quality/speed of these moves impact time you are talking about significant impacts that can't be measured precisely.

Finally, when horses cross the finish line, regardless of whether they were all out through the stretch or not, you can't know for sure how much they had left after the wire in terms of stamina and what they could have given if asked for more earlier. Some would collapse late and some would give more.

Don't get me wrong, I use figures, but at this stage I practically use them with disdain and only because I have to.

I use them because there are some occasions where the quality of the horses and/or a field is not clear enough to me for a subjective analysis because the horses are very lightly raced and haven't sorted themselves out against horses I AM familiar with, they are from a circuit I am totally unfamiliar with etc... So I need some kind objective measurement to get me in the ballpark. But I know that I am often using something that is ridiculously inaccurate as a measure of ability.

I can list dozens of horses that ran extremely fast at various times in their careers that would have gotten totally annihilated in either of the last two Breeder's Cup Classics because they simply weren't as good as they looked based on the figures they earned when conditions suited them, they faced much weaker, and they gave everything they had. (or quite often the numbers were wrong to begin with).

If Zenyatta taught people anything about handicapping, it should have been how flawed speed figures are as a measure of performance and ability.

[highnote]

CH, excellent post.

I agree with your comment, "...when conditions suited them".

That is an extremely important concept. A horse that runs in a race where the conditions are ideal for him will run a great race. But what happens next time he races under less than ideal circumstances?

Favorite Trick is one of my all-time favorite horses because he won over different conditions, distances and courses. He truly was a champion. However, 10 furlongs was not an ideal distance for him in the KY Derby. Being out of the great sprinter Phone Trick, Favorite Trick had little chance of winning the Derby. But you never know until you try.

Check out this excellent link about Favorite Trick:

http://www.chef-de-race.com/race_management/trick_summary.htm





I think pace and speed figures are a "monumentally" flawed way of measuring the ability of horses in general and especially as a way of measuring individual performances.

The accuracy issues alone are ridiculous.

Changing wind direction, intensity and gusts, surface speed changes, some parts of the track not being as fast as others, run up variations, timer malfunctions, humidity and temperature changes during the day, between race track maintenance, mild bumping at the start, changing relationships between distances from day to day due to surface changes etc... all impact time and are difficult to isolate and measure.

I often have access to the speed figures of the best 5 figure makers I know. When I compare them, it's often like looking at 5 different races. The differences can be so large it's shocking.

The number of huge errors I identify before the fact where I am ultimately proven correct is mind boggling.

When you get into the pace issues, race development issues, early and between call interactions and moves and how the quality/speed of these moves impact time you are talking about significant impacts that can't be measured precisely.

Finally, when horses cross the finish line, regardless of whether they were all out through the stretch or not, you can't know for sure how much they had left after the wire in terms of stamina and what they could have given if asked for more earlier. Some would collapse late and some would give more.

Don't get me wrong, I use figures, but at this stage I practically use them with disdain and only because I have to.

I use them because there are some occasions where the quality of the horses and/or a field is not clear enough to me for a subjective analysis because the horses are very lightly raced and haven't sorted themselves out against horses I AM familiar with, they are from a circuit I am totally unfamiliar with etc... So I need some kind objective measurement to get me in the ballpark. But I know that I am often using something that is ridiculously inaccurate as a measure of ability.

I can list dozens of horses that ran extremely fast at various times in their careers that would have gotten totally annihilated in either of the last two Breeder's Cup Classics because they simply weren't as good as they looked based on the figures they earned when conditions suited them, they faced much weaker, and they gave everything they had. (or quite often the numbers were wrong to begin with).

If Zenyatta taught people anything about handicapping, it should have been how flawed speed figures are as a measure of performance and ability.

[cj]

If Zenyatta taught people anything about handicapping, it should have been how flawed speed figures are as a measure of performance and ability.

I think they measured her just fine...on dirt.

[highnote]

I think they measured her just fine...on dirt.


In the case of Z, I agree with you.

You correctly pointed out that she would be 20 lengths back early on in the 2010 BC at CD. She was 10 back early on in the 2009 BC at SA.

Off the top of my head, I would think that the SA race was run more like turf and the runners were a little bunched up because of a slower pace.

In the CD race on dirt the horses were strung out more -- with Z being way too far back early -- as you said you had predicted.

Now, we know it is hard to change a horse's running style. But Smith knew he let her get too far back early. The jockey can exert some influence on a horse. He knows he should have urged her more. This was a huge blunder in my opinion. Even Pat Day would not have had her that far back.

I believe Z was capable of a better time on dirt had she been closer to the pace. By being so far back she was not able to get her best time. She had energy left, but ran out of racetrack.

Same as the human runners who broke the 4 minute mile. They knew they needed a fast pace if they were going to set the record. If they ran too fast early they would run out of energy in the final stage of the race. If they ran too slow early they would have enough of the race left to make up the time lost on the slow pace. But! by running the proper fractions they were able to break 4 minutes.

[Charlie D]

I think they measured her just fine...on dirt.


I think they measure her performances just fine on other surfaces too.

[cj]

In the case of Z, I agree with you.

You correctly pointed out that she would be 20 lengths back early on in the 2010 BC at CD. She was 10 back early on in the 2009 BC at SA...

We'll never really know, but history says putting her closer would have zapped some of her kick. We've covered this already, no? Both are possible.

[cj]

I think they measure her performances just fine on other surfaces too.

I would disagree speed figures alone did which is what CH referenced.

[highnote]

We'll never really know, but history says putting her closer would have zapped some of her kick. We've covered this already, no? Both are possible.


What history? Z's?

[cj]

What history? Z's?

Horses in general. I've already conceded it is possible she could have run faster if kept closer, but it isn't the most likely outcome. In Z's history, she did not run as well when put closer to the pace or asked to run earlier.

[Charlie D]

I would disagree speed figures alone did which is what CH referenced.


Does not the Ladies Classic 2008 fig alone and Classic 2009 fig alone show Zen to be a Good horse??

[cj]

Does not the Ladies Classic 2008 fig alone and Classic 2009 fig alone show Zen to be a Good horse??

Sure, but many of her races on rubber are not really reflected in speed figures.

