Then you wouldn't own Very Subtle, Goldikova, Miesque, Ridgewood Pearl, Zarkava, or Six Perfections. All of those horses won BC races as 3yo fillies against older males.

As for whether or not this race is tougher than the Travers, they aren't being judged the same. You can't look at the results of the Travers and then say this race is tougher. Going into the Travers, as much as everyone wants to say now that Quality Road wasn't ready for it (and yes, there were some that said it beforehand), the truth is that nobody was sure just how good he was or if he just might be able to pull it off. He was the one member of his class that had run numbers in Rachel's stratosphere and the one that she hadn't beaten. There was also the 10f question for her to answer for the first time. If QR had won off by five, this question wouldn't be asked. In hindsight though, seeing how easily Summer Bird won and knowing how she dominated him, it's easy to say how she would have dominated that field. At 1-2, she's being expected to dominate this field too and people are saying this is a tougher race but what would you say if she wins by 10 against these? Judge it after the race like you are doing the Travers.

I agree.

To wit:

Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Racing's legendary ladies
By Jeremy Plonk
Special to ESPN.com

It's not easy being great, with all apologies to noted philosopher Kermit the Frog. And on Saturday, another wildly popular animal will put that fact to the test when Rachel Alexandra takes on older males in the Grade 1 Woodward Stakes at Saratoga.

Discredit the field for the Woodward all you wish, and consider that last week's Travers Stakes featuring Belmont winner Summer Bird and Florida Derby demon Quality Road could have been the tougher spot. You won't get an argument here, but the past is the past, and it's time to look forward. The Woodward contenders of 2009 won't be mistaken for any historical measuring stick of greatness. This is not 3-year-old Spectacular Bid stepping up to meet past Triple Crown champ and then 4-year-old Affirmed in the 1979 Jockey Club Gold Cup.

So, while a scant few 3-year-old fillies ever have tried to capture such noteworthy and entrenched handicap races as the Woodward or Jockey Club Gold Cup, a historical trip down memory lane does little to feed or starve the arguments as to just what the accomplishment might really mean. But just in terms of the comparative genre of great fillies and mares vs. great colts and horses, the laundry list of female failures is startling -- so startling that any measured success has to be given the utmost respect, including Rachel Alexandra's existing wins against fellow 3-year-olds in the Preakness and Haskell.

Make not mistake: Rachel Alexandra's place in the pantheon of filly and mare greatness should already be secured, even if she never beats older males, even average ones. When you look at the top distaffers of the past 30 years, you'll see the roadside littered with losses to non-descript males. I set out on a journey to uncover the common nature of great ladies outrunning great gents in the Sport of Kings. But what I found was that the handful of really memorable success stories was monsooned by so many lost memories of lost races.

Case in point: Many racetrackers remember the super mare Lady's Secret and her triumph in the 1986 Whitney Handicap at Saratoga. But most have long forgotten that it was the first and only time she'd beat males, losing all six other attempts, not to mention the never-will-be names that chased her home at the Spa (Ends Well, Fuzzy et al) and the fact that a sloppy track helped carry her tremendous early speed.

Genuine Risk burned her name into the all-time consciousness of horse racing fans with a victory in the 1980 Kentucky Derby, and the timing proved to be everything for her in terms of historical remembrance. While she wore the roses, few recall that Genuine Risk was just 1-for-4 against the boys, losing the Wood, Preakness and Belmont. Turn it around with a win in one of the other races and a Derby loss, and her legacy certainly changes, right or wrong.

The 1980s, indeed, were high times for the distaff set in horse racing. Winning Colors also took down a Derby in that decade, but she was even-steven against the boys in her career at 2-for-4, beaten some 41 lengths in the Belmont when finishing last.

The top fillies and mares of the 1990s also took their tea with a few lumps when facing the boys. Unbeaten champion Meadow Star boasted a 9-for-9 mark heading into the 1990 Wood Memorial and left with a 10-length drubbing; Silverbulletday failed miserably in her attempt to extend herself in the 1999 Belmont Stakes, also beaten more than 10 lengths; the legendary west coast mare Paseana saw her seven-race win streak go up in smoke when beating only two horses in the 1992 Pacific Classic; and her predecessor/stablemate Bayakoa dropped both attempts against the boys in 1990, a last-of-10 effort in the Santa Anita Handicap and a distant runner-up as the odds-on choice in the Grade 3 San Diego Handicap.

More recently, this decade's preeminent mare, Azeri, failed to light the board in two attempts against the boys, finishing out of the money in both the Grade 1 Metropolitan Mile and Breeders' Cup Classic.

