Crist: The great distaffers..

[slotdirt]

Why, because they're running a mile and not some artificially arbitrary distance that measures superiority?

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

IMO Zenyatta is not a horse you can measure with speed figs or final times as in other horses, who knows maybe all that are in her corner are totally wrong about her, we've been hoodwinked by the campaign and Sheriff's great placement of 17 times in her career

thats how the greats are measured as you say why is zen not measured the same way..

your basic problem that i can see is that most all people like the horse..'i also think she is fantasic and a joy to see race' just
not to the extent that she is in the same time zone with the 'great' horses
of the past..the ones that get measured by who they ran vs and where and with speed figs and final times..get past all that and zen is no 1

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by CSC

I thought I read somewhere he was slowly converted from pitcher to outfield and may have played both at one time, regardless this is an interesting point, was Roger Clemons a better pitcher Pre-HGH or Post-HGH?

Assuming that he didnt start taking hgh before he was a Yankee, no doubt his best years were pre HGH.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by CSC

He was, but he was even more awesome after he bulked up. Plus I doubt he could pitch as long as he did without the help...

The longevity of his career seems to be the smoking gun. But he was a far better pitcher in earlier in his career when he was throwing 250+ dominant innings. The period of 1986-1992 was one of the greatest stretches any pitchers has ever had. His Vaunted Yankee years produced era's of 4.60, 3.70, 3.51, 4.35, and 3.91. Of course this was during a period of high offensive production but pales in comparison to his early Red Sox days. His 3 years in Houston were actually much better albeit against the weaker league.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by CSC

I agree, cheaters playing cheaters. That is why I say the game has evolved, shortstops rarely ever hit for power prior to Robin Yount doing it when he went on the weight thing. Ruth, Maris, Aaron were great when they played in their era but had they played without the "help" in this steriods era, I have a hard time buying that they would have been equally as good in today's game.

So Aaron, Ruth, maris (doesnt really belong in this conversation) wouldnt have taken steroids if they played during this era? What about the fact that the pitchers they faced were far greater playing in a 16 team major league with 4 man rotations as opposed to now when basically every number 4 and 5 starter wouldnt even be good enough to play back then? The great thing about baseball is how little it has really changed over the years. Look at a basketball game or football game from the 60's and watch as baseball game from the same era. The baseball game is pretty close to what we see today on the field while the other sports are drastically different.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

Wow … all these posts and not one mention of the most remarkable thing on Crist's list

Not only was she a champion tennis player … but Chris Evert was fast enough to earn over $600k racing against thoroughbreds.

Amazing stuff

If she were racing now her legion of fans would be proclaiming her better than Secretariat because she beat Miss Muskett by 50 lengths and Secretariat "only" won the Belmont by 31.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by HomerS

Actually in 1918 he played quite a bit of outfield in addition to starting games.

Would have been HOF pitcher.

true he appeared 70 times in non pitching games

It was rumored that in 1919 he intentionally pitched poorly on occasion because he wanted to be a full time position player while the Red Sox thought he was more valuable as a pitcher.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by HomerS

I used to laugh when people compared Bonds to Ruth.

Ruth was HOF material as a pitcher and was outhomering teams.

and in the "dead ball" era. If Ruth was playing today he'd be as good as he was back then (or better since parks are smaller)

[slotdirt]

The best part about guys like Ruth, Foxx, and in later years, Mantle, is that they went out all night, woke up the next day, and still managed to be some of the best baseball players of their eras.

Nobody beats Bobby Layne in so far as professional carousers go.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Sky Beauty is a good example that not all horses are made for shipping. From what I understand, and granted maybe I got some bad info, she just fell apart when she had to get on a plane or traveled and great distance.

I have no idea if Sky Beauty could have beat Hollywood Wildcat or One Dreamer if the race was in NY but going into the gate anyone around that horse knew she had little chance after the ship.

Jerkens didnt want to run her in either BC. Both years she was tailing off (especially in her 4 year old year) and wasnt doing that well but Mrs. Hoffman and her team of advisors wouldn't hear any of it. Smith said that she didnt handle the CD track and that was why she wasn't closer to the pace as usual. But jockeys pretty much always say that after a bad race so who knows. In the SA race she never ran a step and considering she came into the race off of a 7 week layoff he was telling you something.

She had some physical issues and if you notice that after each campaign she didnt run again for 6 months which is out of character for a Jerkens horse.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Jerkens didnt want to run her in either BC. Both years she was tailing off (especially in her 4 year old year) and wasnt doing that well but Mrs. Hoffman and her team of advisors wouldn't hear any of it. Smith said that she didnt handle the CD track and that was why she wasn't closer to the pace as usual. But jockeys pretty much always say that after a bad race so who knows. In the SA race she never ran a step and considering she came into the race off of a 7 week layoff he was telling you something.