[highnote]

I'm not trying to be difficult. Just trying to get to the truth.

... it is possible she could have run faster if kept closer, but it isn't the most likely outcome.

"closer to the pace" is ambiguous. "closer to the pace" needs to be defined before the most likely outcome can be determined.

In Z's history, she did not run as well when put closer to the pace or asked to run earlier.

She won 17 in a row including a BC Classic. I would argue that she ran as well as she needed to.

I don't have her past performances in front of me; in the races where she ran closer to pace were her speed figures lower?

That begs the question: Is winning a race in a slower time because of a faster pace a bad thing?

I don't know the answer to this question. It's probably subjective.

[cj]

2008 Vanity.

[highnote]

Sure, but many of her races on rubber are not really reflected in speed figures.


Do you mean "speed figures" relating to final time only -- or "speed figures" meaning pace and final time figures?

[cj]

Do you mean "speed figures" relating to final time only -- or "speed figures" meaning pace and final time figures?

Final time.

[Charlie D]

Sure, but many of her races on rubber are not really reflected in speed figures.


I think that's more of a reflection on the limitations of this type methodology CJ. However. they are doing exactly what it says on the tin i believe.

[highnote]

Final time.


I agree. Final time speed figures are not the only measurement of the quality of races.

[BluegrassProf]

I agree. Final time speed figures are not the only measurement of the quality of races.Darn skippy. We can look at super-duper way-out-there stuff like, say, records reflecting the quality of competition over time/place/surface.

Not like we've ever done that before.

:ThmbUp:

[highnote]

Darn skippy. We can look at super-duper way-out-there stuff like, say, records reflecting the quality of competition over time/place/surface.

Not like we've ever done that before.

:ThmbUp:


On turf, pace times can be so slow as to render final time meaningless. I suspect the same is sometimes true or dirt and synthetic.

Sometimes great horses get beat when their jockeys give them a bad ride.

[Tom]

She won 17 in a row including a BC Classic. I would argue that she ran as well as she needed to.

Which 2 do you dispute? ;)
It was 19, but who's counting.

[FenceBored]

Which 2 do you dispute? ;)
It was 19, but who's counting.

Maybe he misspoke, or maybe he's leaving off her first two (the MSW and ALW) to focus on the 17 straight graded stakes. {shrug}

[MPRanger]

Some dogs hunt on on sight and some dogs hunt on scent. Zenyatta is like a dog who hunts on sight. She lays back, surveys the situation then when she pulls the trigger she runs 'em down one by one.

Some experts say horses don't know they are in a race. But I believe some horses do. I believe Zenyatta knew she was in a race and she knew where the finish line was. She was just too consistent at nipping them at the wire not to have had an idea about it.

With Zenyatta speed figures only pertained to the place horse. The place horse beat the pace. If the place horse ran better figures, so would Zenyatta. Because she was running down the leader by the wire. She wasn't trying to set the pace or post a fast time. Just win. IMHO.

[cj]

Some dogs hunt on on sight and some dogs hunt on scent. Zenyatta is like a dog who hunts on sight. She lays back, surveys the situation then when she pulls the trigger she runs 'em down one by one.

Some experts say horses don't know they are in a race. But I believe some horses do. I believe Zenyatta knew she was in a race and she knew where the finish line was. She was just too consistent at nipping them at the wire not to have had an idea about it.

With Zenyatta speed figures only pertained to the place horse. The place horse beat the pace. If the place horse ran better figures, so would Zenyatta. Because she was running down the leader by the wire. She wasn't trying to set the pace or post a fast time. Just win. IMHO.

So you agree we saw her absolute best in the Classic then, right?

[keithw84]

Maybe he misspoke, or maybe he's leaving off her first two (the MSW and ALW) to focus on the 17 straight graded stakes. {shrug}
On 17 wins on synthetic surfaces

[Nikki1997]

Name the last horse who was mentioned on a televised pro football game. Not once, but twice.

Tonight during the Colts-Chargers game, Al Michaels mentioned Zenyatta twice.

LOL.

[highnote]

Which 2 do you dispute? ;)
It was 19, but who's counting.


It was just an error on my part. I was not a big Zenyatta follower. 17. 19. What's the difference? She had a long winning streak.

She's a great mare. Not the greatest of all time, INVHO.

I still think Ruffian may have been better.

[Cratos]

I think pace and speed figures are a "monumentally" flawed way of measuring the ability of horses in general and especially as a way of measuring individual performances.

The accuracy issues alone are ridiculous.

Changing wind direction, intensity and gusts, surface speed changes, some parts of the track not being as fast as others, run up variations, timer malfunctions, humidity and temperature changes during the day, between race track maintenance, mild bumping at the start, changing relationships between distances from day to day due to surface changes etc... all impact time and are difficult to isolate and measure.

I often have access to the speed figures of the best 5 figure makers I know. When I compare them, it's often like looking at 5 different races. The differences can be so large it's shocking.

The number of huge errors I identify before the fact where I am ultimately proven correct is mind boggling.

When you get into the pace issues, race development issues, early and between call interactions and moves and how the quality/speed of these moves impact time you are talking about significant impacts that can't be measured precisely.

Finally, when horses cross the finish line, regardless of whether they were all out through the stretch or not, you can't know for sure how much they had left after the wire in terms of stamina and what they could have given if asked for more earlier. Some would collapse late and some would give more.

Don't get me wrong, I use figures, but at this stage I practically use them with disdain and only because I have to.

I use them because there are some occasions where the quality of the horses and/or a field is not clear enough to me for a subjective analysis because the horses are very lightly raced and haven't sorted themselves out against horses I AM familiar with, they are from a circuit I am totally unfamiliar with etc... So I need some kind objective measurement to get me in the ballpark. But I know that I am often using something that is ridiculously inaccurate as a measure of ability.

I can list dozens of horses that ran extremely fast at various times in their careers that would have gotten totally annihilated in either of the last two Breeder's Cup Classics because they simply weren't as good as they looked based on the figures they earned when conditions suited them, they faced much weaker, and they gave everything they had. (or quite often the numbers were wrong to begin with).

If Zenyatta taught people anything about handicapping, it should have been how flawed speed figures are as a measure of performance and ability.

