Rachel Alexandra in perspective

[gm10]

Originally Posted by Java Gold@TFT

Just curious GM10, I don't have any idea what the answer is so don't think I'm being contrarian but - How many serious Group I races are available for 3yo fillies or even older mares after the Oaks and 1,000 Guineas races are done? I know that in the States there are numerous G-I races that are sex restricted throughout the year. I follow some Euro racing but really don't know what the big prestige group races would be after May that would be sex restricted. It seems up front that maybe the better females in Europe are almost forced into open company sooner than the American females.

Yes I agree that group 1's for fillies/mares are less of a commodity in Europe. So I suppose there is more incentive to race your filly against the boys, but you still have to beat them, of course!!

[gm10]

Originally Posted by cj

Of course I meant they go all out for a longer part of the race on the dirt. What did you think I meant? I'll try to be more clear in the future.

I understand the article, I'm just saying it isn't a valid comparison. They are two totally different things. Shuback should know that, but he doesn't, because he is a dolt. Fillies have been beating colts for a long time ON TURF. Who doesn't know that? What is special about Rachel is that they almost NEVER do it on dirt.

It really isn't worth getting into the difference in surfaces. The point is they are vastly different, making Shuback's article pointless to me and probably most other racing fans that understand the differences.

A pointless point. The reason why they don't is that they hardly ever try in North America which is where almost all quality dirt racing is. Of course it's going to be special.

Nobody is taking anything away from RA, anyway.

[cj]

It has been tried many times, and very often with dismal results. There is a reason it isn't tried more often.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by cj

It has been tried many times, and very often with dismal results. There is a reason it isn't tried more often.

Sorry, but they don't try nearly as often in America as they do in Europe. Out of necessity, sometimes, but that doesn't make it worth less.

Ghanaati is a perfect example. She won the 1000 Guineas, then the Coronation Stakes (prestigious G1 for fillies at Ascot). She didn't have to face the boys on her next start, especially given her RP rating of 121. But guess what, she did and she got beaten by the formidable Rip Van Winkle and Paco Boy. Full credit for trying, though.

Anyway, I'm not saying anything agst Rachel A, she did very well to beat Summer Bird and Macho Again, two proper G1 colts.

[cj]

She tried because there is a history of success on GRASS. There is not much of that history on dirt, and it is not because of lack of trying as you say. It is because of a lack of success. Most don't try because they know the history of top females trying top males ON DIRT.

Again, two different surfaces, which makes the point of the initial article moot in my opinion. That is all I'm trying to say.

[Tom]

Anyway, on what surface the best American horses run, has nothing to do with the article. It's about fillies beating older males, Goldikova and Ouija Board for example.

That is has been done many times on turf and only once on dirt - Rachael - tells me that she achieved the greater feet. And that more or less puts Alan in perspective.

[Java Gold@TFT]

46Z, I have asked this in past threads and you have never answered so I will try one more time. By your standards of defining greatness - longevity, carrying weight, overcoming your perception of adversity, winning at various distances, over varying surfaces and beating the best horses available -who are the horses in the last 40 years that fit your criteria for greatness? You've already said Forego. I'll give you Affirmed, Slew and Bid. I'll even give you a head start with John Henry and Cigar. How about Skip Away? I know you can't include Secretariat because he never raced past 3 and only faced his elders on dirt 3 times, losing 2 out of 3 while getting weight in each race and never carrying over the scale 126 in his life. His last race at Woodbine he actually carried less weight than Rachel did in the Woodward while getting 9 pounds from the 2nd place horse.

So, who am I missing from your list since about 1970? Tiznow? Sunday Silence? I know you can't include brilliant horses like Holy Bull or Point Given because of their shortened careers. So, please humor me and tell me who is on your list of all time greats to run in the last 40 years.

Thanks.

[bisket]

its not a given that rachel will come back better next year. its happened many times when a horse is turned out that they don't come back the same

[bisket]

rachel has definately strung enough top level performances to be considered an all time great

[Java Gold@TFT]

Originally Posted by gm10

Yes I agree that group 1's for fillies/mares are less of a commodity in Europe. So I suppose there is more incentive to race your filly against the boys, but you still have to beat them, of course!!

