Jerry Brown's letter to TDN on HOY discussion

[Kasept]

Earlier in the week I had the temerity of suggesting that there is no debate possible regarding HOY. Here's Thoro-Graph's Jerry Brown in a letter to the Thoroughbred Daily News again coldly pointing out the obbvious disparity between the seasons Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta had. Particularly key in on the list of stakes wins of their collective opponents.


To the editors:

I understand that everyone is basking in the afterglow of seeing a great mare complete an undefeated career by beating males. But with all due respect to Bill Oppenheim and others, the idea that Zenyatta should get Horse Of The Year over Rachel Alexandra is just silly when you actually compare their campaigns. When the voters sit down and do that in the cold light of day, I don't believe the vote should or will be close.

This year, before the Breeders' Cup, Zenyatta started four times. All four starts were at home in California, on synthetic tracks, against small fields of locally based fillies and mares that contained a grand total of one 2009 Grade I winner, Life Is Sweet. So if you are to vote for Zenyatta for HOTY, it is strictly on the basis of the Classic. Well, that race contained exactly two horses that had won Grade Is over synthetic this year (Einstein and Richard's Kid), some grass horses, and some dirt horses, which are demonstrably completely out of their element over Pro-Ride (see the last two years of results of main track Breeders' Cup races). Zenyatta beat them at her game, a game she is very good at. She's good on dirt, too, as she proved last year at Oaklawn--but most dirt horses don't handle Pro-Ride, which is basically grass, so she had a big advantage last Saturday.

Meanwhile, earlier this year, while Zenyatta was beating up Anabaas Creation, Lethal Heat, Briecat, Allicansayiswow and Dawn After Dawn, who between them have won two overnight stakes (and no graded ones) this year, this is what Rachel was doing:

• Racing eight times, at seven different tracks, winning them all.

• Beating colts three times in Grade I races, and beating older males AS NOT JUST A FILLY, BUT A THREE-YEAR-OLD.

• Beating the horses that in 2009 won the Kentucky Derby, Belmont, Travers, Jockey Club Gold Cup, Test, Stephen Foster, Whitney, New Orleans Handicap, Riva Ridge, Tom Fool, Acorn, Arkansas Derby, Chilukki and Oaklawn Handicap -- most of those horses males -- and doing it in every case over dirt, the surface where those horses won their stakes.

• And oh yeah, winning this country's premiere race for three-year-old fillies by 20 lengths. Imagine if a colt won the Derby by 20. Imagine anyone winning a GI by 20. They make HBO movies about that kind of thing.

None of this is to be taken as a knock on Zenyatta; she's a great mare. But she just wasn't asked to do very much this year, while Rachel had arguably the greatest campaign any filly has ever had, at the end of which Rachel's connections had the good sense not to run her on (effectively) turf, against a specialist on that surface.

By the way, since it's what I do-- best race vs. best race, on Thoro-Graph figures, Rachel is about six lengths faster than Zenyatta at a mile and an eighth. That's at level weights, and aside from Rachel being two years younger.

Jerry Brown
President, Thoro-Graph Inc

[Danzig]

nicely put.

[Sightseek]

[Sightseek]

This is a little blurb from Oppenheim in the TDN (apologies for the strange print, it does that when you copy off a pdf) and I think he fails to realize that most of the people who watch the Breeder's Cup are existing fans of racing - whereas any Triple Crown race (Preakness) is watched by more people who we are trying to reach:

HORSE OF THE YEAR: Interesting comments, and
one thing they really highlight is the question: what are
the criteria for Horse of the Year? Those of us with
votes will be fascinated to refresh our memories when
the NTRA directive on the subject is issued to Eclipse
voters. But here=s a thought--it=s not necessarily about
the fastest horse of the year, or even the horse with
the best form. I=m not for Zenyatta strictly because she
won the GI Breeders= Cup Classic, beating colts and
breaking Personal Ensign=s unbeaten record in the process.
I=m for Zenyatta just as much because, in a sport
that has been threatening to sink without trace from
American public consciousness following Barbaro=s horrible
breakdown in the 2006 GI Preakness, and Eight
Belles=s horrible breakdown after finishing second in the
2008 GI Kentucky Derby, Zenyatta=s win over the colts
in the Breeders= Cup Classic actually got some ink, and
restored a modicum of respectability to our sport in the
wider public eye. She achieved more than even Rachel
did in that hugely important sphere--those Americans
who have only the mildest of interest in whether horse
racing continues to exist in this country or not. That=s
why--unless they tell me that=s not a valid criterion--she
gets my vote.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