A great post; it should awaken the dead

[PaceAdvantage]

A great post; it should awaken the deadWhere do we go to give back all the money we've won?

[cj]

A great post; it should awaken the dead

Yeah, a great post from a guy that says he can barely find a bet any longer.

[Charlie D]

Yeah, a great post from a guy that says he can barely find a bet any longer.

:D

[Cratos]

Where do we go to give back all the money we've won?

Very simple, don't give it back; keep it because miracles do happen and the IRS might believe you even if Dr. Seuss and Mother Goose are nursery rhymes.

[Cratos]

So you agree we saw her absolute best in the Classic then, right?

No, I don’t think we saw Zenyatta’s best in either of the BC Classics (2009 or 2010) just as we didn’t see Dr Fager’s best in 1968 at Arlington Park when he climbed the summit to shattered the world record for a mile in 1:32 2/5 seconds toting 134 pounds because later in the year he would tote a staggering 139 pounds to set a world record for 7 furlongs at Aqueduct.

The great one, Secretariat only teased us with his “best” in May of 1973 when ran the 1 ¼ mile KY Derby in a 1:59 2/5 time for the win. However he was from his “best” at that time because he would come back and put on a spectacular performance in the 1973 1 1/2 mile Belmont that still have horseplayers today who were there to see it in a state of awe. Just to show that the Belmont and the Derby wasn’t outliers on his resume, he dominated a great field in the Marlboro Cup which included the likes of Riva Ridge and Cougar II to run the 1 1/8 mile distance in 1:45 2/5 seconds for a world record.

Therefore I believe that Zenyatta’s best might have never been seen, but what she gave were as good as or better than most and she probably would have only gotten better whether it was on synthetic or dirt.

[cj]

No, I don’t think we saw Zenyatta’s best in either of the BC Classics (2009 or 2010) just as we didn’t see Dr Fager’s best in 1968 at Arlington Park when he climbed the summit to shattered the world record for a mile in 1:32 2/5 seconds toting 134 pounds because later in the year he would tote a staggering 139 pounds to set a world record for 7 furlongs at Aqueduct.

The great one, Secretariat only teased us with his “best” in May of 1973 when ran the 1 ¼ mile KY Derby in a 1:59 2/5 time for the win. However he was from his “best” at that time because he would come back and put on a spectacular performance in the 1973 1 1/2 mile Belmont that still have horseplayers today who were there to see it in a state of awe. Just to show that the Belmont and the Derby wasn’t outliers on his resume, he dominated a great field in the Marlboro Cup which included the likes of Riva Ridge and Cougar II to run the 1 1/8 mile distance in 1:45 2/5 seconds for a world record.

Therefore I believe that Zenyatta’s best might have never been seen, but what she gave were as good as or better than most and she probably would have only gotten better whether it was on synthetic or dirt.

I've always thought you find out what a horse truly has in the tank when they lose. I'm not sure she could run any better than she could in this year's Classic, and that is certainly the way I would bet.

[PaceAdvantage]

Very simple, don't give it back; keep it because miracles do happen and the IRS might believe you even if Dr. Seuss and Mother Goose are nursery rhymes.So you're saying all the money I've won and the winning picks I've posted before the races occur are nothing but miracles?

What do you have to back up such hubris?

[Spalding No!]

Name the last horse who was mentioned on a televised pro football game. Not once, but twice.

Tonight during the Colts-Chargers game, Al Michaels mentioned Zenyatta twice.

LOL.

Tiznow in 2001 during the Patriots late season resurgence.

Of course, Tiznow won the BC Classic not once, but twice.

[Nikki1997]

Waiting for Pace Advantage and c.j. to come up with the last horse to be mentioned on a nationally televised pro football game. Not once, but twice.

Let's hear it, guys. Spit it out.

[cj]

Waiting for Pace Advantage and c.j. to come up with the last horse to be mentioned on a nationally televised pro football game. Not once, but twice.

Let's hear it, guys. Spit it out.

I've heard horses mentioned many times during national telecasts. Who really cares? People going to flock to the track now?

[Nikki1997]

Tiznow in 2001 during the Patriots late season resurgence.

Of course, Tiznow won the BC Classic not once, but twice.


LOL. You'd have been in real trouble for 6 or 7 inches. There is no horse in this world who could have closed like that mare did. No horse in this world.

[Cratos]

So you're saying all the money I've won and the winning picks I've posted before the races occur are nothing but miracles?

What do you have to back up such hubris?

I apologize if you feel that I am inferring that you are arrogant. I was only stating that I am in awe that speed figures could produce such profits, but I am easily surprised.

[letswastemoney]

LOL. You'd have been in real trouble for 6 or 7 inches. There is no horse in this world who could have closed like that mare did. No horse in this world.
At least Tiznow didn't need 6 or 7 inches. He won. Where is his 60 minutes feature? His record completely trumps Zenyatta's.

[Spalding No!]

LOL. You'd have been in real trouble for 6 or 7 inches. There is no horse in this world who could have closed like that mare did. No horse in this world.

You need to stop watching football games as the primary source of your horse racing knowledge and actually watch a few more races if you really believe that drivel you just posted.

Or put down the bottle.

[Nikki1997]

At least Tiznow didn't need 6 or 7 inches. He won. Where is his 60 minutes feature? His record completely trumps Zenyatta's.

You need to go ask Tiznow's people this question.

You evidently haven't realized that people are entitled to their own opinion, sunshine. Choke on yours.

[PaceAdvantage]

I apologize if you feel that I am inferring that you are arrogant. I was only stating that I am in awe that speed figures could produce such profits, but I am easily surprised.It is I who believes that YOU are being arrogant with your broad proclamations concerning what can and can't be won using various figures! That's why I asked what you have to back up such arrogance (hubris).

And who said I use speed figures? I believe classhandicapper mentioned "pace and speed figures" in his post, which you wholeheartedly endorsed.

Do you still hold to your claim?

[PaceAdvantage]

You need to go ask Tiznow's people this question.

You evidently haven't realized that people are entitled to their own opinion, sunshine. Choke on yours.I'm glad you found a way to come back Nikki/Mikki. This place wasn't the same without you after Zenyatta lost.