Is there any kind of history of fillies running in and winning the Classics in Europe? I don't really remember any. In the States we have winners like Rachel Alexandra, Rags To Riches, Winning Colors and Genuine Risk along with several others who have tried but failed (Eight Belles, Althea, etc.). In Canada it is almost an every year occurence that fillies run in and win their Triple Crown races. Is there a recent history of the girls taking on the boys in the designated "Classics"? Again, just trying to understand how the two situations equate when you compare how 3yo fillies face males at different times in the year.

[statik27]

Originally Posted by Java Gold@TFT

46Z, I have asked this in past threads and you have never answered so I will try one more time. By your standards of defining greatness - longevity, carrying weight, overcoming your perception of adversity, winning at various distances, over varying surfaces and beating the best horses available -who are the horses in the last 40 years that fit your criteria for greatness? You've already said Forego. I'll give you Affirmed, Slew and Bid. I'll even give you a head start with John Henry and Cigar. How about Skip Away? I know you can't include Secretariat because he never raced past 3 and only faced his elders on dirt 3 times, losing 2 out of 3 while getting weight in each race and never carrying over the scale 126 in his life. His last race at Woodbine he actually carried less weight than Rachel did in the Woodward while getting 9 pounds from the 2nd place horse.

So, who am I missing from your list since about 1970? Tiznow? Sunday Silence? I know you can't include brilliant horses like Holy Bull or Point Given because of their shortened careers. So, please humor me and tell me who is on your list of all time greats to run in the last 40 years.

Thanks.

Well I'm not 46, but I think I might answer this.

For me there are different levels of greatness and even different kinds. There is the brillant that are great, like Domino, secretariat, Man O' War ect...Then there are the great Warriors like exterminator, Forego, John Henry ect.

But to get into my list as an All-Time great you have to be a horse that transcends the sport, like Secretariat did or Man O'War. When it comes to North American ALL-TIME greats, you'll only find 3 horses on my list. The two I've mentioned (Sec and MOW) and Citation. They set numerous world and track time records and not only dominated their competition, but also left the people that saw them with memories that lasted life times, generations and will continue to do so.

So no RA isn't an All-Time great, but she is certainly the most accomplished 3yo filly we've seen in many years and I would say that she IS a great one.

[Tom Barrister]

Here's are three trivia questions:

For a winner of the (United States) "Horse of the Year" award, name the last horse to:

1) Win stakes races on both the dirt and turf in the year for which the award was won.

2) Win any kind of race on both the dirt and turf in the year for which the award was won.

3) Race (win or lose) on both the dirt and turf in the year for which the award was won.

[statik27]

1. John Henry

2. Not sure, I was thinking either Mineshaft or Pleasantly Perfect, but its not them.

3. Curlin

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by Tom Barrister

Here's are three trivia questions:

For a winner of the (United States) "Horse of the Year" award, name the last horse to:

1) Win stakes races on both the dirt and turf in the year for which the award was won.

2) Win any kind of race on both the dirt and turf in the year for which the award was won.

3) Race (win or lose) on both the dirt and turf in the year for which the award was won.

don't know about who did it last, but Big Red won G1's on both dirt and turf in the same year against older males and won HOY on both surfaces. All as a three year old.

Does that make him great or an all-time great??

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by statik27

Well I'm not 46, but I think I might answer this.

For me there are different levels of greatness and even different kinds. There is the brillant that are great, like Domino, secretariat, Man O' War ect...Then there are the great Warriors like exterminator, Forego, John Henry ect.

But to get into my list as an All-Time great you have to be a horse that transcends the sport, like Secretariat did or Man O'War. When it comes to North American ALL-TIME greats, you'll only find 3 horses on my list. The two I've mentioned (Sec and MOW) and Citation. They set numerous world and track time records and not only dominated their competition, but also left the people that saw them with memories that lasted life times, generations and will continue to do so.

So no RA isn't an All-Time great, but she is certainly the most accomplished 3yo filly we've seen in many years and I would say that she IS a great one.

Where would you rank Dr. Fager? He won on dirt and grass, he won going short and long, he set two world records, only three horses ever finished in front of him, he was never defeated below the mile distance, he toted winning weights ranging from115 LBS to 139 LBS, ran 5 times (winning 3) at the 1 ¼ mile distance toting weights from 120 to 135 Lbs, and in his 18/22 victories only one horse ever finished less than 1 length to him.