And if you want to make the argument that horses just aren't made like they used to be, let us not forget that the golden era of the 1970s saw some of its leading ladies suffer similar outcomes. Susan's Girl won 29 times, 6 of those in Grade 1 stakes, but was a horrific 0-for-6 against the boys; Davona Dale was 0-for-2 against the boys, beaten some 28 lengths in the Travers; and Shuvee may be best remembered as a 2-time Jockey Club Gold Cup winner, but she lost all 6 other tries against the opposite sex and twice failed to hit the board in the 1970-'71 Woodward renewals.

These are not random examples, but rather a strong sampling of the biggest-named fillies and mares to race down any pike in the past four decades. No matter what your take is on Rachel Alexandra or the quality of this year's 3-year-old crop, the filly's two victories over the boys this year already have put her in a rare air. If she goes on to win the Woodward against supposedly weak competition, it won't be any softer than Personal Ensign's scant two challengers in the 1989 Whitney, consisting of a seven-pound weight break against sprinters Gulch and King's Swan.

History doesn't care about weight breaks and who you beat. We remember those horses who do things outside the box. When you accomplish something that Susan's Girl, Davona Dale, Bayakoa, Paseana, Silverbulletday and Azeri couldn't do, that's special. For that, Rachel Alexandra's Preakness and Haskell performances already have her among the game's all-time greatest ladies.

If Rachel Alexandra succeeds in Saturday's Woodward, my research tells me we need to drop the word "ladies" from the previous sentence. Like we stated from the get-go, it's not easy being great. This filly will have earned every ounce of adoration.

Azeri could have beaten Graded Stakes males - she just was either put on the wrong track to attempt to do so or went up against the likes of Ghostzapper.

Azeri would be odds on in this edition of the Woodward.
Not taking anything away from RA. If she wins it will be a feather in her cap. But i still maintain that running any horse in any race where you are 1/2 on the morning line isnt a real stretch.

Exactly. That article is ok but it's misleading. Winning this race and winning the two that she won against the boys don't make her great. They make her memorable. Winning Colors might have been only 2-4 against the boys but I'd take her third in the Preakness and stack it up with Rachel's winning the Preakness any day. Her nose loss to Personal Ensign means more to me than beating average older males. The competition you face matters.

I dont see what the morning line odds matter one bit. First thing is that its only one person's opinion and second thing is the amount of money that will be bet on Rachel purely because of her notoriety is insane. If you were to analyze this race strictly on numbers and data, and assigned letters to each horse instead of names and "reputations", she would be a lot higher than the probable 2/5 she will be sent off at. She would probably be in the neighborhood of even money or 6/5 if you took the names away.

Why would a horse be great or not great based on the morning line odds? :zz: Or even the actual odds for that matter? Is it her fault she has this huge following and this race just happens to occur at Saratoga, a place where the pools are already huge and filled with money from people who only bet a couple times per year?

I mean would she be great if she was the more appropriate 6/5 in this spot, beating these same horses?

It has nothing to do with her "greatness" or any measure of it. It has to do with the fact that she is an overwhelming fav over the field she is facing. Running a overwhelming fav doesnt make you bold in my opinion. It makes you smart. This is a pretty logical spot for her as was the Haskell. The fact that it is against males is interesting and a bit historic but come on, this isnt like taking on Mike Tyson his his prime.

Here's an example of taking a risk: In 1990, Bayakoa, having already won a BC Distaff and Eclipse award and already assured of another Eclipse, was supplemented to the race again and shipped all the way across country to face 3/5 favorite Go for Wand on that one's home track. That's bold. Running a horse that's an overwhelming favorite, whether it's 1/2 or 6/5, is not bold.

Author makes some good points in that ESPN article ... and doesn't even mention the fact that EB didn't survive her rendezvous in the Derby ... and the fact that R2R was pretty much finished after her all-out effort in the '07 Belmont.



Can understand why RA is the ML fav in this weekend's contest

Not sure why some consider her such an "overwhelming" fav, tho...

You should take your S&P earnings and invest in this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK

This is so bizzarre what do the odds have to do with anything. In what race on dirt would Rachel be more then 4/5??? Name the field at 9's?