[Charlie D]

Therefore I believe that Zenyatta’s best might have never been seen, but what she gave were as good as or better than most and she probably would have only gotten better whether it was on synthetic or dirt.


Her past performances do not show this though and if they did, she would have a Timeform rating that would put her in the Timeform All Time High Weights on Steve Romans Site.

[Charlie D]

LOL. You'd have been in real trouble for 6 or 7 inches. There is no horse in this world who could have closed like that mare did. No horse in this world.


You making a statement like the above makes me think you did not watch horses like Sea The Stars or Zarkava.

[Nikki1997]

I'm glad you found a way to come back Nikki/Mikki. This place wasn't the same without you after Zenyatta lost.

LOL. Zenyatta's performance in BCC, coming back from being that far out, was for the ages. That mare was so far back (she had been back as much as 14 lengths), and the fact she closed to nearly win cannot make me more proud of her.

There is not another horse on this earth who could have made up that much of a deficiency to narrowly miss. Rachel? She'd have been back there with Quality Road and Haynesfield. Those two paragons who got their doors blown off. By the big mare.

LOl. The mare made up HUGE amounts of distance to just miss. I could not be more proud of her.

[Charlie D]

Oh and btw Nikki?Mikki


The horse you seem to think had this monster closing speed only had a few lengths to overcome from 1/2 point and couldn't do it, despite there being loads of time and distance left to achieve it.

[PaceAdvantage]

LOL. Zenyatta's performance in BCC, coming back from being that far out, was for the ages. That mare was so far back (she had been back as much as 14 lengths), and the fact she closed to nearly win cannot make me more proud of her.

There is not another horse on this earth who could have made up that much of a deficiency to narrowly miss. Rachel? She'd have been back there with Quality Road and Haynesfield. Those two paragons who got their doors blown off. By the big mare.

LOl. The mare made up HUGE amounts of distance to just miss. I could not be more proud of her.I'm not sure what I wrote that prompted this response...but ok....

[Cratos]

It is I who believes that YOU are being arrogant with your broad proclamations concerning what can and can't be won using various figures! That's why I asked what you have to back up such arrogance (hubris).

And who said I use speed figures? I believe classhandicapper mentioned "pace and speed figures" in his post, which you wholeheartedly endorsed.

Do you still hold to your claim?

No, I am not being arrogant because if you stop and evaluate the definition of the ratio of distance per unit of time (speed) you will realize much of what “classhandicapper" stated is correct.

I responded to the post that includes speed figures and therefore my comments were tangential to that post making my comments wholeheartedly succinct.

[Charlie D]

LOL. Zenyatta's performance in BCC, coming back from being that far out, was for the ages. That mare was so far back (she had been back as much as 14 lengths), and the fact she closed to nearly win cannot make me more proud of her.

There is not another horse on this earth who could have made up that much of a deficiency to narrowly miss. Rachel? She'd have been back there with Quality Road and Haynesfield. Those two paragons who got their doors blown off. By the big mare.

LOl. The mare made up HUGE amounts of distance to just miss. I could not be more proud of her.

Amazing how this horse couldn't catch and pass Blame, a horse that is not considered one of best to step on a racetrack by most people.

[Nikki1997]

Oh and btw Nikki?Mikki


The horse you seem to think had this monster closing speed only had a few lengths to overcome from 1/2 point and couldn't do it, despite there being loads of time and distance left to achieve it.


Loads of time and distance? What race were you watching?

Zenyatta had never been back further than 14 lengths in any of her races. The fact she was 20 + behind in the Classic to close like she did says something different than what you are writing here.

This mare made a run to close like she did is something neither you nor anyone else on this forum will ever see again. Criticize her, demean her, whatever. This mare made a run in the stretch of the Classic the likes neither you nor anyone else here will see again anytime soon. Sorry Zenyatta isn't a horse you like, but the thing is, she launched a rally that won't be duplicated in the near future.

[Charlie D]

Loads of time and distance? What race were you watching?



The one that tells you she only had a few lengths to overcome from 1/2 and the one that tells you she is an average G1 horse and nothing more. Because if she were any better she would have won.

[Nikki1997]

The one that tells you she only had a few lengths to overcome from 1/2 and the one that tells you she is an average G1 horse and nothing more. Because if she were any better she would have won.

I'm so sorry you don't recognize what a special horse this mare is. Your loss, big time.

[Charlie D]

I'm so sorry you don't recognize what a special horse this mare is. Your loss, big time.

I deal in reality not fantasy. So it's me who should feel sorry for people like you, but i don't as you people just don't want to listen.

[Nikki1997]

I deal in reality not fatasy like some around here. So it's me who should feel sorry for people like you, but i don't as you people just don't want to listen.

I don't want to listen to what? Someone like you who can't understand the way I feel about a horse, that I should be as cold and calculating as you when you put your money down on a horse with the idea of getting a monetary return? That's what it is all about for you, right?

You and I would never have a meeting of the minds, because like so many on this forum, the idea of the horse itself and putting one's money down is not going be a subject that can be melded.

You accuse me of having some sort of fantasy and I say to you that you are clueless as to to a horse. Same old, same old.

If a horse goes down at a track, you aren't bothered by the fact that horse may have died. You may have lost money. This is where we part.

I don't bet on a regular basis, but when I do, I put some serious money down. I understand you and others who do bet. However, my first love is the horses. I don't need to say anything else. That doesn't make me some "pretty pony" person. It won't stop many of those who will think that regardless.

[Spalding No!]

This mare made a run to close like she did is something neither you nor anyone else on this forum will ever see again. Criticize her, demean her, whatever. This mare made a run in the stretch of the Classic the likes neither you nor anyone else here will see again anytime soon. Sorry Zenyatta isn't a horse you like, but the thing is, she launched a rally that won't be duplicated in the near future.

Zenyatta's BC Classic effort this year was reminiscent of Lively One's tardy rally for 4th in '90 at Belmont. It was on par with Reign Road's picking-up-the-pieces run for 4th in the '92 Classic at Gulfstream. It was almost as impressive as Victory Gallop's onrush to get 4th late in the '98 Classic at Churchill. It was most like Dynever's "along for 3rd" slither for the show in '03 at Santa Anita.

