Derby Trail Forums
Page 13 of 15 « First < 31112 13 1415 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Charles Hatton Reading Room (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Jerry Brown's letter to TDN on HOY discussion (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32796)

Antitrust32 12-02-2009 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsixfarms
Come on, you didn't answer the question. After watching the 2008 Apple Blossom - Zenyatta's fourth lifetime start - I'm hard-pressed to come to the conclusion that, had she been campaigned on dirt, she would not have been just as effective. I think both Dick Jerardi and Randy Moss recently wrote columns about how speed figures are not a particularly useful measure when looking at a horse with Zenyatta's running style, so quoting me the Beyer figure from the Apple Blossom does not say much to me.

I respect the opinion of those who think that Rachel should be horse of the year, based on her "body of work" in 2009, and that the award need not necessarily go to the "best horse." At the same time, however, it amazes me how the Rachel backers go to great lengths to avoid conceding any point that might even remotely suggest that Zenyatta may have been the better horse.
There is absolutely no way anyone could say the "better horse" is Zenyatta. And thats the only argument the Zenyatta has. There is also absolutely no way anyone could say the "better horse" is Rachel.

These hypotheticals "oh Z would have won the Woodward or Rachel would have lost the BC Classic" are as absurd as saying Rachel or Z is the "better horse"

You can only look at facts and the year 2009. Its pretty darn clear once you do that and get off the hypothetical horse!

parsixfarms 12-02-2009 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32
These hypotheticals "oh Z would have won the Woodward or Rachel would have lost the BC Classic" are as absurd as saying Rachel or Z is the "better horse"
Why? We do it when we analyze horse races (for gambling purposes) every day.

freddymo 12-02-2009 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32
There is absolutely no way anyone could say the "better horse" is Zenyatta. And thats the only argument the Zenyatta has. There is also absolutely no way anyone could say the "better horse" is Rachel.

These hypotheticals "oh Z would have won the Woodward or Rachel would have lost the BC Classic" are as absurd as saying Rachel or Z is the "better horse"

You can only look at facts and the year 2009. Its pretty darn clear once you do that and get off the hypothetical horse!
I agree but Zenyatta had a great year and did win the Classic its not like she is Peppers Pride.

Antitrust32 12-02-2009 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsixfarms
Why? We do it when we analyze horse races (for gambling purposes) every day.

Because its not based on a hypothetical matchup, its based on accomplisments throughout 2009.

For every one person who says Z would crush Rachel on synthetics at 10 panels or dirt at 10 panels another person could say Rachel would crush Z at 8 or 9 panels. Its assumptions not based on fact and should not be the criteria to pick HOY.

NTamm1215 12-02-2009 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsixfarms
Why? We do it when we analyze horse races (for gambling purposes) every day.
Right, but aren't there a significant amount of extenuating circumstances that come into play? Put Rachel and Zenyatta in a field of five going nine furlongs at Belmont where the other three horses have no speed and I'm 100% positive Rachel wins. On the other hand, put Zenyatta in a race like the Woodward and she'd have a hell of a chance.

The wild card among the two being that they both have incredible will to win. Rachel could have folded after the pace duels in the Preakness or Woodward and didn't. Zenyatta could have easily come up short in the Clement Hirsch. Neither of them did.

The exercise in question is not figuring out which is better or who would win a head-to-head match. Without knowing the particulars it's futile. The exercise is determining who had a better year.

NT

Antitrust32 12-02-2009 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddymo
I agree but Zenyatta had a great year and did win the Classic its not like she is Peppers Pride.
Zenyatta had a terrifically unbelievable Classic and pulled off some good victories in her other races when sometimes pace was not on her side.

But when you put the two horses accomplisments side by side, its very clear, at least for me, who should get HOY.

I really wish they could just split the award though and make everyone happy.

freddymo 12-02-2009 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32
Zenyatta had a terrifically unbelievable Classic and pulled off some good victories in her other races when sometimes pace was not on her side.

But when you put the two horses accomplisments side by side, its very clear, at least for me, who should get HOY.

I really wish they could just split the award though and make everyone happy.

I agree with the entire post word for word

Danzig 12-02-2009 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32
Zenyatta had a terrifically unbelievable Classic and pulled off some good victories in her other races when sometimes pace was not on her side.

But when you put the two horses accomplisments side by side, its very clear, at least for me, who should get HOY.

I really wish they could just split the award though and make everyone happy.
i also agree with what you said, except for the last sentence. you can never make everyone happy! but it would be nice if you could.

parsixfarms 12-02-2009 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NTamm1215
Right, but aren't there a significant amount of extenuating circumstances that come into play? Put Rachel and Zenyatta in a field of five going nine furlongs at Belmont where the other three horses have no speed and I'm 100% positive Rachel wins. On the other hand, put Zenyatta in a race like the Woodward and she'd have a hell of a chance.

The wild card among the two being that they both have incredible will to win. Rachel could have folded after the pace duels in the Preakness or Woodward and didn't. Zenyatta could have easily come up short in the Clement Hirsch. Neither of them did.

The exercise in question is not figuring out which is better or who would win a head-to-head match. Without knowing the particulars it's futile. The exercise is determining who had a better year.
I agree with much of what you say. The problem is that there is no established definition of what "horse of the year" is. Some think it's based on "body of work" in 2009 solely; others base it on who they think the "better" horse is. Without the Eclipse people providing definitive guidelines (and I'm not proposing that there should be such guidelines), neither is necessarily wrong, especially when you are dealing with two undefeated horses who never faced one another.

