Zenyatta Has Earned Horse of the Year

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

seriously?

Yes, seriously. The 2008 Derby was watched by something like four times as many people as the 2010 Breeders Cup Classic, and that was without the 60 Minutes special.

[Duvalier]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Yes, seriously. The 2008 Derby was watched by something like four times as many people as the 2010 Breeders Cup Classic, and that was without the 60 Minutes special.

All casual fans are drawn to the Derby.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Yes, seriously. The 2008 Derby was watched by something like four times as many people as the 2010 Breeders Cup Classic, and that was without the 60 Minutes special.

You comparing apples and oranges, please compare BC to BC, and triple crown events.........no one I talked to could care less about BB, he was like the 5th horse in 8 years to go for a TC attempt.

[slotdirt]

Well, nobody I know watched the Breeders Cup because of Zenyatta, so I guess we're even then.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

You comparing apples and oranges, please compare BC to BC, and triple crown events.........no one I talked to could care less about BB, he was like the 5th horse in 8 years to go for a TC attempt.

Doesnt the "good of racing" or "exposure for racing" encompass all races?

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Doesnt the "good of racing" or "exposure for racing" encompass all races?

Comparing the Kentucky Derby to the BC is just silly, I am sorry you can't see the difference. Thats what apples and oranges meant, you knew that though.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Using any sort of reasoning, no matter how logical, that does not glorify Zenyatta, will not be allowed into any discussion in which I'm involved with. Thats what apples and oranges meant, you knew that though.

FTFY

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Comparing the Kentucky Derby to the BC is just silly, I am sorry you can't see the difference. Thats what apples and oranges meant, you knew that though.

Where is the big difference? If we are going to discuss a neblous topic like "good for racing" and tv ratings are used as evidence then why can't the opposing point of view use the same evidence?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Where is the big difference? If we are going to discuss a neblous topic like "good for racing" and tv ratings are used as evidence then why can't the opposing point of view use the same evidence?

shouldnt you compare bc classics to bc classics and triple crowns to triple crowns?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

shouldnt you compare bc classics to bc classics and triple crowns to triple crowns?

If a horse is being touted as getting racing more positive exposure than any horse in recent memory, why shouldnt you compare ratings? Of course the Derby will have higher ratings but isnt that a valid argument? If one horse is watched by 50 million people and another is watched by 3 million, which provided more exposure? It isnt to compare ratings as much as it is to show the folly of saying that she provided more exposure for racing than any number of recent TC contenders when clearly far more people watched the TC races.