Beyer writes on Rachel and her Personal Ensign

[gm10]

Originally Posted by cj

It doesn't imply dirt. It specifically says DIRT.

It said RA had a dirt campaign, not that he is restricting his theory to dirt. You are assuming that he is, and perhaps not unreasonably. Anyway, doesn't matter. It's an interesting theory, as you would expect from a man of his caliber.

[Charlie D]

From article

Few filly dirt runners have ever faced the challenges that Rachel Alexandra did in 2009

(enlarged so people can see it better)

[Charlie D]

What has happened to her from 2009 to 2010? There are only guesses and theories, but some history may be relevant to Rachel Alexandra's case. Racehorses often improve when they reach maturity as 4-year-olds; Triple Crown winners Seattle Slew and Affirmed were even more dominant at 4 than they were at 3. But many of the greatest 3-year-old fillies have failed to progress this way. The last two fillies to win the Kentucky Derby, Genuine Risk (1980) and Winning Colors (1988), did not win a race of consequence as 4-year-olds. Perhaps the demands of an ultra-strenuous campaign take more of a toll on fillies than on colts.

In bolded part he implies it is "Dirt" runners he is talking about and then he goes on to confirm this, with the part i just quoted.


Some people around here need to learn to read in my humble opinion.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

From bolded part he implies "Dirt" and then he goes on to confirm this, with the part i just quoted.


Some people around here need to learn to read in my humble opinion.

It's incredible that gm10 continues to miss exactly what was written in the Beyer article, is it not? Right there...in black and white...no implications or assumptions are needed.

Makes one wonder if his intentions are simply to cause strife in every single thread, or is he truly impaired when it comes to reading comprehension.

[Charlie D]

I'm guessing. Earlier encouters with CJ and TLG have probably pushed him over edge PA

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by gm10

You could also mention Goldikova and Ouija Board who both managed to maintain their 3yo form throughout their 4yo and 5yo season.

GM10, in my earlier post I agreed with you stating that Goldikova and Ouija Board were exceptions to Andy Beyer’s DRF article concerning Rachel Alexandra’s performance in the recent Personal Ensign stakes.

However after reading the article again (and you should also) you will see the following declaration by Beyer at the beginning of the 8th paragraph of the article: “Few filly dirt runners have ever faced the challenges that Rachel Alexandra did in 2009, beating males in Grade 1 company three times….”

Therefore it would be nebulous and asinine to argue against Beyer’s written words that he wasn’t referring to fillies that run on dirt.

[Charlie D]

I don't think i'm as old as some around here and i certainly know i'm not as good as some around here regarding US racing history. So don't know if KD has ever been run on turf or synthetic but when someone refers to Kentucky Derby surely it is obvious he means he is refering to DIRT.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by Cratos

GM10, in my earlier post I agreed with you stating that Goldikova and Ouija Board were exceptions to Andy Beyer’s DRF article concerning Rachel Alexandra’s performance in the recent Personal Ensign stakes.

However after reading the article again (and you should also) you will see the following declaration by Beyer at the beginning of the 8th paragraph of the article: “Few filly dirt runners have ever faced the challenges that Rachel Alexandra did in 2009, beating males in Grade 1 company three times….”

Therefore it would be nebulous and asinine to argue against Beyer’s written words that he wasn’t referring to fillies that run on dirt.

Yes, as I already wrote, it is a reasonable assumption. It wasn't clear to me whether he was stating a dirt theory or illustrating a general theory by means of dirt fillies, but given your post and all the genuine comments earlier, I will gladly accept that the theory should be interpreted as applying to dirt only.

As for the theory itself, it is an interesting one. It is tempting to believe that it is true, but then again, our perception of history is very much coloured by the present and most recent past. On the other hand - how many of the recent KD winning colts managed to win a race of consequence as a 4yo? As far as I remember ...

Super Saver - doubtful
Mine That Bird - no
Big Brown - hah
Street Sense - sadly not
Barbaro -
Giacomo - no (San Diego Handicap doesn't count I'm sure)
Smarty Jones - no
Funny Cide - yes
War Emblem - no
Monarchos - no

That's one out of ten - although most didn't even make it to the track at 4.

