Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaining Ground
i dont know if you missed it or not but i asked a question in another thread and am curious about your thoughts. zenyatta is clearly the best synthetic runner we have seen. she might be the best synthetic runner we will ever see. until we are able to see more what is wrong with calling her the best synthetic runner of all time, but not one of the best of all time?
if american racing has historically been dirt and turf, why are some so quick to annoint greatness to a horse who has made 2 starts on one of the surfaces we determine greatness on? i know people want to say synthetics are here and i agree, they are.
tennis seems like a good analogy here. rafael nadal is the best clay court player, maybe ever. but, hes also beat the best on grass and hard court. so far zenyatta has beaten the equine quivalent of james blake on dirt and people want to compare her to rod laver.
|
I wouldn't object to people calling her the greatest horse of the synthetics era, this discussion has many layers, supposing she ran only on dirt and won those 17 races in a row, many would still question what she has beaten? I believe if she were able to capture the BCC this fall, one would have to be forced to look at her as one of the greatest in the game. I'm not sure what the naysayer would say then, but seeing how many do not want to put her in that select group, I'm sure something trivial will be produced, even if she answers the only question left in her career, beating males on dirt in the toughest dirt race in the world.