Crist: The great distaffers..

[KirisClown]

Originally Posted by HomerS

Sky Beauty is a perfect example of East Coast bias. Especially when you look at how strong California racing was back then.

She beat up on the same horses back in NY, running very moderate figures, and then would get exposed and flop in the BC.

You never ever read about her having to run somewhere else to "prove herself" yet the Zenyetta detractors continue to hold her to a standard they dont seem to hold anyone else to.

Was anyone saying Sky Beauty was the best female to ever race back in 93 and 94?

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by KirisClown

Was anyone saying Sky Beauty was the best female to ever race back in 93 and 94?

Sky Beauty is a good example that not all horses are made for shipping. From what I understand, and granted maybe I got some bad info, she just fell apart when she had to get on a plane or traveled and great distance.

I have no idea if Sky Beauty could have beat Hollywood Wildcat or One Dreamer if the race was in NY but going into the gate anyone around that horse knew she had little chance after the ship.

[KirisClown]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Sky Beauty is a good example that not all horses are made for shipping. From what I understand, and granted maybe I got some bad info, she just fell apart when she had to get on a plane or traveled and great distance..

It's probably true, I remember John Veitch saying that she looked pretty bad prior to the 93 Distaff..

In 94 she was just abysmal at Churchill.. Hollywood Wildcat wasn't too much better that day either, as the favorite..

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by KirisClown

It's probably true, I remember John Veitch saying that she looked pretty bad prior to the 93 Distaff..

In 94 she was just abysmal at Churchill.. Hollywood Wildcat wasn't too much better that day either, as the favorite..

the quote I got from someone he knew the horse pretty well the day of the race was "who is this horse", i guess she lost a lot of weight before both BC's. Maybe it was a seasonal thing.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Sky Beauty is a good example that not all horses are made for shipping. From what I understand, and granted maybe I got some bad info, she just fell apart when she had to get on a plane or traveled and great distance.

I have no idea if Sky Beauty could have beat Hollywood Wildcat or One Dreamer if the race was in NY but going into the gate anyone around that horse knew she had little chance after the ship.

Jerkens didnt want to run her in either BC. Both years she was tailing off (especially in her 4 year old year) and wasnt doing that well but Mrs. Hoffman and her team of advisors wouldn't hear any of it. Smith said that she didnt handle the CD track and that was why she wasn't closer to the pace as usual. But jockeys pretty much always say that after a bad race so who knows. In the SA race she never ran a step and considering she came into the race off of a 7 week layoff he was telling you something.

She had some physical issues and if you notice that after each campaign she didnt run again for 6 months which is out of character for a Jerkens horse.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Jerkens didnt want to run her in either BC. Both years she was tailing off (especially in her 4 year old year) and wasnt doing that well but Mrs. Hoffman and her team of advisors wouldn't hear any of it. Smith said that she didnt handle the CD track and that was why she wasn't closer to the pace as usual. But jockeys pretty much always say that after a bad race so who knows. In the SA race she never ran a step and considering she came into the race off of a 7 week layoff he was telling you something.

She had some physical issues and if you notice that after each campaign she didnt run again for 6 months which is out of character for a Jerkens horse.

but isnt that normal??

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

but isnt that normal??

Not for old school trainers. 7 weeks was an eternity.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Jerkens didnt want to run her in either BC. Both years she was tailing off (especially in her 4 year old year) and wasnt doing that well but Mrs. Hoffman and her team of advisors wouldn't hear any of it. Smith said that she didnt handle the CD track and that was why she wasn't closer to the pace as usual. But jockeys pretty much always say that after a bad race so who knows. In the SA race she never ran a step and considering she came into the race off of a 7 week layoff he was telling you something.

She had some physical issues and if you notice that after each campaign she didnt run again for 6 months which is out of character for a Jerkens horse.

I dont listen to that Smith guy, theres better info than what some jockey has to say.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by HomerS

I guess the point I am trying to bring out here in Sky Beauty discussion is people who like Sky Beauty will come up with reasons and excuses to justify a preconceived opinion, not to form an opinion. Which is human nature. Just like people who for whatever reason dont like Zenyetta will always be able to come up with something, some angle to diminish.

Not saying that we can't be unbiased and treat each horse on its own, but just seen this too many times. If someone likes something or somebody they will give every benefit of the doubt to their preconceived opinion, making it almost impossible to pierce it. If anything people have a stronger tendency to dig their heels in more. To up the ante. The more Zenyetta wins the higher the ante will be. With more reasons why she isn't what she appears to be. Should she lose then all prior criticism automatically becomes "fact" now that she has lost.

