RAGS or RACHEL

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by eajinabi

I would say Rags to Riches but she did lose in her next start with her own sex.

Considering the difficulty it took just to make it back to the races that fall (aborted workout, altered race schedule), not to mention she emerged from the race with an injury that eventually led to her retirement early at 4, I think its safe to give Rags To Riches a pass for the Gazelle.

Docking her now over a year later is probably as foolish as still thinking that giant killer Lear's Princess was a legitimate Grade 1 horse, when she failed before or beyond that race to do anything to suggest she was anything more than a nice Grade 3 filly (who was probably better on turf).

Besides, apparently Rachel Alexandra has her own problems and there's always a remote chance she won't do anything beyond the Preakness.

[Port Conway Lane]

Saturday's race was very impressive.Rags Belmont was most dramatic.

I can't choose between Forego's '76 Marlboro and John Henry's '81 million .

I either need to be paid or have a gun put to my head to make these decisions. No call.

[eajinabi]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Considering the difficulty it took just to make it back to the races that fall (aborted workout, altered race schedule), not to mention she emerged from the race with an injury that eventually led to her retirement early at 4, I think its safe to give Rags To Riches a pass for the Gazelle.

Docking her now over a year later is probably as foolish as still thinking that giant killer Lear's Princess was a legitimate Grade 1 horse, when she failed before or beyond that race to do anything to suggest she was anything more than a nice Grade 3 filly (who was probably better on turf).

Besides, apparently Rachel Alexandra has her own problems and there's always a remote chance she won't do anything beyond the Preakness.

Well the greats are supposed to overcome all obstacles.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by eajinabi

Well the greats are supposed to overcome all obstacles.

Well, without being behind the scenes, on the surface all those "obstacles" were the consequence of the same underlying problem, ie Rags To Riches wasn't physically 100% that summer, as opposed to being separate issues that just happened to pile up.

The fact that she wasn't able to withstand more than a couple of workouts on the comeback trail before reaggravating her injury, despite an appropriate amount of time off, I think goes along with this.

[2 Dollar Bill]

Rags...... plus being TP first TC win , talk about pressure on that girl.

[Thunder Gulch]

Rags Belmont was probably better. At the time, no filly had won a classic for the colts since Winning Colors. Now we're only two years removed from her race which takes a tiny bit of shine off what Rachael did. When you look back and see Rags beat Curlin it makes it all the more impressive....Rachael's Oaks was better than Rags.

[ddthetide]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Why does the competition that Eight Belles and Rags To Riches (and by curious extension HOY Curlin) ran against come into play against them, and yet the same standard is not extended to Rachel Alexandra?

i voted for R2R and would vote for Eight Belles. we got to see them have to dig down and find something extra to win. to me they have an extra toughness.
now i think RA is VERY special but until we get to see her dig down and find something extra, i'll hold my greatness vote.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by ddthetide

i voted for R2R and would vote for Eight Belles. we got to see them have to dig down and find something extra to win. to me they have an extra toughness.
now i think RA is VERY special but until we get to see her dig down and find something extra, i'll hold my greatness vote.

so what do you call what happened saturday????? she definately dug down.

[King Glorious]

Rags ran toe to toe with that year's HOY. Rachel, while running an outstanding race, prevailed over a horse that was twice losing at Sunland this year. You don't have to think much of Curlin but he's light years better than Mine that Bird and thus beating him, no matter the pace of the speed figures is the more impressive race for me.

[letswastemoney]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Rags ran toe to toe with that year's HOY. Rachel, while running an outstanding race, prevailed over a horse that was twice losing at Sunland this year. You don't have to think much of Curlin but he's light years better than Mine that Bird and thus beating him, no matter the pace of the speed figures is the more impressive race for me.

We don't know what Mine That Bird will go on to accomplish...I think it's impossible to conclude RA is better or worse at this point.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Rags ran toe to toe with that year's HOY. Rachel, while running an outstanding race, prevailed over a horse that was twice losing at Sunland this year. You don't have to think much of Curlin but he's light years better than Mine that Bird and thus beating him, no matter the pace of the speed figures is the more impressive race for me.

Bit surprised by this.

While she did beat Curlin, it was also in the Belmont Stakes, a race she was bred to win and the race you've typed many a novel about.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Bit surprised by this.

While she did beat Curlin, it was also in the Belmont Stakes, a race she was bred to win and the race you've typed many a novel about.

I don't believe in breeding anymore than I believe in cheese on the moon. What I say about the Belmont is that it's result is irrelevant in the overall scheme of things because it tells us who's the best 12f dirt horse in a country where they don't run anymore 12f dirt races at that level. That doesn't mean that a good horse can't be running in it or that a horse can't put in a good performance. In Rags and Curlin, I thought I saw two horses running a good race.

[NTamm1215]

If you're using the defeat of Curlin as the benchmark then you can't possibly differentiate between the two fillies. We're assuming that the competition Rachel beat on Saturday is inferior to a horse like Curlin. It very well might be, but the bottom line is that right now we don't know.

Granted, there's a difference between Mine That Bird at this point in his career and Curlin, but saying that Rags' win is superior because she beat that year's HOY takes a look at the entire year and not just the first six months.

I think Rachel's win was decidedly more spectacular given the way she ran from start to finish. The "it was a phenomenal performance because of the stumble and wide trip" stuff never really made sense to me considering her running style. She was a horse who preferred being outside and off the pace.

NT

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I don't believe in breeding anymore than I believe in cheese on the moon. What I say about the Belmont is that it's result is irrelevant in the overall scheme of things because it tells us who's the best 12f dirt horse in a country where they don't run anymore 12f dirt races at that level. That doesn't mean that a good horse can't be running in it or that a horse can't put in a good performance. In Rags and Curlin, I thought I saw two horses running a good race.

I disagree that is grounds for Rags being better than Rachel, maybe at that distance yes. I think at this point in their careers (I'm willing to excuse Rags' race in the fall) Rachel was/is the faster and better filly.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I think Rachel's win was decidedly more spectacular given the way she ran from start to finish. The "it was a phenomenal performance because of the stumble and wide trip" stuff never really made sense to me considering her running style. She was a horse who preferred being outside and off the pace.

NT

Agreed.

[randallscott35]

Coming off a negative 4 and then running with the speed the whole way and staying the distance, it is Rachel by quite a bit. She's really terrific.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

I disagree that is grounds for Rags being better than Rachel, maybe at that distance yes. I think at this point in their careers (I'm willing to excuse Rags' race in the fall) Rachel was/is the faster and better filly.

I didn't say I think Rags is the better horse. I'd take Rachel over her quickly.

[tector]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

It would be a close call.

The Oaks obviously visually ... but I'm of the opinion that her Preakness win was much more dominant than it appears.

I'd like to see a pace figure analysis of this Preakness compared to recent ones. I think it would support your point.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Put Rags to Riches in this year's Belmont Stakes as currently constituted (probables, anyway).

I think that she would win.

I imagine (well hope anyway), the pace will be a little faster this year than when Rags won.

A Rachel / Rags race (not a match race but a race where both horses are entered) would have been the race of the decade...

Not too sure who would win but Rachel's been awfully impressive.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by tector

I'd like to see a pace figure analysis of this Preakness compared to recent ones. I think it would support your point.

Pace figs and Sarah Jessica Parker in one post dude?

Are you trying to make his head explode?

I think that's his favorite non porn star female in the whole world!