[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by CSC

The thing is regardless of how much we want to make of this 3 yr old filly vs older males, this isn't an overwhelming bunch of horses. Unless she wins in spectacular fashion I don't see the huge significance, it's not like Goldikova winning the Arc when she beat the best field of European horses over there, she would be beating a group of horses that are no better than tier 2 horses over here. I understand the historical significance but I really don't understand the glam factor the public is making of this. So she beats Macho or Pass The Point. Nice but awe inspiring no.

On this, we agree. Some people want to play both sides of the fence, on one hand talking about how bad this group of older horses is but then on the other side giving her extra credit for taking them on. I know I'm a broken recordon this but what should be looked at is the level of competition and not the age or sex. Facing the boys or facing older doesn't automatically mean it's a harder assignment. Say the Breeders' Cup was being run on dirt at Churchill this year. As much as we've been clamoring for Zenyatta to face males and run in the Classic, if Jackson were to put Rachel in the Distaff, wouldn't that be the bigger challenge for Zenyatta to take on and not the males in the Classic?

While this is the toughest field and deepest one she's faced, let's not go overboard and call it a tough challenge. Sure, any horse can lose any race but going in, she's by far the best horse and any loss would be considered a huge upset. Since when is it considered such a huge obstacle to overcome a field in which you are 1-2 on the morning line?