It was not nearly as good as Concern's wide sweep in the '94 BC Classic at Churchill (he actually won).

There's still time for you to witness these other "likes of which" late runs you're so fond off. There is still You Tube.

[Charlie D]

I don't want to listen to what?


Facts, The truth about a horse and it's performances.



I say to you that you are clueless as to to a horse



I have come to expect insults from those who can not prove what is stated incorrect.

[Spalding No!]

I don't bet on a regular basis, but when I do, I put some serious money down.
I heard a similar quote on a Dos Equis commerical...

Are you the Most Interesting Poster on the Internet?

Stay Tardy, my friends...

[Nikki1997]

Zenyatta's BC Classic effort this year was reminiscent of Lively One's tardy rally for 4th in '90 at Belmont. It was on par with Reign Road's picking-up-the-pieces run for 4th in the '92 Classic at Gulfstream. It was almost as impressive as Victory Gallop's onrush to get 4th late in the '98 Classic at Churchill. It was most like Dynever's "along for 3rd" slither for the show in '03 at Santa Anita.

It was not nearly as good as Concern's wide sweep in the '94 BC Classic at Churchill (he actually won).

There's still time for you to witness these other "likes of which" late runs you're so fond off. There is still You Tube.

LOL. Thank you for all your examples. None of which apply to the 2010 BCC.
How surprised am I, coming from you. Not.

[Spalding No!]

LOL. Thank you for all your examples. None of which apply to the 2010 BCC.
How surprised am I, coming from you. Not.

Your beard has learned more from watching one single race (the 2010 BCC), then my whole brain has watching thousands of races for over 2 decades.

[PaceAdvantage]

If a horse goes down at a track, you aren't bothered by the fact that horse may have died. You may have lost money. This is where we part.This oft-repeated line is the last bastion of the clueless here on PaceAdvantage. Go back to your curry combs and your ShowSheen and leave the mourning to those of us that actually appreciate these horses on the track.

[PaceAdvantage]

This mare made a run in the stretch of the Classic the likes neither you nor anyone else here will see again anytime soon. Sorry Zenyatta isn't a horse you like, but the thing is, she launched a rally that won't be duplicated in the near future.Evidently, you never saw the great first time starter, Donnaguska (watch and learn):

mO6vm7TIvrI

[MPRanger]

She could have done better. She could have won if Smith had kept her closer. I'm not criticizing him. It just didn't work out. But the fact is she was right there as usual.

[FenceBored]

Zenyatta had never been back further than 14 lengths in any of her races. The fact she was 20 + behind in the Classic to close like she did says something different than what you are writing here.



20+ lengths back? If you're going to just make stuff up, go whole hog. She was 50+ lengths back. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[JustRalph]

Yeah, a great post from a guy that says he can barely find a bet any longer.


he's in good company.... :lol:

That posting of Donnaguska is great......... :D

[FenceBored]

Evidently, you never saw the great first time starter, Donnaguska (watch and learn):

mO6vm7TIvrI

Ah, Donnaguska. Sigh.

Back 23.25 lengths at the 4f call in a 6f race and wins by 2.25.

Let me see. Leader did the half in 46.45, figuring 6 lengths to the second, that puts Donnaguska about 50.33 secs for the half. Final time 72.51 seconds. Is that right, 22.18 (10.85+11.33) for the final quarter?

[cj]

he's in good company.... :lol:

That posting of Donnaguska is great......... :D

I'm not knocking CH, I just think part of not finding many bets for him is paralysis by over analysis. Who looks at 4 sets of figures for one race?

[Cardus]

I'm not knocking CH, I just think part of not finding many bets for him is paralysis by over analysis. Who looks at 4 sets of figures for one race?

I think that there has been a lot more analysis by paralysis here than the opposite, especially in Zenyatta matters.

[DeanT]

I can list dozens of horses that ran extremely fast at various times in their careers that would have gotten totally annihilated in either of the last two Breeder's Cup Classics because they simply weren't as good as they looked based on the figures they earned when conditions suited them, they faced much weaker, and they gave everything they had. (or quite often the numbers were wrong to begin with).


Quality Road anyone? :)

Golden three path, subpar field, no less than 8 cracks of the whip in the lane and he gallops out like he has three splints and a bow.

That race is ranked the number one performance by an American racehorse in 2010 by Timeform. If that does not wake one up that some horses are over and underrated by them, I don't know what can.

[PaceAdvantage]

So you think nothing less than 100% accuracy is worthy of respect? :lol:

[DeanT]

So you think nothing less than 100% accuracy is worthy of respect? :lol:

I did not say that; I use speed figures all the time.

Class said he could list "dozens of horses" that could not win the last two BC's which at some point were considered the fastest horses around. I agree and used this years darling (after his blowout Donn speed fig) Quality Road as an example.

[highnote]

I'm not knocking CH, I just think part of not finding many bets for him is paralysis by over analysis. Who looks at 4 sets of figures for one race?


Actually, I know of a couple of large bettors who look at at least 4 sets of figs -- Beyer, Brown, Ragozin and others.

One reason is because by looking at certain figs they can anticipate how bettors will be betting. Then they can use other figures to find good bets.

[thaskalos]

I'm not knocking CH, I just think part of not finding many bets for him is paralysis by over analysis. Who looks at 4 sets of figures for one race?
That's not what CH said CJ...

He was trying to make a point about the accuracy of the speed figures...so he mentioned that - when he has access to different sets of speed figures - he likes to compare them.

I do the same thing whenever I have different sets of figures at my disposal. I compare them NOT because I suffer from "over-analysis"...but because I am curious about the great differences between them. Like "Classhandicapper" said, it often seems as if the figure makers were looking at different races.

[Charlie D]

Quality Road anyone? :)


That race is ranked the number one performance by an American racehorse in 2010 by Timeform. If that does not wake one up that some horses are over and underrated by them, I don't know what can.



Zenyatta was awarded same in 2009 for the Classic i believe, but lets not be critical of them where Zen is concerned.


Anothe case of temporary blindness imho.

[DeanT]

Zenyatta was awarded same in 2009 for the Classic i believe, but lets not be critical of them where Zen is concerned.


