Beyer and Zenyatta

[Rich Curtis]

All I can say about my shrink is that he looks like Judd Hirsch, and every time I enter his office, he runs like Zenyatta.

[analizethis]

The main take away from the Beyer writings that were posted at the beginning of this thread is that he hates the syn surfaces.

[alm]

Hey Rich

I\'ve lived in NYC, LA, New Orleans, Washington DC, LA and Cleveland for substantial periods (2 years plus each place),attended tracks in all of these cities and places and raced at least one horse in all but Washington.  My take on Zenyatta isn\'t regional and I would guess I\'ve got you surrounded.  

I think the beginning of this thread centered on a complaint that the SoCal boys were too aggressive in promoting her as HOY.  My personal take is that I don\'t care if she is selected for this, but I can tell you with unreal passion that the West Coast boys in racing are the biggest adolescents in the game...a few years late in believing they are still important on the scene...they\'ve given it up and have been in a consistent decline for some time now.

Maybe Zenyatta is all they have left.

[magicnight]

So, he sorta ambles away slowly, but two turns and a mile later he\'s really moving?

[Rich Curtis]

Yes! And then he gets to the lake at the end of the road and literally walks on water. Every day. Walks on water. Indeed, this is what inspired that infamous column from the curmudgeonly Washington Post columnist: \"Zenyatta Can\'t Swim.\"

[Rich Curtis]

Alm,

 Good to hear from you.

 Interesting points. Let\'s see. You give me the worst pro-Zenyatta California guy you can think of, and then I\'ll give you a guy from the Thoroughbred Times who comes from the opposite direction and is such a joke that he should be registered as a ####ing lobbyist.

[Funny Cide]

TGJB:  To be clear-- my opinion of Z is based on her figures (ability),

Well, there you go, you\'re wrong right off the bat.  Z\'s ability isn\'t defined by your figures or anyone\'s figures.  She defied figures because of her racing style.  If we ever have another deep closer who manages to succeed at the top level of racing the way Z did, which is doubtful, then you and the other figure guys will be scratching your heads and degrading them again.

[moosepalm]

Regarding the notion of geographic bias, I\'m from upstate New York where we feel that Finger Lakes is the epicenter of the horse racing universe, and still have not recovered from the snub of Tin Cup Chalice for 2008 HOY.

At some point, there appeared to be a discussion here about the factual basis for a couple of Andy Beyer\'s comments supporting a position he had taken.  The overall issue holds my interest only slightly longer than a church meeting, but the question of Beyer\'s cavalier treatment of data, regardless of its import or relevance, is troubling.  For better of worse (and what a discussion that would be), Beyer is an iconic figure in the field.  As such, his opinions, and supporting references, will be taken to the bank by many.  It\'s the weight he, along with JB, Friedman and others, must carry.  To base an opinion on hazy impressionistic recall is not good enough, unless qualified as such.  If done often enough, he will soon be pontificating to an empty church.

[Footlick]

Thanks

[MonmouthGuy]

She lost.

[jma11473]

Rich, your bad memory aside, did you make a post on this thread where you explain why Zenyatta beating nothing in all of 2010 and then losing to Blame means she should get Horse of the Year instead of Blame? I don\'t mean a post about Beyer\'s poor sentence structure, or Rachel Alexandra\'s races last year, or the board\'s NY bias. I mean something about what Zenyatta accomplished on the racetrack in 2010...which is what is being voted on, after all. In all your posts, did you ever actually explain why Zenyatta\'s races this year were superior to Blame\'s? We\'ll leave out Goldikova.

[Rich Curtis]

Analizethis wrote:

\"The main take away from the Beyer writings that were posted at the beginning of this thread is that he hates the syn surfaces.\"

 This is another thing that I found odd. Beyer paints a picture of what California racing was like when the tracks were real dirt:

\"California once had the most exciting and vibrant racing in the nation\"

 \"The dirt racing strips in the West were fast and speed-favoring\"

\"The nature of the game was breathtaking, and fans loved it.\"

\"When California\'s racing regulators mandated that traditional dirt tracks be replaced by synthetic surfaces as of 2008, they didn\'t anticipate the consequence of their decision, but they essentially legislated speed out of the game.\"

OK, something is missing here, and it\'s big:

Does anyone think that California replaced dirt tracks at a time when California racing was the \"most exciting and vibrant\" racing in the country, racing whose nature \"fans loved\"?