She had some physical issues and if you notice that after each campaign she didnt run again for 6 months which is out of character for a Jerkens horse.

but isnt that normal??

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by HomerS

I used to laugh when people compared Bonds to Ruth.

Ruth was HOF material as a pitcher and was outhomering teams.

Babe Ruth is so far the greatest player in his sport that it is laughable. His numbers dwarf his competition.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

and in the "dead ball" era. If Ruth was playing today he'd be as good as he was back then (or better since parks are smaller)

He didnt really play in the deadball era for the most part. But he pretty much ended it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead-ball_era

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

but isnt that normal??

Not for old school trainers. 7 weeks was an eternity.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Jerkens didnt want to run her in either BC. Both years she was tailing off (especially in her 4 year old year) and wasnt doing that well but Mrs. Hoffman and her team of advisors wouldn't hear any of it. Smith said that she didnt handle the CD track and that was why she wasn't closer to the pace as usual. But jockeys pretty much always say that after a bad race so who knows. In the SA race she never ran a step and considering she came into the race off of a 7 week layoff he was telling you something.

She had some physical issues and if you notice that after each campaign she didnt run again for 6 months which is out of character for a Jerkens horse.

I dont listen to that Smith guy, theres better info than what some jockey has to say.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Babe Ruth is so far the greatest player in his sport that it is laughable. His numbers dwarf his competition.

Have you ever looked at him before? He's fat and doesn't appear to have any black in him.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by HomerS

I guess the point I am trying to bring out here in Sky Beauty discussion is people who like Sky Beauty will come up with reasons and excuses to justify a preconceived opinion, not to form an opinion. Which is human nature. Just like people who for whatever reason dont like Zenyetta will always be able to come up with something, some angle to diminish.

Not saying that we can't be unbiased and treat each horse on its own, but just seen this too many times. If someone likes something or somebody they will give every benefit of the doubt to their preconceived opinion, making it almost impossible to pierce it. If anything people have a stronger tendency to dig their heels in more. To up the ante. The more Zenyetta wins the higher the ante will be. With more reasons why she isn't what she appears to be. Should she lose then all prior criticism automatically becomes "fact" now that she has lost.

Of course this is true. But my issue with Zenyatta is that if she had lost by a nose last year at Delmar we wouldn't be having this discussion. Winning the Classic was a great feat yet when you consider the quality of the field you can't maintain that she should be declared the equal(or greater) of all prior BC Classic winners. The streak is great yet when taken into the context of the surface issue and race selection it isn't exactly the equal of Cigar's winning streak (I'd say Citation as well but I can't say that I am familiar enough with the period to really comment on it accurately). These aren't criticisms of the horse. They are a sober critique of her qualifications.

I said last year that Jackson's "sportingness" was being overrated because of the fact that RA was an overwhelming fav in every spot that she ran in. That isn't saying that it wasn't a great accomplishment to run in and win the Preakness, Haskell and Woodward. It was. But I severely doubt that had the competition been merely average for those races that he would have been nearly as "sporting". He was taking advantage of the situation that was presented to him and that is fine. But it doesn't make her the greatest horse to ever look through a bridle. It made her a great horse with a willing owner that took advantage of some weak fields in races that are traditionally strong. Her races this year are proof that the modern way of campaigning horses makes it nearly impossible for the horses of today to ever compare to the horses of years past. The abbreviated, "managed" campaigns simply dont allow us to get a true measure of a horse.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Have you ever looked at him before? He's fat and doesn't appear to have any black in him.

He looks blacker than our current president

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by HomerS

I wouldnt Zenyetta with the all time classic horses (and I woudlnt put Cigar in either but thats another discussion ha ha) but within her own sex for sure. Not even saying superior to those but in the discussion. One of the reasons I think Rachel did deserve HOY since it was so close, is because she won grade ones on several different tracks under differing conditions. What made is so close was winning the Classic, weak field or not. That was a historic win from the mare angle.

I too thought RA deserved the HoY because the sum of her accomplishments were greater than Zenyatta's which were almost all tied into one race. The closeness of the vote was probably due to the fact that many of the voters are witless and the fact that Zenyatta's race was much more recent when they cast their votes. If you unemotionally look at the pp's for the 2 horses last year it is hard to make a case that Zenyatta had a better year or accomplished more than RA did.

[Gaining Ground]

Originally Posted by HomerS

Maybe I am missing the obvious here. Is the argument that Zenyetta cant be considered one of the all time great mares strictly because she has run the majority of her races on synthetics? Is that really it? And that overrules all else?

no that really isnt it. it is part of the discussion i think though. im not sure how you can ignore it.