Anothe case of temporary blindness imho.

I never mentioned Zenyatta in my post.

As I have stated numerous times I have not looked at speed figs to judge her, so last years timeform number I would not care too much about as well.

[Charlie D]

That's not what CH said CJ...

He was trying to make a point about the accuracy of the speed figures...so he mentioned that - when he has access to different sets of speed figures - he likes to compare them.

I do the same thing whenever I have different sets of figures at my disposal. I compare them NOT because I suffer from "over-analysis"...but because I am curious about the great differences between them. Like "Classhandicapper" said, it often seems as if the figure makers were looking at different races.


Different methodologys will give different results bud.


Use one set and ignore rest or compile your own imho.

[Charlie D]

I never mentioned Zenyatta in my post.

I noticed and commented on that fact.

As I have stated numerous times I have not looked at speed figs to judge her, so last years timeform number I would not care too much about as well.


But you do care when it suits your argument though eh!!

[PhantomOnTour]

It will be interesting to see the figs for the upcoming SA meet back on real dirt. We should see some interesting discussions.

[Pine Tree Lane]

We have been told countless times that her figures on synthetics didn't mean much. But, in the end, she ran on dirt three times, and two times the pace was at a minimum very reasonable. Her Beyers topped out at 111, the other a 104, and the 3rd a 95. How does this compare to recent fillies and mares?

These all matched or ran faster than Zenyatta multiple times in top company. They are from a book I have that covers 1992-2004.

Banshee Breeze, 115, 114
Beautiful Pleasure, 113, 113, 112, 112, 111
Escena, 114, 113, 113
Heavenly Prize, 111, 111, 111
Inside Information, 119, 112, 111
Jewel Princess, 116, 114, 114, 112, 112
Serena's Song, 114, 113, 112, 111
Azeri, 112, 111
Riboletta 115, 115, 111
Xtra Heat (sprinter) 120, 118, 117, 113, 113

One other I know of since the book:

Rachel Alexandra, 116, 111

Just some food for thought.

Jersey Girl was better than Banshee Breeze and Escena

[Sugar Ron]

Quality Road anyone? :)

Golden three path, subpar field, no less than 8 cracks of the whip in the lane and he gallops out like he has three splints and a bow.

That race is ranked the number one performance by an American racehorse in 2010 by Timeform. If that does not wake one up that some horses are over and underrated by them, I don't know what can.


Yeah, classhandicapper is right.

RA was another fig darling which would've been nowhere at the finish of the '09 (or this year's) BCC ... regardless of where the race would've been held.

[joanied]

Jersey Girl was better than Banshee Breeze and Escena

The dam of the Cigar Mile winner, Jersey Town:)

[PaceAdvantage]

RA was another fig darling which would've been nowhere at the finish of the '09 (or this year's) BCC ... regardless of where the race would've been held.Pretty insightful...

[FenceBored]

Pretty insightful...

1st post for the new id of a retread?

Enquiring minds ...

[Sugar Ron]

Pretty insightful...

It's a gift.

RA fan, by the way?

[Sugar Ron]

1st post for the new id of a retread?

Enquiring minds ...

Nope

As pure and fresh as the driven snow...

[FenceBored]

Nope

As pure and fresh as the driven snow...

:D Yeah, right.

[Charlie D]

Yeah, classhandicapper is right.

RA was another fig darling which would've been nowhere at the finish of the '09 (or this year's) BCC ... regardless of where the race would've been held.


With this type of thinking, I'm presuming you thought same about Zenyatta in 2009 and gave her NO SHOT or thought she should be 10/20/30-1 instead of being at the head of the market on race day.

[BluegrassProf]

RA fan, by the way?

lawlz

BRLLYNT.

[Sugar Ron]

With this type of thinking, I'm presuming you thought same about Zenyatta in 2009 and gave her NO SHOT or thought she should be 10/20/30-1 instead of being at the head of the market on race day.

Thought one of the Euros would take the '09 BCC after seeing them stuff the diminished Curlin in '08.

Figured Z would run well, tho, going the classic 10f distance for the first time.

Real shame they gave the '09 HotY award to the overrated young filly, btw.

Laughed hard and long when Shirreffs' third-stringer ambushed her at FG earlier this year.

[Grits]

Thought one of the Euros would take the '09 BCC after seeing them stuff the diminished Curlin in '08.

Figured Z would run well, tho, going the classic 10f distance for the first time.

Real shame they gave the '09 HotY award to the overrated young filly, btw.

Laughed hard and long when Shirreffs' third-stringer ambushed her at FG earlier this year.

I'm laughing even harder at your post. THO, you're a little late for this not so grand entrance.

[cj]

The only question about Sugar Ron is whether he is a retread banned under another name, or a retread that is embarrassed by his posts under another moniker.

[PhantomOnTour]

The only question about Sugar Ron is whether he is a retread banned under another name, or a retread that is embarrassed by his posts under another moniker.
Another question may be if Sugar Ron had entered this forum waving the pro-Rachel and anti-Zen flags would he be catching all this heat?

[cj]

Another question may be if Sugar Ron had entered this forum waving the pro-Rachel and anti-Zen flags would he be catching all this heat?

Rachel fans don't act that way.

[BluegrassProf]

The only question about Sugar Ron is whether he is a retread banned under another name, or a retread that is embarrassed by his posts under another moniker.Whew...close call here, but the 2 in this race is lookin' like quite the lock.

Acourse, the odds are so damned short on both that I may go with the 3: "ironic fake personality totally meant to be a joke and we all missed it." For some reason, I have a really good feeling about that one...I suppose I just have trouble thinking the race could realistically turn out any other way.

[PhantomOnTour]

Rachel fans don't act that way.
Yeah they do...some, at least.
To borrow a quote from our former President:
"Make no mistake about it"....if Sugar hit this board saying Zen was a pretty darned good mare but Rachel woulda smoked her last year he would not be facing the question of whether he's a retread...and we all know it beb.

[Sugar Ron]

Another question may be if Sugar Ron had entered this forum waving the pro-Rachel and anti-Zen flags would he be catching all this heat?

