Would Zenyatta have won the JCGC?

[FenceBored]

Looking around the various sites I keep seeing commenters severely ding Blame for his loss to Haynesfield in the JCGC. My question is, would Zenyatta have done much better in that race? I don't think so.

[cj]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

Looking around the various sites I keep seeing commenters severely ding Blame for his loss to Haynesfield in the JCGC. My question is, would Zenyatta have done much better in that race? I don't think so.

Of course not. This is why I say she had little chance of winning the BC Classic under any scenario but the one that unfolded.

[keithw84]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

Looking around the various sites I keep seeing commenters severely ding Blame for his loss to Haynesfield in the JCGC. My question is, would Zenyatta have done much better in that race? I don't think so.

Very unlikely. Blame wasn't standing still out there on the stretch; he was closing ground, so I don't think Zenyatta would've just flown right by him. Even if she did catch up with Blame, I don't think she would've had enough to win.

Dominguez "sat chilly" and "completed the race a handy winner" on Haynesfield. He had a lot left in the tank... which makes sense considering the fractions:
24 3/5, 48 3/5, 1:13 1/5

...Compared to the fractions set in the Classic: 23 1/5, 47, 1:11
The pace collapsed around the quarter pole, and Quality Road was out of gas well before then!

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by cj

Of course not. This is why I say she had little chance of winning the BC Classic under any scenario but the one that unfolded.

According to me and lots of others that is exactly the pace scenario we expected, with QR and Haynesfield and maybe First Dude carvin it up out front. Fast pace was expected by me which is why I thought Blame, Zen and Lucky were the only possible winners. Throw in the neg rail and Zen was a prime contender imo and it seems quite logical.
How did other folks think the pace would shake out?
I'd like to know.

[cj]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

According to me and lots of others that is exactly the pace scenario we expected, with QR and Haynesfield and maybe First Dude carvin it up out front. Fast pace was expected by me which is why I thought Blame, Zen and Lucky were the only possible winners. Throw in the neg rail and Zen was a prime contender imo and it seems quite logical.
How did other folks think the pace would shaIe out?
I'd like to know.

I'm not saying it wasn't predictable, but if every race played out like we predicted favorites would win about 60% of the time.

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by cj

I'm not saying it wasn't predictable, but if every race played out like we predicted favorites would win about 60% of the time.

I hear ya, but as far as I was concerned going into the race the only big knock on Zen was her underlaid price...not the expected pace set up. Sure, there were questions about the surface, but I was sure she would come with her run on CD dirt.
Looking back, how the hell did I pick Lucky to win it!? He was simply slower than Blame and Zen...guess I got all wrapped up in the 'improving 3yr olds can pop a huge one at any time' line of thinking. It has served me well in the past, but not that day.
As for the thread title....no, I think she would have been beaten by those guys that day.

[OTM Al]

No. Haynesfield was pretty much lone speed in the race and Zenyatta's presence wouldn't have changed that senario in any meaningful way. Real smart ride by the jock that day.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

Looking around the various sites I keep seeing commenters severely ding Blame for his loss to Haynesfield in the JCGC. My question is, would Zenyatta have done much better in that race? I don't think so.

If you are going to be a HOY candidate, you can't have 20% of your races for that calendar year be 'duds'. Blame ran a dud in there and was embarrassed. Haynesfield could have beaten him by 10 or more if the jock had asked him to run at any point.

If you want to be HOY, you have to be held to a much higher standard...and this is what 'various sites' are holding him to.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

If you are going to be a HOY candidate, you can't have 20% of your races for that calendar year be 'duds'. Blame ran a dud in there and was embarrassed. Haynesfield could have beaten him by 10 or more if the jock had asked him to run at any point.

If you want to be HOY, you have to be held to a much higher standard...and this is what 'various sites' are holding him to.

When Zenyatta beat Rinterval by a couple heads, was that race a dud for her considering the competition in that race and how much effort she exerted to beat the likes of Rinterval?? Sometimes, winning in poor fashion can be considered a dud performance.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

If you are going to be a HOY candidate, you can't have 20% of your races for that calendar year be 'duds'. Blame ran a dud in there and was embarrassed. Haynesfield could have beaten him by 10 or more if the jock had asked him to run at any point.

If you want to be HOY, you have to be held to a much higher standard...and this is what 'various sites' are holding him to.

But running 83% of your races against restricted company (BAD restricted company at that) and then losing your only race against open company is a better resume for HOY?

I don't think so...

[Cardus]

Maybe a better thread would be, "Would Zenyatta have won the Hollywood Gold Cup?"

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Maybe a better thread would be, "Would Zenyatta have won the Hollywood Gold Cup?"

Yep and yep.

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

If you are going to be a HOY candidate, you can't have 20% of your races for that calendar year be 'duds'. Blame ran a dud in there and was embarrassed. Haynesfield could have beaten him by 10 or more if the jock had asked him to run at any point.

If you want to be HOY, you have to be held to a much higher standard...and this is what 'various sites' are holding him to.

Hmm, interesting point. Let me get Kelso on the line about that.

FenceBored: Hello, Kelso?

Kelso: Yeah, what do you want?

FenceBored: Sorry to bug ya, but I got this guy who says you shouldn't have been HOY in '64 due to you're getting your clocked cleaned in 27% of your races, and that's in addition to your other losses. Do you have a comment?

Kelso: Jeez, why do you call me with this stuff, man? So what if I got drilled by 9 and a quarter in a performance the chart caller deemed a "dull effort" in my season opener. So what if my next out I was impeded and finished 8 back. So what if I bumped the gate in the Brooklyn and lost by 14. Who stepped up and ran against the top horses in the country regularly? What does this guy want anyway, some horse who's good at consistently beating creampuffs? Don't waste my time with this junk.

<Click>

Sorry, Kelso doesn't seem impressed with your argument.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by tucker6

When Zenyatta beat Rinterval by a couple heads, was that race a dud for her considering the competition in that race and how much effort she exerted to beat the likes of Rinterval?? Sometimes, winning in poor fashion can be considered a dud performance.

No, wins can't be duds because the rules of racing are to win. Its not a beauty contest, they don't ask how you looked, they just ask if you won or not.

[Cardus]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

If you are going to be a HOY candidate, you can't have 20% of your races for that calendar year be 'duds'. Blame ran a dud in there and was embarrassed. Haynesfield could have beaten him by 10 or more if the jock had asked him to run at any point.

If you want to be HOY, you have to be held to a much higher standard...and this is what 'various sites' are holding him to.

I think that the strategy for Haynesfield was NOT to ask him to run for a vast portion of the race.