Derby Winner vs. Oaks Winner
 

As far as I can tell, it's happened four times.

1980, Oaks winner Bold N Determined beat Derby winner Genuine Risk in the Maskette by a nose.

1988, Derby winner Winning Colors beat Oaks winner Goodby Halo by 1/2 length in the BC Distaff (both behind Personal Ensign). Goodbye Halo and Winning Colors had traded victories prior to them winning the Derby and Oaks.

1999, Derby winner Charismatic beat Oaks winner Silverbulletday in the Belmont although neither won the race.

2009, Oaks winner Rachel Alexandra beat Derby winner Mine that Bird by a length in the Preakness.

Even though it wasn't Derby vs. Oaks, I'd throw in Oaks winner Rags to Riches beating Preakness winner Curlin by a nose in the 2007 Belmont. That's a very good record right there. Am I missing any other times when it's happened?

I think we dismissed a couple of precarious myths today, Rachel Alexandra is not normally 20 lengths better than her opposition and Mine That Bird is not a fluke horse that happened to win the derby, and the funny thing is neither actuality surprised me at all.

She's 20 lengths better than the other fillies. Nobody said she was 20 lengths better than every other horse.

Perhaps it wasn't said, but it sure sounded like it might have been inferred. You would have thought she would have won the Preakness by more than a length. Looks she's a very good filly and she may go down as one of the greats, I just wouldn't classify her great yet. It's premature for that if anyone should ask me.

I don't think it was anywhere close to inferred that she was 20 lengths better than the boys. Maybe a couple of lengths at best was what even her biggest fans were saying.

To be fair, if that's her version of struggling over the track (according to Calvin) then good grief. I mean other horses have a bad day, they finish up the track. She just doesn't win by as much.

She's 20 lengths better than the recent maiden winners that tried her in the Oaks.

I would. And I don't say that unless I'm absolutely sure.

What more does she have to do? Do you understand how infrequently what she just did happens? It takes a very special filly to win a Triple Crown race and in my opinion (while I hate the semantics of good, great, superstar, etc) it's an automatic qualifier to being a "great" horse.

NT

Translation. "Dont hate".

So, of the fillies who have won a Triple Crown race, who was the best?

I was ofcourse was saying it tongue in cheek, there's only one horse 20 lengths well 31 lenghts better than the boys and he is no longer with us. I think we can assume this without using semantics she was 8-5 today and the second choice was 6-1 that we had an overwhelming favorite in a field.

I guess that depends on what each and everyone's meaning of the word 'great' is Phil. That's fair I can respect your opinion, I need to see more before declaring her great though.

Eight Belles ran second in the derby last year, Zarkava won the Arc. I know what you are saying when a filly beats the boys it is a superlative performance. I have to be honest though, it was a very good performance just not a great one. Frankly I was more impressed by her Oaks performance.

I don't think it takes as special a filly as people think. I think that with more opportunities, it could have happened more. It's happened twice in the last six races. Do you think Rags to Riches was great too? I'm hoping that with this result, with Eight Belles, and with Rags, the American attitude will start to change and we'll see it happen more times and with more chances will come more success.

It may just be Rachel.

I don't think people realize what an incredible race she ran today. That track was DEEP, she set extremely fast fractions while 3 wide and still opened up enough to hold on. She wasn't even looking all that comfortable out there when she went by us, unlike at CD where she was absolutely on cruise control.

Winning Colors and Geniune Risk beat better horses, however.

I can remember maybe two horses from that crop(not that my memory or lack therof matters) but I thought that crop was relatively weak and contributed to the decision to run her.Colonel Moran and Rockhill Native maybe? I can't recall another.

plugged nickel was an incredibly bred horse.


regardless of what else rachel does, there isn't a filly out there currently, or in the past, that has accomplished what risk did in her tc run. alydar will live on in our minds forever, and even he didn't accomplish what the firestone filly did. first in the derby, second in the preakness (a race comparable to the 'fighting finish') and belmont. no filly has ever come close to that. will one do that? that remains to be seen. rachel has gotten a lot of buzz-i'm enjoying the hell out of her. but like i said the other day, let's not get ahead of ourselves.....


as for why she ran, risk ran a credible third in the wood memorial, which lead to her owners (but not her trainer initially) to think she could handle the opposite sex in the derby...

I take nothing away from what she did but was responding to a statement declaring that she beat better horses. I'm not sure that can be determined this early in this year's crop but adding Plugged Nickel to the list of '80 grads certainly completes the top of the list for that group.

Well defined and correct .