Well said, Phantom

Little harder for fans to defend the reigning HotY now after that (predictably) embarrassing 2010 campaign ... so they usually resort to taking cheap shots at her critics.

Always great fun yanking their chains, but will let it go for now...

[cj]

Well said, Phantom

Little harder for fans to defend the reigning HotY now after that (predictably) embarrassing 2010 campaign ... so they usually resort to taking cheap shots at her critics.

Always great fun yanking their chains, but will let it go for now...

We've all said she wasn't the same horse in 2010, so what is the big deal? She was great in 2009, the year she won the award.

Lets not forget even in her diminished state, she ran on the same track and day and at the same distance as Blame and went faster to every call.

[tzipi]

Little harder for fans to defend the reigning HotY now after that (predictably) embarrassing 2010 campaign.

"embarrassing 2010 campaign"? A couple wins and a second by a head to Unrivalled Belle is embarrassing? Was she peak like she was in 09 and running in the top races?...no. But she did not have an embarrassing campaign by any means. Mine That Bird's campaign was "embarrassing" I guess. Not his fault, should've been retired. No wonder racing is in trouble when these are the things thrown out there. If you want to knock RA, you have to be smarter.

[joanied]

I agree with tzipi....IMO, Rachel's campaign was pretty damned good...and IMO, if they'd done things a little different, she probably would have regained more form and done better...she did not shame herself and did very well considering.

[Grits]

http://www.drf.com/blogs/zenyatta-reminder-celebrate-life

For you, Joanie, and for many of us who understand the beauty brought forth when Barbara Livingston combines her pen and her photographs.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's a gift.

RA fan, by the way?What does it matter? What you posted has been posted 1,000,000 times before. We're bored already.

[joanied]

http://www.drf.com/blogs/zenyatta-reminder-celebrate-life

For you, Joanie, and for many of us who understand the beauty brought forth when Barbara Livingston combines her pen and her photographs.

Thanks, Grits...andymays posted this in another Z thread...where we've been talking about Z's going to the farm...after I read the article I commented that all this coming from Barbara L. means a lot, as this woman has been around some great and special horses...
she does pen words just as wonderful as her photos:ThmbUp:

[Grits]

Ooops. Sorry, I didn't realize Andy had posted it. Was out most of the day . . . and didn't read all the threads.

[joanied]

Having it posted in two threads is Ok by me:)

[thaskalos]

What does it matter? What you posted has been posted 1,000,000 times before. We're bored already.
Of course!

The Rachel references have been posted 1,000,000 times already...and we are bored.

All this Zenyatta "analysis", on the other hand, is refreshingly new...and has us all at the edge of our seats...

[delayjf]

We heard many times that Zenyatta only ran as fast "as she had to", as if she was some horse that could not only race well but was super smart. Well, it turns out as fast as she could was about a 110 range Beyer.

I don't think it has been address in this thread yet, ( I have not read all the posts), But CJ, you mentioned something in a previous post about how Beyer figures seem to be shrinking over the past few years. If in fact that is the case then comparing Zenyatta's figures to past champions might be misleading.

[cj]

I don't think it has been address in this thread yet, ( I have not read all the posts), But CJ, you mentioned something in a previous post about how Beyer figures seem to be shrinking over the past few years. If in fact that is the case then comparing Zenyatta's figures to past champions might be misleading.

I do, but I don't think they have shrunk enough at the top levels of racing to change my opinion much.

[PhantomOnTour]

I do, but I don't think they have shrunk enough at the top levels of racing to change my opinion much.
Zen's 111 Beyers are only a few points off just about every mare you listed in the thread starter except for Inside Info(119) and Xtra Heat(120 in a sprint)...so if the figs have only shrunk a point or two then she's right there with all of them. Certainly as a fig guy you won't contend that a Beyer advantage of a point (or two) is a definitive edge, esp at 9f or more. Nor does it clearly tell us who's the better horse if they've never faced each other.

[PaceAdvantage]

Zen's 111 Beyers are only a few points off just about every mare you listed in the thread starter except for Inside Info(119) and Xtra Heat(120 in a sprint)...so if the figs have only shrunk a point or two then she's right there with all of them. Certainly as a fig guy you won't contend that a Beyer advantage of a point (or two) is a definitive edge, esp at 9f or more. Nor does it clearly tell us who's the better horse if they've never faced each other."She's right there with all of them" is a far cry from "Best Female Runner Ever"

Check out this interesting page of BC Beyers from the past:

http://farewelltokings.com/tag/beyer-speed-figures/

Princess Rooney ran a 120! Lady's Secret 113, Personal Ensign 115, Bayakoa 115 & 113, Inside Information 119, Jewel Princess 114, Azeri 111...

But I get it. Speed figures don't mean anything...until they do....:lol:

[Charlie D]

Check out this interesting page of BC Beyers from the past:





High Chapparal 111/112
Ouija Board 108/108
Goldikova 107/106/??



Zen 112/111/103


:ThmbUp:

She is in good company according to above Beyers and i personally would not really disagree.

[Charlie D]

I missed Conduit btw, but it doesn't change anything imho.

[pandy]

I did my own speed figures for over a decade, they were published in Racing Action and in the NYRA program for a while until Equibase figures came out. From my experience, many horses that run a huge fig do so over a track that is very fast and usually speed favoring, and these horses are often speed horses that race on or near the pace. These big figs run over fast surfaces under perfect conditions tend to elevate a horse to a point where the horse is over rated by many players. Bellamy Road's Wood Memorial is a good example of this, as is Quality Road's Donn Handicap, these two performances come to mind, but there any many every year. You rarely see a horse run a monster fig over a slow or tiring surface which is why the figs on synthetic tracks tend to be lower than dirt figures.

One of the problems with a big figure, such as Bellamy Road ran in the Wood, it only proves that he could run that fast that day on that track, it does not make him a great horse. Greatness is achieved by winning Gr1 races, not running a couple of big figures. In the case of a horse like Ruffian, the figures are more reliable, because she ran lights out fast every time she stepped on the track, setting track and stakes records in almost every start. This is far more impressive than a horse than pops a big number in one or two performances.

