Rachel Alexandra in perspective

[gm10]

There is a nice article on drf.com by Alan Shuback that puts the Rachelmania a little bit into perspective. I'll just post the first and last paragraph.

"Have we gone overboard in our praise of a 3-year-old filly beating older horses? Rachel Alexandra certainly deserves a great deal of credit for winning the Woodward Stakes, but she wasn't doing anything that hasn't been done dozens of times around the world in the last 50 years. The rush to create divinity where only excellence exists does neither Rachel nor racing any favors."

...

"So let us praise Rachel Alexandra, but not too highly. Let us also take the opportunity to question why a horse that some people are touting as the greatest filly in history will not be running in the Breeders' Cup. Is a chance at immortality being trumped by fear of a synthetic surface? If so, where is the greatness in that?"

http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=107212

[CincyHorseplayer]

With the European record of BC races on dirt,this critique seems apropos.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

With the European record of BC races on dirt,this critique seems apropos.

what does that have anything to do with it

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by gm10

Let us also take the opportunity to question why a horse that some people are touting as the greatest filly in history will not be running in the Breeders' Cup. Is a chance at immortality being trumped by fear of a synthetic surface? If so, where is the greatness in that?"

Not a bad article, but I'm not sure the writer didn't run into a dark alley here. It's as if he believes RA is running away from a surface. RA can't run away from anything. Only Jackson can. IMHO, not running on synthetics, which is a fairly new surface, is not necessarily a poor decision. It's as if this writer decided to create another hurdle or step to the path of greatness. Where before a horse had to win classic races with power and penache to be considered great, now, a filly must win against males, older males, and on ALL surfaces available.

Under this definition, I could claim that MOST of the horses that were immortal in our minds were not. Very, very few ran out of class and on multiple surfaces. None of the immortals even had synthetics as an option, so why is RA penalized because of it.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Not a bad article, but I'm not sure the writer didn't run into a dark alley here. It's as if he believes RA is running away from a surface. RA can't run away from anything. Only Jackson can. IMHO, not running on synthetics, which is a fairly new surface, is not necessarily a poor decision. It's as if this writer decided to create another hurdle or step to the path of greatness. Where before a horse had to win classic races with power and penache to be considered great, now, a filly must win against males, older males, and on ALL surfaces available.

Under this definition, I could claim that MOST of the horses that were immortal in our minds were not. Very, very few ran out of class and on multiple surfaces. None of the immortals even had synthetics as an option, so why is RA penalized because of it.

Funny thing is that I think she would win the Laddies Classic. She has shown that she can rate, which is crucial @ SA, and Zenyatta is there to be shot down. Zenyatta reminds me of Curlin last year, still winning her races but with increasing difficulty and lower speed figures.

The author has a point though. Goldikova for example has beaten up the older boys multiple times this year and last year. I don't think that anybody has anything negative to say about RA, but it's good that somebody offers some international and historical perspective!

[cj]

The article is horrible. Running on turf is not the same as running on dirt. The horses don't run nearly as hard for nearly as long. It is like comparing apples to anvils...two different worlds.

Shuback is probably the worst writer employed by DRF. I have no idea how he has a job.

[lamboguy]

usually when you have a great dirt horse you never see the turf. turf more often than not are for horses that have performed poorly on dirt. JESS JACKSON took a shot last year with CURLIN on the synthetic because he knew that if the horse didn't run good he would be retired after the race. JACKSON has already said he wants to run RACHEL next year. the man is not going to risk a surface change on that filly for any amount of money or prestige invoved just because other's "demand it".

he plans on re-writing history in 2010 with RACHEL. so just give the man a chance and don't second guess him for what he does or does not do.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by cj

The article is horrible. Running on turf is not the same as running on dirt. The horses don't run nearly as hard for nearly as long. It is like comparing apples to anvils...two different worlds.

Shuback is probably the worst writer employed by DRF. I have no idea how he has a job.

Turf races are much quicker than dirt races (3 SECONDS OR MORE over a mile), so it is debatable whether they run 'harder' over the dirt. Plus turf races are more tactical, which makes them less easy to win.