 Beyer made his first trip to California in 1982, and he still seems to be thinking about 1982.

  More important, he\'s taking a shot at California racing regulators without bothering to put in even one word about why they switched to synthetic: THE DEAD HORSES.

  How can he write something like this without mentioning the reason for the surface switch? I opposed the surface switch, and we can argue about how well the switch worked, but not mentioning the reason for it is inexcusable. Dead horses were on the cover of mainstream CA newspapers. A scandal was in the making, and people were getting sick. Does this not deserve a mention?

 And then there\'s this:

  \"In my view, it is a dubious distinction to be the poster girl for the surfaces that have robbed the sport here of its unique character.\"

  This \"unique character\" Beyer is talking about, of which the sport has been robbed, robbed in a way that leaves Zenyatta\'s distinction \"dubious\"? He discussed it in his fourth book. Here is Beyer writing about the real-dirt Santa Anita he visited in 1982:

 \"The sport seemed as foreign to me as if I were at a track on the moon...I was amazed by the number of fainthearted sprinters who would win at a mile or more--and how the crowd would bet them without any concern for their lack of stamina.\"

 Beyer laments the loss of this racetrack. Meanwhile, of Zenyatta\'s 2009 BC Classic victory, Beyer writes:

  \"It is absurd to describe a race as a true championship test when America\'s best dirt runners have little chance to win.\"

  And he got this column by an editor--a dubious distinction if ever I\'ve seen one.

[Rich Curtis]

JMA wrote:

\"Rich, your bad memory aside\"

 I wish it were that easy!

 \"did you make a post on this thread where you explain why Zenyatta beating nothing in all of 2010 and then losing to Blame means she should get Horse of the Year instead of Blame?\"

 No, and I won\'t. I thought Zenyatta deserved HOY in 2009. This year? Blame is a damned good choice. My problem is not with Beyer\'s support of Blame for HOY. My problem is with the WHOLE of Beyer\'s Zenyatta writing. That is why I posted Beyer columns from last year, too.

\" I don\'t mean a post about Beyer\'s poor sentence structure,\"

 As I told Jimbo a couple of days ago, my problem is not with the style of Beyer\'s writing. I think Beyer is a good writer in terms of style. My problem is with the content of the whole of his Zenyatta writing.

[TGJB]

Funny-- well, I\'m \"wrong\" a lot.....

Pretty sure I didn\'t \"degrade\" Victory Gallop. But yes, deep closers are at a disadvantage because of ground loss-- well, except in those races with small fields Z was running in, where she almost never lost much ground on the turns. Thing is, the ones who accurately measure the effect of ground loss DO KNOW how good those horses are-- and are not.

The distinction I made, which it appears you did not grasp, is between ability (as we measure it here), and accomplishment (winning races, etc.). If you really don\'t get that distinction you shouldn\'t be using our data or any figures to bet, just going by what the horses have accomplished, using the standard pp\'s to come up with that.

As I said last year, when it comes to HOTY and other awards, the decision should be based on accomplishment, not ability. My argument for RA last year wasn\'t based on her being much faster, but on her campaign (accomplishments) being much better.

Here\'s the point some of us are trying to make about Z. She was very good in terms of ability compared to her contemporaries, as were others historically (Personal Ensign, Serena\'s Song, Lady\'s Secret, etc.). But with the exception of PE they weren\'t undefeated or close to it, because they ran in real races, against real horses, and if you do that enough times you can get beat, as did Z. Z ran in just 4 such races (and again, that\'s if you count the two BCs on Pro-Ride, where dirt horses had no shot). She was 3 for 4.

So what we are saying is that she was very good, but the record is deceptive, and the adulation over the top.

[Rich Curtis]

\"deep closers are at a disadvantage because of ground loss-- well, except in those races with small fields Z was running in, where she almost never lost much ground on the turns.\"

  You need to check this, JB.