[Sugar Ron]

I don't think it has been address in this thread yet, ( I have not read all the posts), But CJ, you mentioned something in a previous post about how Beyer figures seem to be shrinking over the past few years. If in fact that is the case then comparing Zenyatta's figures to past champions might be misleading.

Seems like they started dropping around the time they began testing for 'roids everywhere.

Hell, Z may've thrown a 125 at CD if she would've been on that Curlin 'roid program of '07...

[PhantomOnTour]

"She's right there with all of them" is a far cry from "Best Female Runner Ever"

Check out this interesting page of BC Beyers from the past:

http://farewelltokings.com/tag/beyer-speed-figures/

Princess Rooney ran a 120! Lady's Secret 113, Personal Ensign 115, Bayakoa 115 & 113, Inside Information 119, Jewel Princess 114, Azeri 111...

But I get it. Speed figures don't mean anything...until they do....:lol:
A speed figure ADVANTAGE of a point or two does not mean much. I never discounted the figs AT ALL. In fact, I make figs myself and believe in them, and that's how I know that a point or two speed fig edge at 9f or more IS NO DEFINITIVE ADVANTAGE, period. Especially if these horses haven't faced each other. Tell me, would you always blindly bet the horse with a 114 fig over the one with a 113 fig? Where did I say that figs don't mean anything?

"What's that? Someone is disagreeing with CJ!? Woof! I'll be right there to help him!"

[Charlie D]

Greatness is achieved by winning Gr1 races,.


Not really, as a horse can gain numerous G1 wins by avoiding or not running against other Top horses, just like Zenyatta, Goldikova, Rachel, Sea The Stars etc did.

[Headbanger]

Seems like they started dropping around the time they began testing for 'roids everywhere.

Hell, Z may've thrown a 125 at CD if she would've been on that Curlin 'roid program of '07...

Your shtick is getting is getting old guy...people know who you really are by now. But you also forgot or neglected to mention that Curlin showed brilliance from his debut race so it's not like Assmussen improved him by roiding him up. But like I said, it's not a mystery as to who you are. Must have been painful to see Notre Dame snap their losing streak last weekend for ya.

[FenceBored]

I did my own speed figures for over a decade, they were published in Racing Action and in the NYRA program for a while until Equibase figures came out. From my experience, many horses that run a huge fig do so over a track that is very fast and usually speed favoring, and these horses are often speed horses that race on or near the pace. These big figs run over fast surfaces under perfect conditions tend to elevate a horse to a point where the horse is over rated by many players. Bellamy Road's Wood Memorial is a good example of this, as is Quality Road's Donn Handicap, these two performances come to mind, but there any many every year. You rarely see a horse run a monster fig over a slow or tiring surface which is why the figs on synthetic tracks tend to be lower than dirt figures.

That turns out not to be the case. The 2010 American Racing Manual lists the highest Beyer for a race longer than a mile since Jan 1, 1992 as Ghostzapper's 128 for the 2004 Iselin, run over a sloppy track which was rated as incredibly slow. The 9f off-the-turf stake run just prior to Iselin went in 1:51.77 (in contrast to GZ's 1:47.66).

Let's compare that to two other 9f races at Monmouth and their Beyers.

Time.....Beyer Track Horse
------------------------------------
1:47.66 128 Sloppy Ghostzapper
1:47.21 116 Sealed Rachel Alexandra
1:46.80 106 .Fast.. Jolie's Halo (tied track record)

The fastest time over the fastest track earned the lowest Beyer of the three, and the performance over the slowest track garnered the highest.

[cj]

Zen's 111 Beyers are only a few points off just about every mare you listed in the thread starter except for Inside Info(119) and Xtra Heat(120 in a sprint)...so if the figs have only shrunk a point or two then she's right there with all of them. Certainly as a fig guy you won't contend that a Beyer advantage of a point (or two) is a definitive edge, esp at 9f or more. Nor does it clearly tell us who's the better horse if they've never faced each other.

Of course a point isn't an big edge. My point was to show that Zenyatta isn't the super mare she was portrayed to be. She was very, very good, but no better than at least 20 others that ran in just the past 20 years or so. There is nothing wrong with that, of course. It is just about showing some perspective and realizing her win streak was more about her schedule than her "greatness".

[Cardus]

Of course a point isn't an big edge. My point was to show that Zenyatta isn't the super mare she was portrayed to be. She was very, very good, but no better than at least 20 others that ran in just the past 20 years or so. There is nothing wrong with that, of course. It is just about showing some perspective and realizing her win streak was more about her schedule than her "greatness".

You can illustrate this for the next 20 years, and there are people who either will not understand or do not want to understand.

Those who knew that she wasn't close to being the greatest Thoroughbred of all-time -- not even remotely close -- and not the greatest female Thoroughbred of all-time were a lot closer to correct regarding her ability following the Breeders' Cup Classic than were those who believed the above. A lot closer.

Remember, it's all about the horses. The horses, I say.

I've seen a lot of horses who were a lot better than Zenyatta.

[pandy]

That turns out not to be the case. The 2010 American Racing Manual lists the highest Beyer for a race longer than a mile since Jan 1, 1992 as Ghostzapper's 128 for the 2004 Iselin, run over a sloppy track which was rated as incredibly slow. The 9f off-the-turf stake run just prior to Iselin went in 1:51.77 (in contrast to GZ's 1:47.66).

Let's compare that to two other 9f races at Monmouth and their Beyers.

Time.....Beyer Track Horse
------------------------------------
1:47.66 128 Sloppy Ghostzapper
1:47.21 116 Sealed Rachel Alexandra
1:46.80 106 .Fast.. Jolie's Halo (tied track record)

The fastest time over the fastest track earned the lowest Beyer of the three, and the performance over the slowest track garnered the highest.


You're trying to tell me that a 128 Beyer run over a sloppy track is something we should look at as a reliable figure? The track was sloppy!

[FenceBored]

You're trying to tell me that a 128 Beyer run over a sloppy track is something we should look at as a reliable figure? The track was sloppy!

How is the 106 for Jolie's Halo any more reliable? He gets dinged for running faster than everyone else when the track is playing faster than usual. Ghostzapper gets rewarded for going less slow than everyone else when the track is playing slower than usual. Seems to me the bias in this example is toward those on off tracks, not fast tracks.