Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sugar Ron
1. RA was a "horrible choice", in my opinion, given the fact that there was an outstanding older horse in the mix for the award.
However, she was a less "horrible" selection than the baby horse they crowned back in '97 ... if that makes RA lovers feel better.
2. Really don't mean to diss the Blamester as I thought he was a rock-solid G1 performer which would be a deserving HotY ... just that over a classic distance of ground top-flight older males are supposed to handle 6yo mares a bit easier than by a diminishing head.
Of course, more than anything, that result spoke volumes about Z's tremendous heart and ability ... and I suspect her legend will only grow as the years go by.
|
I LOVE this!
Can't find a way around the facts? NO PROBLEM!!
My hair hurts from this...but nevertheless;
1. Seriously?!?! Really...SERIOUSLY?!?! You're invoking a reference to a
13 year old vote?!?! Really?!?! Like that has ANY relevance insofar as the HOY voting last year.
WOW! I had no idea that the supporters were that desperate...
I, for one, am tired of having to defend RA as last year's "HOY" - because there neededn't be any defending! Did Zen do more last year than RA? No. Did she do
nearly as much in winning the BCC? Yes. But it was "nearly"...and the
voters determined that the (historic!) body of work that RA put up was, to a degree,
better than Zen's. End. Of. Discussion.
Yeah, it totally sucks that Zen may never be recognized as HOY. But that is the nature of the beast; it is Horse of the
YEAR, not "Horse of the Career".
And the voters are supposed to go for a lesser OLDER horse over a more accomplished three year old?? Really?? Since when? And...
WHY? It is HORSE OF THE YEAR, not "Only If It Is And OLDER Horse of the YEAR" award.
Or was Secretariat not deserving as a three year old? Point Given (for more recent fans)? And the list goes on (and the hits just keep on coming...)
RA was a well deserving winner last year. Even the detractors agree that if it wasn't going to be Zen then it
had to be RA.
So please, really, begging you...GET OVER IT and move on. Good LORD, you aren't going to MARRY Zenyatta!....or are you?? Hmmmm...
2. Wait...uh...what??? So let's get this straight; she lost because she was
supposed to lose? And by that logic it justifies diminishing Blame's victory because, well, hey! he was SUPPOSED to beat a mare....
...are you KIDDING me?!?
There's nothing even to
debate here. This is...well, ludicrous "logic" (and I apologize for even using that word in reference to this position). I mean consider this, by extension;
- If Blame wins then he should be beating a mare. So he only gets "partial credit".
Seriously?!? I thought that it was about the best horses racing against one another. Winner take All.
I mean I don't see any of the other mares that lost to Zen complaining about her being the largest horse in the field. Should the mares that ran second to her ask for the first place purse money because, well, hey, they were at a disadvantage because of Zenyatta's size! "There's no way we could have kept her at bay down the stretch because she's just too
big!!"
Puh-eeezee.
Zen got beaten by a horse that ran better that day. Maybe she beats Blame 7 out of 10...but they only ran ONCE.
And that - and that ALONE - is all that anyone can use as a benchmark - IF they are voting based on facts.
So all in all, I enjoyed this post. I love to see the overly-emotional try to rationalize. As a consolation perhaps we can come up with a "Horse of the Decade" award which I am certain that Zen would win without exception. Hell, I'D vote for her in a heartbeat!!!
