Roger Stein on Beyer on Zenyatta

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

She's at a disadvantage because she is sometimes forced to make up 2-3 lengths in the final 1/8th of a mile against a horse that can sprint home the final 1/8th. It's tough to make up 2-3 lengths on a horse that is sprinting home in :11 2/5.

Therein lies the problem. She can make up that type of ground with those types of final furlongs on synthetics. She'd have no prayer of doing that on dirt.

The pace advantages that she spotted horses in the Clement Hirsch the last two years and the Lady's Secret in 2009 would be the end of her on dirt. It would be next to impossible to do that on dirt.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It depends who she would have been running against. If she would have been running in 12 horse fields against grade I males, of course she would have got beaten plenty of times.

But against the horses she faced in California, I think she would have won by far bigger margins had the races been on dirt.

I think she would have had a hard time running down Hystericalady in the 2008 Lady's Secret the way the pace of that race unfolded.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Therein lies the problem. She can make up that type of ground with those types of final furlongs on synthetics. She'd have no prayer of doing that on dirt.

The pace advantages that she spotted horses in the Clement Hirsch the last two years and the Lady's Secret in 2009 would be the end of her on dirt. It would be next to impossible to do that on dirt.

I totally disagree. Those fillies that she faced in those races would not be able to sprint home on the dirt. They could be going 1:15 and she could still spot those mediocre mares a 3-4 length lead at the quarter pole and run them down on the dirt. It would be much tougher to do that on a synthetic track.

Watch her 2008 race at Oaklawn. She made up over 10 lengths in the stretch (she was 6 lengths back at the quarter pole and ended up winning by 4 1/2 lengths). She could have never done that on a synthetic track.

As I've said in the past, I think they totally messed up her figure in that race because the clock malfunctioned in the Oaklawn Handicap (which was run an hour later) and the offocail time in the Oaklawn Handicap ended up being listed as 1:48 3/5. If you go to racereplays.com, they have the final time of the Oaklawn Handicap as 1:50.34. You can try clocking it yourself and that's what you will come up with. Zenyatta ran 1:42 3/5 an hour earlier. If you clock that race, you will see the time is correct. If Beyer knew that the actual time of the other race was 1:50.34, I wonder what number he gives to Zenyatta. I think it would have been more like a 112 or so.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I think she would have had a hard time running down Hystericalady in the 2008 Lady's Secret the way the pace of that race unfolded.

It's hard to say. She won that race very easily. She won by 3 1/2 lengths. On the other hand, Hystericalady moves way up on the dirt so it's hard to say. Zenyatta is obviously going to be more vulnerable to a horse like that at 1 1/16th than at 1 1/8 miles or 1 1/4 miles.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I totally disagree. Those fillies that she faced in those races would not be able to sprint home on the dirt. They could be going 1:15 and she could still spot those mediocre mares a 3-4 length lead at the quarter pole and run them down. It would be much tougher to do that on a synthetic track.

Watch her first race at Oaklawn. She made up over 10 lengths in the stretch (she was 6 lengths back at the quarter pole and ended up winning by 4 1/2 lengths). She could have never done that on a synthetic track.

You're making a comparison using horses with little to no or horrible dirt form. Would Zenyatta dispose of Rinterval on dirt? Of course she would because Rinterval likely wouldn't take to dirt. She's never tried it.

Like Dahoss said, throw Zenyatta into a dirt race against a dirt horse like Hystericalady, or Life at Ten in this year's Del Cap where she walked on the lead, and it's going to be dicey in the last quarter.

The song about Zenyatta being better on dirt has been sung. Unfortunately her connections disagreed or else they might have tried her more on it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

You're making a comparison using horses with little to no or horrible dirt form. Would Zenyatta dispose of Rinterval on dirt? Of course she would because Rinterval likely wouldn't take to dirt. She's never tried it.

Like Dahoss said, throw Zenyatta into a dirt race against a dirt horse like Hystericalady, or Life at Ten in this year's Del Cap where she walked on the lead, and it's going to be dicey in the last quarter.

The song about Zenyatta being better on dirt has been sung. Unfortunately her connections disagreed or else they might have tried her more on it.