10 pnt move up 12-02-2009 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddymo
I agree but Zenyatta had a great year and did win the Classic its not like she is Peppers Pride.
well on this very forum she has been compared to Peppers Pride

freddymo 12-02-2009 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up
well on this very forum she has been compared to Peppers Pride
That's silly.. Another Parade at SA seems a bit over the top.. Are they going to televise her cover in Feb as well? lol

Breed her to Zensational + Zenyatta = Z squared lol

10 pnt move up 12-02-2009 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddymo
That's silly.. Another Parade at SA seems a bit over the top.. Are they going to televise her cover in Feb as well? lol

Breed her to Zensational + Zenyatta = Z squared lol
I wonder who they breed her too, thats your expertise...I would imagine a smallish type stallion with speed, maybe a Ghostzapper or something, Smarty Jones.

NTamm1215 12-02-2009 03:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up
well on this very forum she has been compared to Peppers Pride
That's outrageous, Peppers Pride ran way more times each year and had more wins on dirt.

NT

Smooth Operator 12-02-2009 03:31 PM
Good thing we actually got to see Bernardini vs. Invasor a few years ago or some of you would still be arguing that that outstanding younger horse was better than the outstanding older horse.

Never got a chance to see GZ toy with SJ in '04, but wouldn't be surprised if some of you still think that SJ would've beaten him.

Truly outstanding 4 and 5-year-olds almost always get the best of outstanding 3yos (see Aff vs. SS in '78 ... Aff vs. Bid in '79, off the top of my head).

10 pnt move up 12-02-2009 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smooth Operator
Good thing we actually got to see Bernardini vs. Invasor a few years ago or some of you would still be arguing that that outstanding younger horse was better than the outstanding older horse.

Never got a chance to see GZ toy with SJ in '04, but wouldn't be surprised if some of you still think that SJ would've beaten him.

Truly outstanding 4 and 5-year-olds almost always get the best of outstanding 3yos (see Aff vs. SS in '78 ... Aff vs. Bid in '79, off the top of my head).
from what I gather in this thread its not about who was better, who beat who, etc...you just line up the races side by side that they ran in and see who had a better season.

philcski 12-02-2009 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smooth Operator
Good thing we actually got to see Bernardini vs. Invasor a few years ago or some of you would still be arguing that that outstanding younger horse was better than the outstanding older horse.

Never got a chance to see GZ toy with SJ in '04, but wouldn't be surprised if some of you still think that SJ would've beaten him.

Truly outstanding 4 and 5-year-olds almost always get the best of outstanding 3yos (see Aff vs. SS in '78 ... Aff vs. Bid in '79, off the top of my head).
Agree with the premise of this post, as the development of a horse really precludes the top 3yo's to be better than their elders 90% of the time, however (1) the HoY selection isn't a hypothetical race, it's a side by side comparison of their season, (2) the 3yo's have been proven time and again to be better than the elders this year, and (3) Rachel was the first 3yo filly EVER to beat older males in a G1 dirt route. Traditional 'rules' may not apply to her.

10 pnt move up 12-02-2009 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by philcski
Rachel was the first 3yo filly EVER to beat older males in a G1 dirt route.
That is a much bigger indictment of the older males this year....who is up for top older dirt male by the way?

Antitrust32 12-02-2009 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up
from what I gather in this thread its not about who was better, who beat who, etc...you just line up the races side by side that they ran in and see who had a better season.

exactly, even though your post was probably sarcastic.. you are correct though.

Because nobody knows who's better and there is not one way to be able say "this horse is better" since they didnt run against each other. Its completely hypothetical. And everyone who thinks Z is better than Rachel could be totally wrong... and vise versa.

brianwspencer 12-02-2009 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smooth Operator
Good thing we actually got to see Bernardini vs. Invasor a few years ago or some of you would still be arguing that that outstanding younger horse was better than the outstanding older horse.

Never got a chance to see GZ toy with SJ in '04, but wouldn't be surprised if some of you still think that SJ would've beaten him.

Truly outstanding 4 and 5-year-olds almost always get the best of outstanding 3yos (see Aff vs. SS in '78 ... Aff vs. Bid in '79, off the top of my head).
God it must throw a wrench in your logic -- since I was as steadfastly on the Invasor over Bernardini wagon before they ever raced as I am on the Rachel over Zenyatta wagon now.

Weird how analysis works, eh?

To boot, like Anti said, that has nothing to do with anything, really, just saying your convenient "thank god!" doesn't really do much for lots of people.

prudery 12-03-2009 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by philcski
(3) Rachel was the first 3yo filly EVER to beat older males in a G1 dirt route. Traditional 'rules' may not apply to her.

No she was not ....

Busher at three defeated older males TWICE in 1945..

On dirt ... AT 10 furlongs...

Being that grading races was post 1970, you have to interpret what the Arlington and Washington Handicaps were--50,000 dollar races in the 1940s which attracted the best, as can be seen in the roster of winners and contestants over time ... G1 ...

She carried high weight by the scale in the Washington Handicap and knocked off Armed, Calumet star and future HOY--not a Macho Again type ..

She also won by daylight in both races, and ultimately HOY ...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:43 AM.
Page 13 of 15 « First < 31112 13 1415 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.