Although I think Beyer's theory certainly applies to some fillies (and colts), I think it is also down to other factors, such as (to give just a few possible explanations) training and riding styles needing to be different as the horse matures, and the fact that a lot of 'great' 3yo's build a significant part of their reputation in races restricted to 3yo's. As grueling and important as the classic 3yo races are, they are disputed in a relatively small pond (in any country).

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by gm10

Yes, as I already wrote, it is a reasonable assumption. It wasn't clear to me whether he was stating a dirt theory or illustrating a general theory by means of dirt fillies, but given your post and all the genuine comments earlier, I will gladly accept that the theory should be interpreted as applying to dirt only.

You can believe the world is against you all you wish, and that Cratos is the only one worth replying to, however this does not change the simple fact that there is no assumption required and no interpreting necessary. Beyer actually writes that it is a dirt theory.

I will do a little assuming of my own that you are operating as a vision impaired adult, which is certainly nothing to be ashamed about.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You can believe the world is against you all you wish, and that Cratos is the only one worth replying to, however this does not change the simple fact that there is no assumption required and no interpreting necessary. Beyer actually writes that it is a dirt theory.

I will do a little assuming of my own that you are operating as a vision impaired adult, which is certainly nothing to be ashamed about.

Nice. I shall definitely pay more attention to your contributions from now on.

[Charlie D]

Gm10, either PA is correct regarding your vision or your just unwilling to admit you were wrong.

[born2ride]

What has happened to her from 2009 to 2010? There are only guesses and theories, but some history may be relevant to Rachel Alexandra's case. Racehorses often improve when they reach maturity as 4-year-olds; Triple Crown winners Seattle Slew and Affirmed were even more dominant at 4 than they were at 3. But many of the greatest 3-year-old fillies have failed to progress this way. The last two fillies to win the Kentucky Derby, Genuine Risk (1980) and Winning Colors (1988), did not win a race of consequence as 4-year-olds. Perhaps the demands of an ultra-strenuous campaign take more of a toll on fillies than on colts.

The last two 3 yo fillies to win HOY - Twilight Tear and Busher failed to have a dominant year as 4 year olds. TT was retired after a breathing issue and Busher didn't race at 4, but was retired after one race at 5 after failing to place.

In the context of how the best 3 year old fillies have failed to maintain their form as a 4 year old, Rachel has exceeded historical expectations. Of course, expectations were high for her this year given the year she had in '09, and by most accounts she has fallen short.

I only wish I had a barn full of has-beens like Rachel that win a G2 and an ungraded stakes and place in a G1, G2 and an ungraded stakes winning over $500k so far for the year.

[Tom]

That's one out of ten - although most didn't even make it to the track at 4.

Then add Secretariat to your list.
If a horse did not start at 4, probably due to breeding money, what the Hell is the point of putting them on a list like this?

Do you have a list of people who climbed Mt Everest and never climbed that high again?

Or people that walked on the moon and never did again?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by gm10

Nice. I shall definitely pay more attention to your contributions from now on.

Are you saying my assumption is incorrect? What else could account for you completely missing what was written despite being shown multiple times by multiple contributors?

Believe it or not, I don't relish being stuck in the minutia with you like this...

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by born2ride

The last two 3 yo fillies to win HOY - Twilight Tear and Busher failed to have a dominant year as 4 year olds. TT was retired after a breathing issue and Busher didn't race at 4, but was retired after one race at 5 after failing to place.

In the context of how the best 3 year old fillies have failed to maintain their form as a 4 year old, Rachel has exceeded historical expectations. Of course, expectations were high for her this year given the year she had in '09, and by most accounts she has fallen short.

I only wish I had a barn full of has-beens like Rachel that win a G2 and an ungraded stakes and place in a G1, G2 and an ungraded stakes winning over $500k so far for the year.

That's why you're one in a million.