Zenyatta barely beat Dance to My Tune (1 1/2 lengths) on a :47 3/5 pace. Zenyatta barely beat St. Trinians on a :47 2/5 pace. The paces in those races were decent yet she still didn't win by much. If she can barely beat those horses and she is better on synthetics as you guys say, she wouldn't be able to get within 10 lengths of Blame.

[Danzig]

you'd have to think the whole game out west changed with the surface; that there'd have been a lot more competition and larger fields had they not gone to syns. some left and it kept others from shipping to race on the stuff.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Therein lies the problem. She can make up that type of ground with those types of final furlongs on synthetics. She'd have no prayer of doing that on dirt.

The pace advantages that she spotted horses in the Clement Hirsch the last two years and the Lady's Secret in 2009 would be the end of her on dirt. It would be next to impossible to do that on dirt.

Because you say so? I disagree. To go 19-19 in mostly G1 competition would be called impossible.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

mostly G1 competition

I love how the current argument centers around whether or not Zenyatta is better on dirt than synthetics. The central piece of evidence in favor of dirt, and agreed upon by both arguing sides, is that the horses she was beating in CA were an utter joke.

And yet you throw this silly monkey wrench into the works? That ill-informed notion was beaten to death months ago (see the Zenyatta v. Goldikova thread if you need a refresher).

Did you even follow along before you posted, or did you simply want an excuse to inject your patented "Because you say so?" line in there?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

You're making a comparison using horses with little to no or horrible dirt form. Would Zenyatta dispose of Rinterval on dirt? Of course she would because Rinterval likely wouldn't take to dirt. She's never tried it.

Like Dahoss said, throw Zenyatta into a dirt race against a dirt horse like Hystericalady, or Life at Ten in this year's Del Cap where she walked on the lead, and it's going to be dicey in the last quarter.

The song about Zenyatta being better on dirt has been sung. Unfortunately her connections disagreed or else they might have tried her more on it.

Blame went the half in about :48 4/5 and Zenyatta was spotting him about 5 lengths at that point. If she can lay 5 lengths behind him in :48 4/5 and only lose by a head, I think she would be able to run down Life at Ten, even if Life at Ten slowed down the pace.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Blame went the half in about :48 4/5 and Zenyatta was spotting him about 5 lengths at that point. If she can lay 5 lengths behind him in :48 4/5 and only lose by a head, I think she would be able to run down Life at Ten, even if Life at Ten slowed down the pace.

I love the language....she was " spotting " him five lengths....as though she gave him a head start.

Too funny.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Blame went the half in about :48 4/5 and Zenyatta was spotting him about 5 lengths at that point. If she can lay 5 lengths behind him in :48 4/5 and only lose by a head, I think she would be able to run down Life at Ten, even if Life at Ten slowed down the pace.

So had she run in a dirt race similar to the JC Gold Cup what do you think her chances of running down Haynesfield that day were?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I love the language....she was " spotting " him five lengths....as though she gave him a head start.

Too funny.

She did give him a huge head start. If they ran that race again, there is no way in hell that she would be 10 lengths behind him after 3 furlongs. He went :37. If you think that is her normal race to be 10 lengths behind a horse running 3 furlongs in :37 then I don't know what to say.

We'll never know for sure why she was so far back. It could have been the dirt in her face. Or as Cannon hypothesized, it could have been because Mike Smith did not warm her up in the post parade (in the 40 degree weather) and it took her the first 3 furlongs to get warmed up.

If they run that race again and everything went the same way in front of her, she's probably 3-5 lengths behind Blame after the 3 furlongs instead of 10 lengths behind him. That would have put her 13-15 lengths off the after 3 furlongs instead of 20 lengths off the lead.

I'm hardly the only one that thinks this. If you ask any trainer on the west coast, they will tell you the same thing. It doesn't mean for sure that we are right but it's the viewpoint of every person I know (not counting this board).

[Indian Charlie]

Or it could be just as DrugS predicted would happen, and why.

She's never been in a quick paced race before, and almost by default, she was going to be further back than ever before.

