Hey Zenyatta fans

[Beckron]

Why do I think there are some folks in here that would argue over who was better Easy Goer or Sunday Silence?

[Mauicowgirl]

Bayakoa was runner-up to Quiet American in the 1990 San Diego Handicap while she carried seven more pounds. I don't think Go For Wand ever faced males, although perhaps she might have if her life hadn't been cut short; however, even if she hadn't, what she'd already accomplished made her great. Azeri was mentioned as having ran fifth in the BC Classic in '04, which was a very respectable fifth, considering the strength of that field, none of whom, IMO, and in hindsight, really had much of a chance against the race's eventual winner.

I have mixed feelings about females having to run against males to prove their greatness. In one respect, a win against the boys can be a highlight and a defining moment in her career, and thus affirming her greatness, but not simply because she faced males, but because she faced a strong field. I also think it can be demeaning to suggest that a filly or mare must compete against males to prove she is truly great when males are never asked to compete against even the best females to prove just how good they really are.

In Zenyatta's case, I think it's logical that she face males because she's beaten everything else in her division, so a contest against the boys can only serve to enhance her fame. But I don't necessarily think it's absolutely critical that she face males to prove she's a great racemare, and personally I'd much rather see her face Rachel and/or compete out of state. After all, Zenyatta is an Eclipse Champion, which is the same thing as saying she's a "national champion", representing the entire country and not just California. Having said that, it's still the owner's right to direct his horse in whatever manner he thinks is best for her, so even though there are things I'd like to see Zenyatta do, I respect the owner's rights to their horse, as long as he loves and cares for her, which the Mosses clearly do with Zenyatta. That's what's really important.

I like your way of thinking, I would just love, love, love to see RA and Zenyatta run against each other this year as it would really be a good test for both of them, but I also understand the hesitation of RA's connections to run her over the SA surface. If she doesn't like it and runs poorly then it makes her look bad, so I don't think it will happen.

[Beckron]

If the Breeders' Cup was in New York or Kentucky I don't think there would be any question about Zen shipping to run. No press conference in June, etc.

[Mauicowgirl]

I know, I love horseracing in SoCal, but I too think it's too bad that it's not KY or Belmont this year.

[Risen Star]

Let's peek at some RagHead numbers for each of these nags' last 6 races which were all wins. Vince P will be the judge and jury to decide who's best.

Btw, the dumbest comment I read in here was that Jackson was playing chicken with Rachel or something crazy like that. The dude runs Rachel against the best available boys, so give me a break on that comment. Whoever said that should be banned.

And the next person who says,

"….he (not sure who they were referring to) is doing what's best for the horse" will personally get an awkward visit by me next time I see them. Ulgh, I can't stand hearing that. If they really were "doing what's best for their horse," their horse would be living on a farm in a life of leisure, making whoopee and being a family pet. This is horse racing where horses are trained like slaves and get whipped every day - at least that's what Todd B told me. So, no, you ain't doing what best for your horse by running in easy races. Have a clue.

In any case, here are those silly numbers JB and Nags use to make real life big-time wagers:

And I quote Len Friedman, "Rachel and Zenyatta are two of the fastest fillies I've ever seen."

(Don’t forget, the lower the number, the better)

Rachel:
Washington Stakes: 3
FG Oaks: 6
Fantasy: 5.25
KY Oaks: .25
Preakness: 3.25
Mother Goose: .50

Total Average: 3
Average last 3 races: 1.33

Zenyatta:
Vanity: 5
Hirsch: MINUS .75 (incredible as these are Rags, NOT Thorograph numbers which are generally lower)
Lady's Secret: 2.75
BC Classic - Girls: 2
Milady: 3
Vanity 0

Total Average: 2
Average last 3 races: 1.67

Bottom line is that Rachel has run faster THIS year and if they were to meet soon on real American genuine soil, Rachel would win by a length or so; if they were to meet in the BC Lady's Classic at Santa Anita, Zenyatta might beat her by a head if Rachel don't like no fake dirt.

Vince P

Not to start an argument, but that's what it's all about isn't it? Doing what's best for the horse? Isn't a Thoroughbred born to run in competition? Or is it just to run in a pasture and breed the rest of the time? I guess we each have our idea of what's best for the horse, but athletes, human or equine, relish competition, although I say that realizing that horses have a different intelligence than we do or don't understand certain things that happen to them. I also say this as a layperson and not a horseman, but I say it anyway.

I also don't agree that Jackson is playing "chicken", but your reply that the comment was the "dumbest" is getting into the realm of personal. I think perhaps the poster could have chosen another word, one a bit more tactful, but even so, he was giving an opinion and used that slang to express his point.

[Vince P]

Not to start an argument, but that's what it's all about isn't it? Doing what's best for the horse? Isn't a Thoroughbred born to run in competition? Or is it just to run in a pasture and breed the rest of the time? I guess we each have our idea of what's best for the horse, but athletes, human or equine, relish competition, although I say that realizing that horses have a different intelligence than we do or don't understand certain things that happen to them. I also say this as a layperson and not a horseman, but I say it anyway.

I also don't agree that Jackson is playing "chicken", but your reply that the comment was the "dumbest" is getting into the realm of personal. I think perhaps the poster could have chosen another word, one a bit more tactful, but even so, he was giving an opinion and used that slang to express his point.

Risen,

I guess it's the comment that really bugs me when a trainer avoids another horse, and then says, "I'm doing what's best for my horse," when in reality they mean they're avoiding a difficult race where their horse might lose. I'd much rather the trainer be 117% honest and say something like, "I'd rather not travel 2,700 miles to face that monster."

Basically quit the BS. Horserace fans, in general, aren't that gullible.

But you make a good point about thoroughbreds "being born to run in competition." I'm not a PETA person, but I can't help but think that there's tons more stress put on a thoroughbred to race than would be for a non-racehorse. God, I'm starting to sound like Todd more and more!

As far as my "dumbest" comment, I beg of you, please don't take things I say seriously or figuratively. For the record, I take back "dumbest" and will substitute "silliest" to whoever insinuated Jackson was a chicken.

Vince P

[Sonyaluvslavaman]

What's best for the horse.... If they are racing, they are racing. It doesn't matter where. What's wrong with proving
how great they really are against tougher competition.

[Vince P]

What's best for the horse.... If they are racing, they are racing. It doesn't matter where. What's wrong with proving
how great they really are against tougher competition.

Exactly.

If every trainer thought running against the least possible competition was "best for their horse," then we'd see a whole lot of races with *2/5 shots in them and horse racing wouldn't be as fun as it is.

Vince P