Of course this is true. But my issue with Zenyatta is that if she had lost by a nose last year at Delmar we wouldn't be having this discussion. Winning the Classic was a great feat yet when you consider the quality of the field you can't maintain that she should be declared the equal(or greater) of all prior BC Classic winners. The streak is great yet when taken into the context of the surface issue and race selection it isn't exactly the equal of Cigar's winning streak (I'd say Citation as well but I can't say that I am familiar enough with the period to really comment on it accurately). These aren't criticisms of the horse. They are a sober critique of her qualifications.

I said last year that Jackson's "sportingness" was being overrated because of the fact that RA was an overwhelming fav in every spot that she ran in. That isn't saying that it wasn't a great accomplishment to run in and win the Preakness, Haskell and Woodward. It was. But I severely doubt that had the competition been merely average for those races that he would have been nearly as "sporting". He was taking advantage of the situation that was presented to him and that is fine. But it doesn't make her the greatest horse to ever look through a bridle. It made her a great horse with a willing owner that took advantage of some weak fields in races that are traditionally strong. Her races this year are proof that the modern way of campaigning horses makes it nearly impossible for the horses of today to ever compare to the horses of years past. The abbreviated, "managed" campaigns simply dont allow us to get a true measure of a horse.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by HomerS

I wouldnt Zenyetta with the all time classic horses (and I woudlnt put Cigar in either but thats another discussion ha ha) but within her own sex for sure. Not even saying superior to those but in the discussion. One of the reasons I think Rachel did deserve HOY since it was so close, is because she won grade ones on several different tracks under differing conditions. What made is so close was winning the Classic, weak field or not. That was a historic win from the mare angle.

I too thought RA deserved the HoY because the sum of her accomplishments were greater than Zenyatta's which were almost all tied into one race. The closeness of the vote was probably due to the fact that many of the voters are witless and the fact that Zenyatta's race was much more recent when they cast their votes. If you unemotionally look at the pp's for the 2 horses last year it is hard to make a case that Zenyatta had a better year or accomplished more than RA did.

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I too thought RA deserved the HoY because the sum of her accomplishments were greater than Zenyatta's which were almost all tied into one race. The closeness of the vote was probably due to the fact that many of the voters are witless and the fact that Zenyatta's race was much more recent when they cast their votes. If you unemotionally look at the pp's for the 2 horses last year it is hard to make a case that Zenyatta had a better year or accomplished more than RA did.

i agree, rachel did more and shes paying a price for it. she deserved HOY for pushing the envelope to the limit. but, these people are ruled by emotions and don't even see the weakness in that when gambling. the best horses rachel beat were chump change to zenyatta. someone said zenyatta beat a weak field in the classic...those horses were way better than macho again and bullsbay and she did it at 10 furlongs. this year theres no comparison, so far, rachel lost to zenyatta's sparring partner. a horse thats not even in her league as she rolled past her last sunday. the other horse that beat rachel comes back and loses convincingly at belmont. meanwhile, zenyatta wins and wins dirt or poly. comparing this years pp's is like apples and oranges. the emotions coming out are people crying over the obvious.......lol

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

i agree, rachel did more and shes paying a price for it. she deserved HOY for pushing the envelope to the limit. but, these people are ruled by emotions and don't even see the weakness in that when gambling. the best horses rachel beat were chump change to zenyatta. someone said zenyatta beat a weak field in the classic...those horses were way better than macho again and bullsbay and she did it at 10 furlongs. this year theres no comparison, so far, rachel lost to zenyatta's sparring partner. a horse thats not even in her league as she rolled past her last sunday. the other horse that beat rachel comes back and loses convincingly at belmont. meanwhile, zenyatta wins and wins dirt or poly. comparing this years pp's is like apples and oranges. the emotions coming out are people crying over the obvious.......lol

I dispute that RA is paying any price for anything. If both horses competition is considered soft, does it really matter whose was softer? It is still not up to par when you compare these horses to other great horses. I can't find much fault in RA's campaign last year because even though the fields she faced were at least below average for those races, she competed in races that really matter. The Preakness, Haskell, and Woodward are far more prestigious that anything that Zenyatta ever ran in besides a BC race. Sadly that remains true and looks like it wont change.