Either that, or God willed it. Too bad Pat Day wasn't on Z. I think God would have been on Team Zenyatta that day if he had.

I wonder if I'm the first person to ever use Zenyatta and god together in the same sentence.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So had she run in a dirt race similar to the JC Gold Cup what do you think her chances of running down Haynesfield that day were?

I don't know. That's hard to say. He ran huge that day. He could have run faster too. He was geared down. I don't know if she could have caught him. I'd have to analyze that race in much more detail. I don't know if there was any type of speed bias that day at Belmont. I honestly don't have a clue if she could have beaten him that day.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I love the language....she was " spotting " him five lengths....as though she gave him a head start.

Too funny.

I also like "that's hard to say". Which means yeah, she probably would have gotten beat.

She got beat fair and square Rupert...get over it already.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Or it could be just as DrugS predicted would happen, and why.

She's never been in a quick paced race before, and almost by default, she was going to be further back than ever before.

Either that, or God willed it. Too bad Pat Day wasn't on Z. I think God would have been on Team Zenyatta that day if he had.

I wonder if I'm the first person to ever use Zenyatta and god together in the same sentence.

That is simply untrue. She's been in plenty of races over the course of her career where the paces were similar or even faster and she was nowhere near that far back. When she broke her maiden, they went the half in :44 4/5 and she was only 8 back. In her next race, they went :46 1/5 and she was only 4 back. Granted her style has changed in that she now comes from much further back but I highly doubt that she can't comfortably be closer than 20 lengths back when they run 3 furlongs in :35. There have been plenty of races over the last year when they went :47 and change and she wasn't anywhere near 20 lengths back after 3 furlongs in any of those races.

The only race that was anything close to this was last year's BC Classic. I can't figure out what was going on with her in the early going in that race. She wasn't herself at all. She wouldn't switch leads which is unusual for her. Mike Smith tried two or three times to get her to switch before she finally did it.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is simply untrue. She's been in plenty of races over the course of her career where the paces were similar or even faster and she was nowhere near that far back. When she broke her maiden, they went the half in :44 4/5 and she was only 8 back. In her next race, they went :46 1/5 and she was only 4 back. Granted her style has changed in that she now comes from much further back but I highly doubt that she can't comfortably be closer than 20 lengths back when they run 3 furlongs in :35. There have been plenty of races over the last year when they went :47 and change and she wasn't anywhere near 20 lengths back after 3 furlongs in any of those races.

The only race that was anything close to this was last year's BC Classic. I can't figure out what was going on with her in the early going in that race. She wasn't herself at all. She wouldn't switch leads which is unusual for her. Mike Smith tried two or three times to get her to switch before she finally did it.

How about the 2008 Vanity?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I also like "that's hard to say". Which means yeah, she probably would have gotten beat.

She got beat fair and square Rupert...get over it already.

Even if you don't buy any of my arguments, I still don't see how anyone could say that the slight check turning for home didn't cost her the race. She only lost by a head. I think that slight check cost her more than a head. Blame got an absloutley perfect trip. Zenyatta did not get a perfect. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I would expect Zenyatta to get a perfect trip. When you're a dead-last come-from-behinder in a 12 horse field, you're usually not going to get a perfect trip. But hypothetically if both horses got a perfect trip, I think Zenyatta would have won.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is simply untrue. She's been in plenty of races over the course of her career where the paces were similar or even faster and she was nowhere near that far back. When she broke her maiden, they went the half in :44 4/5 and she was only 8 back. In her next race, they went :46 1/5 and she was only 4 back. Granted her style has changed in that she now comes from much further back but I highly doubt that she can't comfortably be closer than 20 lengths back when they run 3 furlongs in :35. There have been plenty of races over the last year when they went :47 and change and she wasn't anywhere near 20 lengths back after 3 furlongs in any of those races.

The only race that was anything close to this was last year's BC Classic. I can't figure out what was going on with her in the early going in that race. She wasn't herself at all. She wouldn't switch leads which is unusual for her. Mike Smith tried two or three times to get her to switch before she finally did it.

Are you really comparing her 10f dirt race to her debut race and her second start?