This is a little blurb from Oppenheim in the TDN (apologies for the strange print, it does that when you copy off a pdf) and I think he fails to realize that most of the people who watch the Breeder's Cup are existing fans of racing - whereas any Triple Crown race (Preakness) is watched by more people who we are trying to reach:

HORSE OF THE YEAR: Interesting comments, and
one thing they really highlight is the question: what are
the criteria for Horse of the Year? Those of us with
votes will be fascinated to refresh our memories when
the NTRA directive on the subject is issued to Eclipse
voters. But here=s a thought--it=s not necessarily about
the fastest horse of the year, or even the horse with
the best form. I=m not for Zenyatta strictly because she
won the GI Breeders= Cup Classic, beating colts and
breaking Personal Ensign=s unbeaten record in the process.
I=m for Zenyatta just as much because, in a sport
that has been threatening to sink without trace from
American public consciousness following Barbaro=s horrible
breakdown in the 2006 GI Preakness, and Eight
Belles=s horrible breakdown after finishing second in the
2008 GI Kentucky Derby, Zenyatta=s win over the colts
in the Breeders= Cup Classic actually got some ink, and
restored a modicum of respectability to our sport in the
wider public eye. She achieved more than even Rachel
did in that hugely important sphere--those Americans
who have only the mildest of interest in whether horse
racing continues to exist in this country or not. That=s
why--unless they tell me that=s not a valid criterion--she
gets my vote.

One should also note, that Smarty Jones probably had more effect on racing than any horse, and Horse of the Year ultimately went to the very best horse...

[Revidere]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

One should also note, that Smarty Jones probably had more effect on racing than any horse, and Horse of the Year ultimately went to the very best horse...

The best horse who ran a total of four times:

Tom Fool
Iselin
Woodward
Breeders Cup Classic

[Stickhorse]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

This is a little blurb from Oppenheim in the TDN (apologies for the strange print, it does that when you copy off a pdf) and I think he fails to realize that most of the people who watch the Breeder's Cup are existing fans of racing - whereas any Triple Crown race (Preakness) is watched by more people who we are trying to reach:

HORSE OF THE YEAR: Interesting comments, and
one thing they really highlight is the question: what are
the criteria for Horse of the Year? Those of us with
votes will be fascinated to refresh our memories when
the NTRA directive on the subject is issued to Eclipse
voters. But here=s a thought--it=s not necessarily about
the fastest horse of the year, or even the horse with
the best form. I=m not for Zenyatta strictly because she
won the GI Breeders= Cup Classic, beating colts and
breaking Personal Ensign=s unbeaten record in the process.
I=m for Zenyatta just as much because, in a sport
that has been threatening to sink without trace from
American public consciousness following Barbaro=s horrible
breakdown in the 2006 GI Preakness, and Eight
Belles=s horrible breakdown after finishing second in the
2008 GI Kentucky Derby, Zenyatta=s win over the colts
in the Breeders= Cup Classic actually got some ink, and
restored a modicum of respectability to our sport in the
wider public eye. She achieved more than even Rachel
did in that hugely important sphere--those Americans
who have only the mildest of interest in whether horse
racing continues to exist in this country or not. That=s
why--unless they tell me that=s not a valid criterion--she
gets my vote.

