Russian judges have been called.

i'm pretty sure it was eng that wrote he expects another mare to win the bcc before another filly wins the preakness, haskell and woodward. i'm thinking that's true.

it's funny....when zenyatta is the greatest folks start posting, and get some negative feedback, they bring up who rachel beat. but no one is saying rachel is an all-time great, are they? not that i know of. so, if you can't even settle if zenyatta is better than rachel, how can anyone say where she fits historically?

i think it's safe to say, in a ballpark figure way, that 1980 divides the end of the golden age of racing from the modern day. any top ten list of all time best thoroughbreds would include spectacular bid. any horse since then? most likely not.
you have the triumvirate of man o war, secretariat and citation. that leaves seven. after that, others get put in the mix for a variety of reasons, but you really have to be special to be in the top tier, maybe even top 20. could someone put zenyatta there? no, i don't think so.

so, now greatness gets watered down when you start adding more and more to the list...suddenly, great isn't quite so great.
so, let's say you limit it to past 1980...where does she fit? another round of arguing would begin. but, much of the current crowd arguing the point doesn't have much history to go by, which is why they get grief when they suggest a mare with one lifetime open win to her credit is an all-time great. are we talking all-time, all-time...or just recent memory all-time great?
zenyatta winning the bc was special, because she was the first distaffer to manage it. she's special because she's undefeated. but all-time, ahead of ruffian great? dr. fager, damascus, round table great? john henry? i don't think so.

that's their right. but to then cry foul when their tactics bite them in the butt is a bit much. you can't proclaim a horse is good, and have everyone agree. that's what races are for. even if they wished to stay home, they could have found more challenges, couldn't they? most likely, yes.

I'm a Californian.

I have my ten year chip.

I've also been a Floridian, a Chicagoan, and an Ohioan.

Thankfully all those places have thoroughbred horse racing.



And more thankfully, I have been a South Carolinian for 20 years along the way.

I think I know a bit about horse race gambling. I have my "California soft side," but my Southern legacy is to own and shoot guns.

I am a fan of Zenyatta.

And I hate stereotyping. Except that I think most Northeasterners are pseudo "open minded," and quick to reach conclusions with minimal observation, research and analysis.

Anyone here who thought Zenyatta was in a walkover last Saturday could have put her in an exacta over the obvious 2nd best horse in the race and doubled their investment.

Anyone do it?

Redboarding allowed here...

I just think it's telling that her last three wins have all been her third straight wins in those specific races. In her 17 lifetime stakes wins, she's appeared in exactly nine different races. The only races she hasn't won twice are the two Breeders Cup races, the El Encino, and the Santa Margarita. That's just so...boring.

In all fairness to the Zenyattards out there, people last year were saying RA is among the greats of all time.

Which was equally as stupid as saying Z is.

you act like you've never heard of the Rocky Mountains.

I think the cutoff is a bit later than that, about 1990. I think horses like Easy Goer, Lady's Secret, Sunday Silence, John Henry all fit in very well with horses from the 50, 60, 70's.

Its not fair to really compare the two era's IMO because the game has changed.

So what do you do then, say there are no great horses? Can a single horse though be good enough to be placed in that group? I think so, but as a whole its not going to be very many.

We see the same thing in many sports. Now with 85 scholarship limits I guarentee you the best college football teams cant compete with the best of the 1980's.

With the salary caps you can say the same for the NFL and NBA. The Celtics, Lakers, Pistons of the 80's were better than any recent winners.

So what do you do? Its probably best to confine it to your contemporaries. Zenyatta fits in at the top of any list the past 10-15 years IMO.

To my original point though, going 19-0, or God forbid the meltdown that will come if she goes 20-0, is going to stand longer than winning the Preakness, a race that has definitely become watered down.

rachel was the first filly to win the preakness in decades....zenyatta is the first to win 19 straight since PP. who passed cigar among others. that's fairly recent. at any rate, both did special things last year...and neither is an all time great

I wish there were more all-time non-greats like Zenyatta.

I wish there were less annoying people in the world.

You could buy yourself a flight into outer space for about $20 million. That would be one less.

If I had the 20 mil, I'd buy DT from Byk and ban you.

Good to see D. Wayne and Shug contemplating the magnitude and historical significance of Saturday's BIG race.


Jus SICK that we're actually talking about a 6-YEAR-OLD FEMALE with a shot at bagging back-to-back BCCs.

YOU could live a hundred more years and probably never see this scenario again…

christ said what i was thinking in his last blog..if she wins it she should be horse of the year...if..if

Thank God.

If she wins, you can bet the new refrain by her critics will be, yeah but could she beat Secretariat, not that this matters. I don't hear this for other Classic winners. I'm certain no matter what she does this Saturday there will be even more discussion where her place in history will be. For me I am just looking forward to her race, win or lose.

No one will say that...but I also don't remember other Classic winners being thought of as the best ever. Is Tiznow considered an all time great? he won the Classic back to back, where was his segment on 60 Minutes?

Did you make your Go Zenyatta sign yet?