This talk about RA being better than...

Indian Charlie · #1 05-18-2009, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Hey it's relevant because it doesn't mean jack and s.hit other than what if and woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Taking that approach towards anything having to do with racing would make any and all talk pointless. And yeah, I know there is no way to accurately compare horses that ran in different years but that's the a big part of why people post on boards like these. It's fun.

Kasept · #2 05-18-2009, 06:07 PM

I/C,

To this point in their careers, Rachel Alexandra is very comparable to Go for Wand.

philcski · #3 05-18-2009, 06:11 PM

One of the problems with truly determining how good R2R and RA truly are is the competition just not being very good. In the case of R2R, Pletcher had ALL the top 3yo fillies that year, and hated to run them against each other... and Rachel just makes her weak competition look silly.

blackthroatedwind · #4 05-18-2009, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardus

I caught a few minutes of Sportscenter on Sunday morning.

After showing highlights and interviews of the Preakness, ESPN posts a full-screen graphic "comparing" Ruffian and Rachel Alexandra's records after their first eight wins (or 10 starts, I don't recall).

All I could think was "STOP!"

As long as they pointed out that she couldn't warm up Ruffian it's fine.

Why do I doubt they did that?

Danzig · #5 05-18-2009, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

As long as they pointed out that she couldn't warm up Ruffian it's fine.

Why do I doubt they did that?

because it's espn. because most people were thinking 'ruff---who?'

ruffian vs rachel...no contest. NONE.

Danzig · #6 05-18-2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardus

Maybe ESPN did; I might have missed it. I had already hit the "MOOT" button.

lol

Indian Charlie · #7 05-18-2009, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasept

I/C,

To this point in their careers, Rachel Alexandra is very comparable to Go for Wand.

At the risk of breaking Danzig's all time consecutive post record within a single thread, I'll say this.

How are they comparable?

GFW as a two year old went 3 for 4 with one second, romping in her debut, winning by 19 in her 2nd start, running 2nd in her stakes debut and then was a romping winner in the BC. An easy win for 2yo filly champ. RA started six times with a 3-2-0 record for about 200k. Not quite equals in my book.

At three, GFW started the year with two romps before getting shocked in the Ky Oaks by the underrated Seaside Attraction. She ran in every top race and faced far superior horses compared to what RA ran against. RA cherry picked her spots, running at OP twice and FG once before the Oaks. Her opposition was horrific.

To compare opposition at three, up to this point:

GFW: Trumpets Blare, Seaside Attraction (they split), Charon and Bright Candles.

RA: Afleet Deceit (2), Peach Brew, Flying Spur (2), Our Dahlia, Just Jenda, and Stone Legacy. And, of course, the Preakness.

Danzig · #8 05-18-2009, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

At the risk of breaking Danzig's all time consecutive post record within a single thread, I'll say this.

How are they comparable?

GFW as a two year old went 3 for 4 with one second, romping in her debut, winning by 19 in her 2nd start, running 2nd in her stakes debut and then was a romping winner in the BC. An easy win for 2yo filly champ. RA started six times with a 3-2-0 record for about 200k. Not quite equals in my book.

At three, GFW started the year with two romps before getting shocked in the Ky Oaks by the underrated Seaside Attraction. She ran in every top race and faced far superior horses compared to what RA ran against. RA cherry picked her spots, running at OP twice and FG once before the Oaks. Her opposition was horrific.

To compare opposition at three, up to this point:

GFW: Trumpets Blare, Seaside Attraction (they split), Charon and Bright Candles.

RA: Afleet Deceit (2), Peach Brew, Flying Spur (2), Our Dahlia, Just Jenda, and Stone Legacy. And, of course, the Preakness.

that's non morty consecutive post record there, fella!

but you say 'and, of course, the preakness' as tho that's almost an afterthought. does that race get her up more in line with the competition go for wand had faced? it might not have been the best field ever, but i thought compared to several recent preakness fields, it was better than most. but then...that may not be saying a lot.
btw, i'm not yet ready to put her right up there with wanda either.

Indian Charlie · #9 05-18-2009, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

that's non morty consecutive post record there, fella!

LOL, yeah. I don't count Morty.

At all.

Danzig · #10 05-18-2009, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

LOL, yeah. I don't count Morty.

At all.

besides, i doubt it's really the record...sheeesh, a bit of posting under the influence for the first time in i don't know how long.....and i'll never hear the end of it.

Indian Charlie · #11 05-18-2009, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

that's non morty consecutive post record there, fella!

but you say 'and, of course, the preakness' as tho that's almost an afterthought. does that race get her up more in line with the competition go for wand had faced? it might not have been the best field ever, but i thought compared to several recent preakness fields, it was better than most. but then...that may not be saying a lot.
btw, i'm not yet ready to put her right up there with wanda either.

Weird, this second part of your post didn't show up the first time.

Soo, the way I worded her Preakness competition was for two reasons. One, it was far better than what she'd faced, and two, there wasn't a race from GFW's history that was comparable at the same time. After the Oaks, GFW didn't run again till early June where she beat Charon and Stella Madrid (who accounted for GFW's sole loss at 2).

Danzig · #12 05-18-2009, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Weird, this second part of your post didn't show up the first time.

Soo, the way I worded her Preakness competition was for two reasons. One, it was far better than what she'd faced, and two, there wasn't a race from GFW's history that was comparable at the same time. After the Oaks, GFW didn't run again till early June where she beat Charon and Stella Madrid (who accounted for GFW's sole loss at 2).

i probably edited almost immediately after hitting submit. don't want more grief for too many posts-some pay attention to that for some reason.

i'd think all things being considered, steve isn't far off in saying at this point you could compare the two. you gotta give points for taking on the guys, something they chose not to do with wanda. and the way the race unfolded-rachel had quite a task to take on, and she handled it well.

Indian Charlie · #13 05-18-2009, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

i probably edited almost immediately after hitting submit. don't want more grief for too many posts-some pay attention to that for some reason.

i'd think all things being considered, steve isn't far off in saying at this point you could compare the two. you gotta give points for taking on the guys, something they chose not to do with wanda. and the way the race unfolded-rachel had quite a task to take on, and she handled it well.

Why take on the boys with GFW? It's not like facing Bayakoa in the BC, or some of the nice 3yo fillies in her own crop were a complete mismatch.

Besides, I don't see any Unbridleds or Summer Squalls in this crop of colts.