jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michael,
>
> Yes, Michael just an opinion. Agreed. Some
> people on this board that I think are good
> handicappers like yourself, surprise the hell out
> of me with your view on this. So, I went back
> tonight and watched both fillies races throughout
> the year. Also looked at their figures. Beyers
> and TG. I don\'t see it. I don\'t think the HOY
> vote should be close, and with the evidence that
> is there, hard to believe the two are close in
> ability. Have you forgotten all close finishes
> for Zenyatta against tin cans? Rachel obliterates
> the competition. Are we going to sweep that all
> under the carpet by saying \"that is the nature of
> synthetic racing (close finishes). Yet no
> adjustment for the fact that all of Zenyatta\'s
> accomplishments save one race, were in California,
> on synthetic?
>
> As for \"shouting distance\", I say Rachel wins
> those races by more than 2 lengths. So, no 1:51
> or 1:53. A couple ticks behind Rachel, but a
> non-threatening second.
First of all Jim, you\'ve made an outrageous statement here that cannot go unchallenged - I\'m a good handicapper??? I handicapped the BC for an entire week and got virtually nothing correct. Also lost the few races I bet at CD and Aqu. Can\'t think of anyone worse at the moment.
As for Z\'s close finishes, Mike Smith said he used 80% of what he had in the tank on Saturday. Mike Smith never tried to win by a pole or run a fast speed figure, he just did what he had to do to win the races.
Rachel put up some huge figures this year, and if that\'s going to be your main point of reference, she wins. You have every right to point to the Oaks and Haskell figures among others and call this great filly the champ. But Rachel looked beatable to me in her two most difficult challenges, the Preakness and Woodward. I\'m of the opinion that those two races reflect her true ability best, and that Zenyatta was good enough to run her down in a 9 or 10f race on dirt or poly.