[gales0678]

Zenyatta=s win over the colts
in the Breeders= Cup Classic actually got some ink, and
restored a modicum of respectability to our sport in the
wider public eye. She achieved more than even Rachel
did in that hugely important sphere--those Americans
who have only the mildest of interest in whether horse
racing continues to exist in this country or not.

the problem is that those with mild interest in the sport most likely don't know dirt from pro-ride or know very little about it

when you have the BC 2 years in a row on the pro-ride surface and not 1 dirt horse wins the results mean less , thus Zenyatta's win means less , she is a poly track specialist who ducked coming east this year to run on the dirt and faced no competetion to speak of this year .....simply put it would be a tradegy for horseracing if they give any horse , hoy , for winning only on the poly surface

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

This is a little blurb from Oppenheim in the TDN (apologies for the strange print, it does that when you copy off a pdf) and I think he fails to realize that most of the people who watch the Breeder's Cup are existing fans of racing - whereas any Triple Crown race (Preakness) is watched by more people who we are trying to reach:

HORSE OF THE YEAR: Interesting comments, and
one thing they really highlight is the question: what are
the criteria for Horse of the Year? Those of us with
votes will be fascinated to refresh our memories when
the NTRA directive on the subject is issued to Eclipse
voters. But here=s a thought--it=s not necessarily about
the fastest horse of the year, or even the horse with
the best form. I=m not for Zenyatta strictly because she
won the GI Breeders= Cup Classic, beating colts and
breaking Personal Ensign=s unbeaten record in the process.
I=m for Zenyatta just as much because, in a sport
that has been threatening to sink without trace from
American public consciousness following Barbaro=s horrible
breakdown in the 2006 GI Preakness, and Eight
Belles=s horrible breakdown after finishing second in the
2008 GI Kentucky Derby, Zenyatta=s win over the colts
in the Breeders= Cup Classic actually got some ink, and
restored a modicum of respectability to our sport in the
wider public eye. She achieved more than even Rachel
did in that hugely important sphere--those Americans
who have only the mildest of interest in whether horse
racing continues to exist in this country or not. That=s
why--unless they tell me that=s not a valid criterion--she
gets my vote.

lol! I guess nobody watched the Preakness? haha. what an argument!

[Smooth Operator]

Read this Brown piece again … and it still makes no sense.

Face it, Jerry … the 3-year-old colts were mediocre, at best, this year … and the sad fact is … some of them are probably better than the older mules she (barely) hung on to beat in the Woodward.

Wasn't exactly like she was getting the best of a Bernardini … or a Mineshaft … out there.


The REAL challenge for the filly was coming out to the coast and taking on the undefeated, Eclipse-award-winning Breeders' Cup champion mare … and she was a NO SHOW.

No one in their right mind could vote for her over Z, in my opinion … but that's the problem … too many of these voters are out of their minds.

Take 2004, for instance … a significant number of them actually cast their ballots for SJ as HotY.

This was pure insanity when you had a brilliant older horse which not only proved that he was the fastest sprinter in the country … but the fastest router, as well.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Earlier in the week I had the temerity of suggesting that there is no debate possible regarding HOY. Here's Thoro-Graph's Jerry Brown in a letter to the Thoroughbred Daily News again coldly pointing out the obbvious disparity between the seasons Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta had. Particularly key in on the list of stakes wins of their collective opponents.


To the editors:

I understand that everyone is basking in the afterglow of seeing a great mare complete an undefeated career by beating males. But with all due respect to Bill Oppenheim and others, the idea that Zenyatta should get Horse Of The Year over Rachel Alexandra is just silly when you actually compare their campaigns. When the voters sit down and do that in the cold light of day, I don't believe the vote should or will be close.

This year, before the Breeders' Cup, Zenyatta started four times. All four starts were at home in California, on synthetic tracks, against small fields of locally based fillies and mares that contained a grand total of one 2009 Grade I winner, Life Is Sweet. So if you are to vote for Zenyatta for HOTY, it is strictly on the basis of the Classic. Well, that race contained exactly two horses that had won Grade Is over synthetic this year (Einstein and Richard's Kid), some grass horses, and some dirt horses, which are demonstrably completely out of their element over Pro-Ride (see the last two years of results of main track Breeders' Cup races). Zenyatta beat them at her game, a game she is very good at. She's good on dirt, too, as she proved last year at Oaklawn--but most dirt horses don't handle Pro-Ride, which is basically grass, so she had a big advantage last Saturday.

