I need to listen to ATR more often

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

So which circuit over the last 30 years has been the best? Winning on which circuit means the most?

I think over the years that winning in California has usually proven a lot. The California horses have generally faired extremely well when they have gone back east. The New York horses did not fair as well in California even when we had dirt out here.

To this day, the California horses usually get bet heavily when they go back east and they usually fair very well.

its too bad you californians had to go and screw it all up so now you run on tracks made of junk which nobody cares about.

California used to be right at the top of the racing "circuits". Now they are a joke.

[geeker2]

I blame GBBob and SCAV for that crap at Arlington

[Thunder Gulch]

Zenyatta is a great horse. She is the best synthetic runner in the 5 year history of the synthetic track proliferation in the US. She proved that in the BC Classic by beating horses who largely specialized in dirt or turf. Where that SPECIALTY rates in the bigger picture is highly questionable. Until she beats a good field on dirt (Apple Blossom? Please), you can't start comparing her to the others who stand out in a 100+ year history of dirt racing. I still don't understand why people can't differentiate the two. How can you elevate synthetic superiority and not mention turf greats like Goldlikova or Ouija Board who went to battle with and defeat the best turf horses in the world multiple times?