[cj]

Originally Posted by gm10

Turf races are much quicker than dirt races (3 SECONDS OR MORE over a mile), so it is debatable whether they run 'harder' over the dirt. Plus turf races are more tactical, which makes them less easy to win.

They are quicker because it is easier to run on them. It has nothing to do with turf horses being faster, certainly not in this country where, as lamboguy points out, turf is for the second string.

They run harder because the pace is much more taxing than on turf. That is my point about running harder for longer.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by gm10

Turf races are much quicker than dirt races (3 SECONDS OR MORE over a mile), so it is debatable whether they run 'harder' over the dirt. Plus turf races are more tactical, which makes them less easy to win.

I believe it was Andy Beyer in one of his books on handicapping pointed out the reason that grass surfaces are typically faster than dirt surfaces is the way the horses’ hooves hit the surfaces.

When the horses’ hooves come in contact with a turf surface there is more of a “sure footing” and this gives the horse a better and faster “spring back” to repeat its action,

On dirt there is a “sliding footing” which slows down the “spring back” action. This clearly can be seen on a hard dirt track versus a softer (not muddy or wet) dirt track surface.

There was a professor at MIT in the 1980s 0r 1990s, don’t remember which, who used a high camera to prove this difference.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by cj

They are quicker because it is easier to run on them. It has nothing to do with turf horses being faster, certainly not in this country where, as lamboguy points out, turf is for the second string.

They run harder because the pace is much more taxing than on turf. That is my point about running harder for longer.

I never said they were faster animals. But they don't necessarily run harder on the dirt. It's not even clear what you mean by 'harder'. Maybe you mean that dirt racing is an all-out effort from start to finish whereas turf races are usually decided by a late sprint.

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.

[Java Gold@TFT]

Originally Posted by gm10

I never said they were faster animals. But they don't necessarily run harder on the dirt. It's not even clear what you mean by 'harder'. Maybe you mean that dirt racing is an all-out effort from start to finish whereas turf races are usually decided by a late sprint.

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.

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.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by gm10

"Have we gone overboard in our praise of a 3-year-old filly beating older horses? Rachel Alexandra certainly deserves a great deal of credit for winning the Woodward Stakes, but she wasn't doing anything that hasn't been done dozens of times around the world in the last 50 years. The rush to create divinity where only excellence exists does neither Rachel nor racing any favors."

..

There is a COMPLETE VACUUM, in the vast majority of sport writers and the "Johnny Come Lately fans," in knowing what true greatness in the thoroughbred comes down to and one of the most fundamental aspects is LONG TERM QUALITY, not short term, quasi-brilliance.

Over the years I learned with nauseating repetition, how this and that one was the "second coming of __________," only to find that these supposedly great ones, were flashes in the pan.

What makes a great one? Let's take Forego for example: ADAPTABILITY, constancy of effort, distance and surface mastery (short long wet or fast) REPEATED high quality astounding performances against some of the BEST of the day, accomplishing all of this through the adversity of weak fetlocks almost one step ahead of a breakdown under big weight imposts.

People today set the bar far far too low, in an attempt to quench a thirst for a hero or star. In the long term history of the game, GREATNESS is a very lofty position that should have a very limited membership or the extravagant use of the term cheapens all who have earned that title through the years.

This one COULD enter that esteemed group but not yet. Not yet by a long shot.

[cj]

Originally Posted by gm10

I never said they were faster animals. But they don't necessarily run harder on the dirt. It's not even clear what you mean by 'harder'. Maybe you mean that dirt racing is an all-out effort from start to finish whereas turf races are usually decided by a late sprint.

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.

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.

[cj]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

There is a COMPLETE VACUUM, in the vast majority of sport writers and the "Johnny Come Lately fans," in knowing what true greatness in the thoroughbred comes down to and one of the most fundamental aspects is LONG TERM QUALITY, not short term, quasi-brilliance...YADA YADA YADA

I agree most people overdo it. However, the game has also changed. If you use the standards of the 50s, 60s and 70s to define a great horse, guess what? There will probably never be another great horse ever.

One thing is certain, Rachel has done things ALREADY that no other fillies of any decade have ever done. That makes her pretty great in my book.