Chuck nothing has been logical in her campaign. They bought a filly for a pile of money. Instead of keeping her in company that brought her to a race that she whipped the KY Derby winner, Santa Deby winner running by far the toughest race. Then they go back to the girls were she is suppose to race and she crushes albeit zero but she crushes. Then off to the HASKELL and when has this been the logical next step for the Oak's and Goose winner? She beats the Belmont winner who comes back to validate his Grade 1 abilty with a strong winning run in the Travers. So back to her logical campaign after the Haskell they prep a 3 year old filly to race against older handicapped horse. UHM how the F is that logical? You are confussing logic from giving your superstar every opportunity to do what very few of her breed have ever attempted nevermind succeeded at. You want to suggest that you feel that as a horseman and given your take on Rachel's abilty that you feel she will have no problem handling older handicap horses and that while this is rare it speaks to both her immense abilty and the subpar nature of the current handicap division fine , but logical NO that simply is a very poor characterization.

It is logical to run in the best races for the most money when you have the best horse. When is the last time a 3 yo filly was clearly the best horse in the country in May of her three year old year? Please explain to me why running a horse in a spot where she is clearly the best horse and in fine shape physically not a logical idea? Her being a three year old filly makes it unusual however the Woodward is the best spot for her to not only run and win but to complete a theoretical checklist of her owners aspirations. If Seattle Slew and Affirmed were in this years version of the Woodward I would say that this would not be a logical spot. Not to mention they have the reay made excuse that she is tired from a long campaign (check out Jacksons comments) and that she is taking on older horses. Why wouldnt the Woodward be a logical spot?

i think they have pointed her perfectly..she wins here then..only then they try the bc.and shut up the zenyatta bs. how in the world can people even put those two on the same page in the hoy. todd t shrupp said that the voters are "east coast biased" wtf? she has done everything from win the oaks take on the boys win and now the older ones too.. if she wins id love to see her go to the bc just to shut up the fruit n nutz crowd that is saying
zenyatta is in the same zipcode as her..fn please

When has it ever been? Races are written specific for females so that they compete against their own kind. Now if money was the issue why wouldn't she run in the Penn Derby. Imagine her odds in that dog biscuit race. When you are the best horse in the land(dirt) every race is logical because you are the most likely winner. So I guess your contention is mute because every single 9f dirt race in America is a logical spot for her. I guess when you are the best horse regardless of gender you become the most logical horse in the country.

As for Jess's aspirations...who cares I don't give a dam all I want is to see his filly race and in spots that can hopefully make her maximize her gift. So if Jess and his checklist don't get in the way of that then I hope he continues to push the envelope.. Your issue is you don't think they are pushing the envelope at all.To the contrary, you believe that Jess and friends are orchestratiing a fraud like campaign. One which is overrated and over hyped. I suggest they are pushing a 3 year old filly as hard and tough as sanely acceptable.
Now Zenyatta who I adore as well is a kept managed and potential fraud of a champion. Racing suffers because of Sheriffs and his million and 1 excuses for not shipping.

At no point did I say anything like that. People here love to put words in the mouth of others. If I put forth a scenario where Summer Bird captures horse of the year it isnt a knock on the filly. It is simply a scenario.

Freddy you need to get a grip. The strange set of circumstances that have taken place make the Woodward the ideal spot to run this horse. Is that a better word? There has never been a three year old dirt filly that was clearly the best horse in America at this point. The Woodward accomplishes everything that Jackson wants to do just as the Haskell made her the clear leader in the HoY race and established her as the best horse in the country regardless of sex or age. The Penn Derby isnt even a grade 1. The Woodward has prestige despite the obviously subpar field facing the filly. Not to mention avoids going an unknown distance of 1 1/4 and also avoids a further confrontation with horses she has already beaten. It is simply a logical spot.

As for your contention that I am saying that her campaign is a fraud,I have no idea where you get that. What I am saying is that it is easier to push the envelope when you are facing moderate competition that makes you an odds on choice everytime. I think that the race will be interesting with her in it. I also think that she will win and it will be her last race of the year. her campaign next year will be interesting to say the least. Of course if JJ had racings best interests in mind he would plot out his races beforehand and let the public know where she will run as opposed to all this secretive bs that he does now.

I don't know what it is Chuck, but to intimate that another horse can beat Rachel is almost like you are insulting Christ on this forum. I was really in the weeds at work today and really I shouldn't have been posting but I had to defend myself for simply believing that Summer Bird could beat Rachel Alexandra if they ever met again. It's truly mindboggling around here.

Aside from running on the turf or Synthetic, what dirt race is out there right now that RA wouldn't be an overwhelming favorite?

Which is exactly my point. So when people say how courageous it is of Jackson to run in the Woodward remember that.