Mine That Bird

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Well, does Rachel win the Dr. Fager-Damascus Woodward, the Alysheba-Bet Twice Haskell, or the Silver Charm-Free House Preakness?

Almost always, the fields in these races are subpar when fillies win them.

And as for synthetics, there's no reason to count them as Junior Varsity racing. It wasn't like fillies were winning all the big stakes on synthetic.

Synthetics is not dirt. That is my only point. It isn't the same so let's not pretend like Zenyatta won the Classic on dirt.

She had her chance and came up short. Sure, Rachel didn't face any world beaters, but she stepped outside the norm and won repeatedly. Rather than beat up on the same fillies over and over again she was challenged. Zenyatta, not so much.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Until another filly wins the Woodword. I’ll consider RA a great filly

who missed the BC every year.


Just like Frankel missing the ARC.


True greatness doesnt duck races.


you never saw Zenyatta duck a race.


yet both Frankel and RA ducked the comp when things wouldnt be they way they wanted.


Allan

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

I wish it were on dirt when she was 4 and 5, not 6 taking on younger horses.

I can't vouch for this, but a clocker whose opinion I respect told me she worked better on dirt than synth and hated one of the CA synth tracks. I forget which one, but I think it was DMR. I think that was the polytrack version.

She won twice on dirt at Oaklawn and pretty much jogged both times.

Rather than proving she was just as good on dirt, we may have been deprived of some truly spectacular efforts on dirt compared to those slow paced synth races at that time. I always say this, but the one obvious mistake they made with her was not going to SAR to take on Rachel at 10F. Even if Rachel chose another race once Zenyatta comitted, getting another experience on dirt prior to the Classic would have helped. IMO, she reacted negatively to the kickback early in the Classic. Smith said the same thing.

[cj]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

you never saw Zenyatta duck a race.

Allan

You cannot be serious.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

Synthetics is not dirt. That is my only point. It isn't the same so let's not pretend like Zenyatta won the Classic on dirt.

She had her chance and came up short. Sure, Rachel didn't face any world beaters, but she stepped outside the norm and won repeatedly. Rather than beat up on the same fillies over and over again she was challenged. Zenyatta, not so much.

I think not counting the BC classic she won because you dislike that form of track is slighting her.

Bash on her for running against bad California fillies all you want, but don't erase that she WON a BC Classic. It is equal to any other BC Classic.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

Synthetics is not dirt. That is my only point. It isn't the same so let's not pretend like Zenyatta won the Classic on dirt.

She had her chance and came up short. Sure, Rachel didn't face any world beaters, but she stepped outside the norm and won repeatedly. Rather than beat up on the same fillies over and over again she was challenged. Zenyatta, not so much.

She also lost to Zenyatta's stablemate.

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

She also lost to Zenyatta's stablemate.

Yep, she came back clearly not the same as a 4yo. I don't think anyone is claiming Rachel was great as a 4yo. But her 3yo season was one for the ages, the likes we probably won't see again in my lifetime and probably those much younger than me won't either. And she wasn't lightly raced like and Arrogate or Justify. She raced 8 times, a virtual war horse these days against top competition.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I think not counting the BC classic she won because you dislike that form of track is slighting her.

Bash on her for running against bad California fillies all you want, but don't erase that she WON a BC Classic. It is equal to any other BC Classic.

Who said I'm not counting it? Of course it counts. I'm just saying it isn't the same accomplishment as winning on dirt against males which seemed to be where the thread had gone. That has proven elusive and when she had her chance against a mediocre group she failed, albeit at age 6.

I've said I think she was a great racehorse. I drove 350 miles to see her run, half of which is through shitty, windy, hilly roads in Arkansas. I just wish her connections had been more ambitious instead of worrying about the silly streak. It is ok to lose a race, at least it used to be. Now I'm not so sure.

[MNslappy]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

Just like Frankel missing the ARC.


True greatness doesnt duck races.

wow

[depalma113]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

you never saw Zenyatta duck a race.

You don't really believe that do you?

She ducked the richest race in the world with the lame retirement excuse.

The Dubai World Cup was tailor made for her and her connections wanted no part of it.

[rastajenk]

Rachel and Zen: the greatest rivalry between two athletes that never met.

[classhandicapper]

I'm going to throw out a somewhat controversial view.

I think it's possible Rachel wasn't much worse at 4 than 3. IMO, a couple of her speed figures at 3 (specifically the Preakness and Haskell) may have been slightly inflated. By that I don't necessarily mean wrong. I mean the figure seemed somewhat high at the time given the previous and current trips and figures of the horses in the race and how they came back next out.

If you trim both of those figures around 5 points, she doesn't look much worse at 4. She looks like a horse that came back a little short off the layoff, rounded into top form and got beat at 10F under pressure at a tough distance for her. In a couple of her losses at 4, the gap to 3rd was very large. She was running into some pretty good very sharp older mares.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by depalma113

You don't really believe that do you?

She ducked the richest race in the world with the lame retirement excuse.

The Dubai World Cup was tailor made for her and her connections wanted no part of it.

You do realize the only reason they brought her back at 6 was because after winning the Classic at 5 she didn't get HOTY honors. Her entire 6yo campaign was an afterthought with the Classic and then retirement in mind. That's why she wasn't worked hard, cranked, or put into any tough spots at 6. They wanted to make sure they still had a horse by the end of the year. The mistake was not going to Saratoga for a 10F prep on dirt against Rachel. IMO, that mistake cost her the Classic.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm going to throw out a somewhat controversial view.

I think it's possible Rachel wasn't much worse at 4 than 3. IMO, a couple of her speed figures at 3 (specifically the Preakness and Haskell) may have been slightly inflated. By that I don't necessarily mean wrong. I mean the figure seemed somewhat high at the time given the previous and current trips and figures of the horses in the race and how they came back next out.

If you trim both of those figures around 5 points, she doesn't look much worse at 4. She looks like a horse that came back a little short off the layoff, rounded into top form and got beat at 10F under pressure at a tough distance for her. In a couple of her losses at 4, the gap to 3rd was very large. She was running into some pretty good very sharp older mares.

On my figures, her best race at 4 was a 127 and that came in her easy win at Churchill against completely overmatched foes. Her figures that year, earliest first:

116-119-127-118, average 120, median 118.5

As a 3yo, from the Oaks onward, she ran:

134-128-131-136-135, average 133, median 134

Yeah, I'm not buying that she was the same.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by cj

Who said I'm not counting it? Of course it counts. I'm just saying it isn't the same accomplishment as winning on dirt against males which seemed to be where the thread had gone.

I'm not sure I quite get the "you must run on dirt to be great" thing?

That would pretty much disqualify 3/4 of the world's race horses.

I guess there will always be the dirt racing is the only racing that counts sentiment, sort of like how wedded we are to lasix.

We are the outliers in both respects (dirt + lasix) compared to rest of the world.