You guys didn\'t think I would let this thread go without a long winded response, did you??
Richie - You are probably my favorite poster around here, no offense taken (Got a chuckle too). BTW, ask those that backed Indian Firewater last week how wide Smith took the winner of that race. The answer is...not very. Urban legend indeed...
Dana - You are the self proclaimed \"biggest Zen fan on this board\" (one of the biggest would have been more accurate, Smalltimer and myself have talked her up often around here and along with defending Smith have taken quite a bashing), yet you don\'t think she can compete with the males? You say that \"I don\'t think she\'d have any shot to rally the way she does against top males - it\'s difficult to close much if at all on that track\". Did you watch last year\'s race?? The winner was 9th at the 3/4 call, the place horse 8th, the show horse 11th, and Curlin (4th) was 7th. I\'m trying to be kind here, but that statement is hard to believe. Gayego just won a sprint race rallying from 9th. I think its fair to say that horses can win up on or near the pace, but I would also say that horses can also close on that surface.
Quite a debate here regarding which race provides her a bigger \"safety net\". Hard to see what racing in the Ladies\' Classic would do for her. If she wins, big deal. If she should happen to lose....the entire front page of this forum will be plastered with comments that she is a fraud.
If she should run in the Classic and win, she should receive strong consideration for HOY. I just don\'t agree with the notion that Rachel has it locked up. When you talk about her accomplishments, many note that she \"has beaten males\", and also \"has beaten older males\". She is also the first filly to win the Preakness Stakes, and won the Ky Oaks in record setting fashion. She has also had a lot of things go her way too:
- Several races (Fairgrounds Oaks, Ky Oaks, Haskell) were run on off tracks, a surface she relishes. These surfaces also produce finishes where horses are strung out for a variety of reasons. Some just don\'t like it, some don\'t like the kickback, etc.. Nevertheless, she won and did so impressively.
- Beat a mediocre group of horses in the Preakness. Of the 12 horses she ran against, what have any of them done since?? Not much.
- Beat 3yo males in the slop over a speed favoring Monmouth surface.
- Beat \"older males\" consisting of Macho Again and Bullsbay. What would these 2 go off at if they ran in the Classic?
Asmussen and Jackson are to be commended for running her ambitiously, albeit under conditions and competition that were optimal.
My point is this....if Rachel is going to be given credit for being the first to win the Preakness, beating older males (and she should ABSOLUTELY be given that credit).....then why shouldn\'t Zenyatta - if she should win the Classic - be given just as much consideration if she also does something never done before...such as being the first female to win the Breeders\' Cup Classic??
You tell me what is more impressive - beating up second rate 3yos, beating second rate older horses, beating 3YO males over a speed favoring sloppy track - or beating horses coming in from all over the world, horses that many have said will wipe the floor with the best American horses?? If, and its a very big if, she should happen to win the Classic she will have defeated much more than Summer Bird (who will be in the race), Macho Again, and Bullsbay.
If she runs and doesn\'t win, its a slam dunk for RA. Duh. But this notion that she has HOY wrapped up is ridiculous.
Rachel is great, fantastic, historical, exciting, riveting, and many more superlatives. I am not saying she does not deserve the accolades. I get goosebumps watching her race, and I root for her every single time. It may sound like I am bashing her accomplishments, but I am just trying to keep her record in perspective compared to Zenyatta\'s if she should also accomplish something never been done before.
Alright, let me have it.