Meanwhile, earlier this year, while Zenyatta was beating up Anabaas Creation, Lethal Heat, Briecat, Allicansayiswow and Dawn After Dawn, who between them have won two overnight stakes (and no graded ones) this year, this is what Rachel was doing:

• Racing eight times, at seven different tracks, winning them all.

• Beating colts three times in Grade I races, and beating older males AS NOT JUST A FILLY, BUT A THREE-YEAR-OLD.

• Beating the horses that in 2009 won the Kentucky Derby, Belmont, Travers, Jockey Club Gold Cup, Test, Stephen Foster, Whitney, New Orleans Handicap, Riva Ridge, Tom Fool, Acorn, Arkansas Derby, Chilukki and Oaklawn Handicap -- most of those horses males -- and doing it in every case over dirt, the surface where those horses won their stakes.

• And oh yeah, winning this country's premiere race for three-year-old fillies by 20 lengths. Imagine if a colt won the Derby by 20. Imagine anyone winning a GI by 20. They make HBO movies about that kind of thing.

None of this is to be taken as a knock on Zenyatta; she's a great mare. But she just wasn't asked to do very much this year, while Rachel had arguably the greatest campaign any filly has ever had, at the end of which Rachel's connections had the good sense not to run her on (effectively) turf, against a specialist on that surface.

By the way, since it's what I do-- best race vs. best race, on Thoro-Graph figures, Rachel is about six lengths faster than Zenyatta at a mile and an eighth. That's at level weights, and aside from Rachel being two years younger.

Jerry Brown
President, Thoro-Graph Inc

The thing that I don't understand about this is....what is the counter-argument to this? Somehow the debate seems to keep going (and Zenyatta keeps getting over 45% of the vote on the DT poll) but there is really no argument to make for her side.
You read something like this, and it makes perfectly clear what every reasonable person already knew....Rachel Alexandra had the best campaign of any horse this year....by far.
The Zenyatta supporters don't have a leg to stand on.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by miraja2

The thing that I don't understand about this is....what is the counter-argument to this? Somehow the debate seems to keep going (and Zenyatta keeps getting over 45% of the vote on the DT poll) but there is really no argument to make for her side.
You read something like this, and it makes perfectly clear what every reasonable person already knew....Rachel Alexandra had the best campaign of any horse this year....by far.
The Zenyatta supporters don't have a leg to stand on.

While there are doubtlessly sincere supporters for Zenyatta who believe she has been under-appreciated all along, I believe a certain and large percentage derives simply from anti-Asmussen/Jackson sentiment.

Now in that arena, personally, I am completely in the Moss-Shirreffs-Ingordo camp and am well known as a critic of the other side. But this 'debate' is so completely tilted in the Rachel Alexandra direction as to be a walkover.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Now in that arena, personally, I am completely in the Moss-Shirreffs-Ingordo camp and am well known as a critic of the other side.

Yeah, I've seen unflattering posters of you plastered all over Evangeline Training Center because of it.

I'd be careful. You probably don't want to experience an acepromazine positive firsthand.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Yeah, I've seen unflattering posters of you plastered all over Evangeline Training Center because of it.

I'd be careful. You probably don't want to experience an acepromazine positive firsthand.

[Stickhorse]

This argument and the supposed high ground sides take is amusing.

These quotes just from this thread:

From the RA camp-

"It's curious at best to me why there is so much emotional argument made for Zenyatta."

Guess they didn't notice this-

"The Zenyatta supporters don't have a leg to stand on."

or this

"simply put it would be a tradegy for horseracing if they give any horse , hoy , for winning only on the poly surface"

One of the big attractions in horse racing is we don't have such comments from the athletes only their fans.

The award goes to who the award goes to. Two deserving horses battling down to the wire. Only wish we had more years like this one.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Stickhorse

This argument and the supposed high ground sides take is amusing.

These quotes just from this thread:

From the RA camp-

"It's curious at best to me why there is so much emotional argument made for Zenyatta."

Guess they didn't notice this-

"The Zenyatta supporters don't have a leg to stand on."

or this

"simply put it would be a tradegy for horseracing if they give any horse , hoy , for winning only on the poly surface"

One of the big attractions in horse racing is we don't have such comments from the athletes only their fans.

The award goes to who the award goes to. Two deserving horses battling down to the wire. Only wish we had more years like this one.

