How can you not call her great? - Page 3 - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

cj · 09-09-2009, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by startngate

She's a great filly but I still feel there is a (very small now) hole in her resume for not running against Zenyatta. From a legacy perspective it probably won't matter any more, especially if she runs next year at four and beats the boys a few more times. I still hate that we won't get to see the showdown though.

Well, she would probably have to step down in class to face her since Zenyatta will probably hide out in the Distaff (can't bring myself to use the ridiculous new name) for no apparent reason.

To me, her streak is only very slightly more impressive than that of Hallowed Dreams.

joanied · 09-09-2009, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tucker6

how would you know?

Back at ya, Tucker6

joanied · 09-09-2009, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TJDave

Blood-horse ranks her 35th in their top 100.

Foolish Pleasure is 97.

I really don't care about the rankings...first of all, after the top 10 -20, it's mostly opinion...would you have ranked Ruffian 35th?

Foolish was undefeated 2 yr old Champion...which really isn't important, but just had to say it

...fact is, he was one tough SOB...and very, very fast...it was pretty hard for a horse to get by Foolish Pleasure...he was a fighter...and very, very fast (repeating myself for a reason

)

spongemadman · 09-09-2009, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghostyapper

"I've never seen anything like him since I've been training," Baffert gushed Sunday. "Everyone's been waiting for the next Secretariat-type horse, and we got him. He's going to do it."

Zensational?

TJDave · 09-09-2009, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joanied

he was one tough SOB...and very, very fast...it was pretty hard for a horse to get by Foolish Pleasure...he was a fighter...and very, very fast (repeating myself for a reason

)

Well, Ruffian got past him.

After a blazing first fraction she was ahead by a neck and when she broke down she was extending her lead. Might be wrong but I don't think she was ever headed. I don't think she would have let him by. She would have died first.

Not to take anything away from RA. She's proven herself. I just don't think she's better than 'The Queen'.

Not yet, anyways.

PaceAdvantage · 09-10-2009, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank

Clearly Nerud meant best (3yo filly) as evidenced by the Ruffian comment.But knuckleheads will misconstrue this, sure as you're born.

This isn't off-topic...thus name calling is frowned on even more here...

Tee · 09-10-2009, 02:35 AM

Big Brown

Quote:

"I've never seen anything like him since I've been training," Baffert gushed Sunday. "Everyone's been waiting for the next Secretariat-type horse, and we got him. He's going to do it."

maxwell · 09-10-2009, 02:59 AM

TJ,

Correctamundo ... Ruffian was never headed. And she was pulling away!

For some strange reason, horses that grab the lead in match races seem to have a big advantage ... especially very fast horses like Ruffian. She would have had to run the race of her life to beat that guy but there's no question she had the heart and determination to do so.

Cratos · 09-10-2009, 09:38 AM

I am enjoying the banter on this forum between the Rachel supporters and the Rachel distracters because it gives perspective and insight about how we sometimes see the same thing differently.

Therefore for some of you who have been around this game a long time and do not have short memories I will draw your attention to the spring of 1988 when a big beautiful 3yo filly from California named Winning Colors came east for the first time and beat the “boys” in the KY Derby.

At that time, Winning Colors had won five (5) of first 6 career starts including a victory at the G1 level in the Santa Anita Derby against the “boys.” Her only lost at that point in her career was a second place finish in a G1 stake race by a neck.

She was being hailed as the “Queen Crème de la crème” of racing and it didn’t hurt that she had Mr. D. Wayne Lucas as her trainer.

However over the next twelve (12) starts which were the last of her career she won just 2 races and neither was a graded race.

Am I suggesting that Rachel will have a demise to her career like Winning Colors? No, I am not, but I am saying that this is a very fluid and dynamic game that changes rapidly before your eyes without explanation or understanding.

Racing needs Rachel and owners like Jess Jackson to help it return to its sports prominence of years past.

cj · 09-10-2009, 09:46 AM

I also remember that time very well. While Winning Colors was hailed as something special, nobody was calling her an all time great for winning the Kentucky Derby.

And please, it is...repeat after me...L-U-K-A-S. Amazing how many people still get that wrong.

Nets · 09-10-2009, 09:59 AM

We have such a hard time appreciating greatness in the moment. What exactly is the point of needing to rank everything against the past? Perhaps it's because as handicappers, we are constantly ranking horses versus one another. All I know is Rachel Alexandra is the best I have seen in a long time, and I am thrilled to be able to watch her. Just as I was thrilled to watch the others mentioned in comparison in these posts. She is one of the very few that make me put aside my handicapping and just watch for the sheer joy of it. I hope I get to see more like her in my lifetime. And if I do, I will enjoy it the same way, without caring about where it ranks in history.

Gary

Cratos · 09-10-2009, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj

I also remember that time very well. While Winning Colors was hailed as something special, nobody was calling her an all time great for winning the Kentucky Derby.

And please, it is...repeat after me...L-U-K-A-S. Amazing how many people still get that wrong.

Amazing because a misspell is driven by phonetics. Strange very strange comment and yes, Winnings Colors was being called “great” by some at the time, especially since Genuine Risk had won the KY Derby in 1980 there were immediate comparative “greatness’ being bestowed onto Winning Colors.

how cliche · 09-10-2009, 10:40 AM

I've been a fan since 1999 so I lack the years that many of you own. I will say that she's head and shoulders above any other runner I've seen in that time.

There are two Rachel Alexandras, I reckon. There's the cool as a cucumber filly who dominated The Oaks & Haskell, where she was kind and willing to let other runners take the lead. Then there's the headstrong warm filly who refused to relinquish the early lead in The Preakness and Whitney. It's pure conjecture, but I speculate that the times she's cool is when she's supremely confident with her position at the top of the pecking order. Perhaps her status as the alpha is challenged in her closer races. It's possibly manifested early in those tries by her assertion as the pacesetter.

46zilzal · 09-10-2009, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxwell

TJ,

For some strange reason, horses that grab the lead in match races seem to have a big advantage ... especially very fast horses like Ruffian.

ONLY EVERY major match race of the twentieth century

Wickel · 09-10-2009, 01:21 PM

Rachel Alexandra is indeed a great filly. Her accomplishments this season are commendable, to say the least. But she is not the second coming of Ruffian--not even close to Lady's Secret. The unabashed superlatives unleashed in some of these RA threads are embarassing. Like I've mentioned in other posts, she's beaten second-tier compeitition all year, including the Woodward. Had she raced and won the Pacific Classic, I wouldn't be writing this reply. I applaud RA for competing against and beating the boys. Her wins against inferior filly fields were laughable--four-horse fields, claimers, etc.
When she races against the cream of the crop in her division--fillies like Icon Project, Careless Jewel and the real superstar Stardom Bound--and beats them, then, and only then, will I jump on the bandwagon.

By the way Cratos--it's detractors, not distractors.