I don't get it. So when people make a flimsy case for Zenyatta and are told that they don't have a leg to stand on thanks to said flimsy case they just made, then they get emotional and change the subject, therefore making their emotion somehow reasonable? I don't follow.

And one of the big things that attracts you to horse racing is a horse's inability to speak? Guess there's a first time for hearing everything.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by miraja2

The thing that I don't understand about this is....what is the counter-argument to this? Somehow the debate seems to keep going (and Zenyatta keeps getting over 45% of the vote on the DT poll) but there is really no argument to make for her side.
You read something like this, and it makes perfectly clear what every reasonable person already knew....Rachel Alexandra had the best campaign of any horse this year....by far.
The Zenyatta supporters don't have a leg to stand on.

the can give her poly horse of the year if they wish

[mclem0822]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Earlier in the week I had the temerity of suggesting that there is no debate possible regarding HOY. Here's Thoro-Graph's Jerry Brown in a letter to the Thoroughbred Daily News again coldly pointing out the obbvious disparity between the seasons Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta had. Particularly key in on the list of stakes wins of their collective opponents.


To the editors:

I understand that everyone is basking in the afterglow of seeing a great mare complete an undefeated career by beating males. But with all due respect to Bill Oppenheim and others, the idea that Zenyatta should get Horse Of The Year over Rachel Alexandra is just silly when you actually compare their campaigns. When the voters sit down and do that in the cold light of day, I don't believe the vote should or will be close.

This year, before the Breeders' Cup, Zenyatta started four times. All four starts were at home in California, on synthetic tracks, against small fields of locally based fillies and mares that contained a grand total of one 2009 Grade I winner, Life Is Sweet. So if you are to vote for Zenyatta for HOTY, it is strictly on the basis of the Classic. Well, that race contained exactly two horses that had won Grade Is over synthetic this year (Einstein and Richard's Kid), some grass horses, and some dirt horses, which are demonstrably completely out of their element over Pro-Ride (see the last two years of results of main track Breeders' Cup races). Zenyatta beat them at her game, a game she is very good at. She's good on dirt, too, as she proved last year at Oaklawn--but most dirt horses don't handle Pro-Ride, which is basically grass, so she had a big advantage last Saturday.

Meanwhile, earlier this year, while Zenyatta was beating up Anabaas Creation, Lethal Heat, Briecat, Allicansayiswow and Dawn After Dawn, who between them have won two overnight stakes (and no graded ones) this year, this is what Rachel was doing:

• Racing eight times, at seven different tracks, winning them all.

• Beating colts three times in Grade I races, and beating older males AS NOT JUST A FILLY, BUT A THREE-YEAR-OLD.

• Beating the horses that in 2009 won the Kentucky Derby, Belmont, Travers, Jockey Club Gold Cup, Test, Stephen Foster, Whitney, New Orleans Handicap, Riva Ridge, Tom Fool, Acorn, Arkansas Derby, Chilukki and Oaklawn Handicap -- most of those horses males -- and doing it in every case over dirt, the surface where those horses won their stakes.

• And oh yeah, winning this country's premiere race for three-year-old fillies by 20 lengths. Imagine if a colt won the Derby by 20. Imagine anyone winning a GI by 20. They make HBO movies about that kind of thing.

None of this is to be taken as a knock on Zenyatta; she's a great mare. But she just wasn't asked to do very much this year, while Rachel had arguably the greatest campaign any filly has ever had, at the end of which Rachel's connections had the good sense not to run her on (effectively) turf, against a specialist on that surface.

By the way, since it's what I do-- best race vs. best race, on Thoro-Graph figures, Rachel is about six lengths faster than Zenyatta at a mile and an eighth. That's at level weights, and aside from Rachel being two years younger.

Jerry Brown
President, Thoro-Graph Inc

Outstanding letter from JB, it's an open and shut case here. As much as we all respect Zenyatta's performance, Rachel's campaign was one that we may never see in the history of this sport again. HOY by plenty folks.

[anamulla]

Let's do some poetry

..God created Dirt
..God created Grass
..Man created Plastic
..I'm still believe in God..