LOL @ the hypocrisy of that.

It's in the books, but you want to know which one was "better"?

I think this is a much more interesting and productive thread, as "Who was closer to the TC?" is easier to define and less subjective than "Who was better?" Besides, we already have enough "Who's better than who" threads around here and they get nowhere.

to quote Ed Vedder,
nothing has changed but the surrounding bull sh*t, that has grown.




Repent

cant back what up?
that The Stone was better?
you are just p*sed b/c I can back that up.

almost every historically significant horse has won at Belmont Racetrack.
when did smarty jones do that?
the Stone did it, and more than once.

The Stone beat him when they met on a dry track.
the Stone went on to win the Travers, which is our country's best measuring stick of top class 3YOs.
look at the past winners.
the Travers winners are as impressive of a group as any 3YO race run in this country.
you can say that lucky jones was better.
hell, you can even believe it if you want to.
but the record shows us that The Stone beat him the last time they met and the one time they met on a dry track.
and from a historical perspective, its not even close.
The Stone rules over lucky jones.



Repent

Afleet Alex was closer to winning the triple crown. If Jeremy Rose hadn't moved him to the *dead* Churchill rail, he probably would have won the Derby. He was much the best that day. I think he could have held off Giacomo closing on the outside. I like Giacomo, but I do think that on that day, Afleet Alex was the much better horse,,,just had ****ty racing luck. Which we all know is a huge part of the game.

Now, that being said, I think Smarty was a better horse. He was more deserving of the Triple Crown, but, the way the race set up, there was just NO WAY he beats Birdstone that day. Like many, I think it was because of the way he was double-teamed,,,,but I really can't take anything away from Birdstone on that day. And double-teaming is legal, just like running rabbits. I STILL cry big ole crocodile tears when I watch that Belmont replay. Actually, I have a real hard time watching it. Broke my heart!!

Suzanne

Easily Smarty. I don't think that Alex was the best horse in his loss. I thought Smarty was. I don't think it's even close. I felt that Smarty was 3x the horse Alex was, maybe more.

you are a freaking moron.

the Travers track was listed as "fast".
the rain came after the race that day.

but Im not even sayng The Stone hated an off track.
what I am saying is that the one time they met on a dry track, The Stone beat him.
new to the sport?
maybe, depends on perspective.
but the verification of your expertise relies on someone else, anyone else, agreeing with your opinion.
what the hell kind of sense does that make.
I oay the b*tch next door to say that Birdstone was a better horse.
that does not make it any more true or false.

and you want me to find a "credible" person to say that Birdstone was not the recipient of a "dream trip"?
what makes someone credible and what encompasses a dream trip?
does someone on this board with x amount of posts make them credible?
do they need to be a full time writer with the Daily Racing Form?
or can they be a degenerate at Manor Downs that i see when I stop by to pick up a form?


your position is full of holes and all the smarty party agreeing with you will not make it any stronger.

Birdstone got the right pace scenario he needed to be most effective on Belmont Stakes day.
so what?
it does not make his win any less valid than if smarty jones had won the race while getting an easy lead.

stop worrying about my experience within the game or my historical perspective.
they are not relevant to the argument at hand.

like I said, nothing has changed but the surrounding bullsh*t that has grown.
Ed was right on point with that one.



Repent

good gosh,
this is like conversing with Richi.

when this dude cant strengthen his argument any further,
he starts attaking the opposition's percieved experience or status within the game of horse racing.

what a bunch of crap.

Im a mid 20s businessman with a full time addiction to horse racing.
I love it. It consumes almost all my free time.
Im not an expert and would never pretend to be.
but I do my homework. I dont present false data and I dont assume my conclusions to be facts.

hey btw, DaHoss sucked as a racehorse.



Repent

ok DaHoss,
im out of here.
please respond with some more posts concerning my experience within the game in order to strengthen your argument for smarty jones.

cant wait to read it when I get back.
later on loser.


Repent

Ateam,
I meant that some posters on me have attacked me for posting things like this question. Speculation on thing that haven't happened and things like that. Responses like NorthCarolinaTon'ys are what I mean. He's actually polite about it. A lot fo people have literally "snapped on me" for it... That's all I meant. I think it's a good topic and worth talking about too.

'Pent, of course it's not provable. And techinically nothing illegal wss done. But if anyone wanted to see Smarty fail, It was Bailey. For all the reasons listed above, not for just for the reason of "winning a race".

I am not trying to refute what you said or argue with you. I have only one point to make. I was at the Travers in 2004. It started raining about twenty minutes before the Travers; my husband and I were caught in the deluge as we walked to the track. We needed a row boat to navigate. I think the race was even run several minutes early, so we could not bet! We had just gotten to the track as it was being run. I had bet Birdstone in the Belmont, so I was going to put him in some big exactas. Anyway, my only point is that track seemed very off, so Birdstone won on a pea soup track that day.

OK, for starters: DA HOSS WAS AN AWESOME RACE HORSE REPENT. GO WATCH HIS 2ND BC WIN. :mad: You shouldn't say things like that.

As for the topic of this thread: I would have to give the nod to Alex. I like both horses. I really do. I liked Smarty's story and the horse himself. You all blame RH10 and Eddington for the loss of his triple crown. One thing I bring up in defense of Alex: Scrappy T.

It really is silly to debate this topic. It really comes down to people's opinions on who impressed them more as a racer. Both horses were awesome and they had a great triple crown run. Lets leave it at that and not bash each other.

Not sure what Scrappy T has to do with AA losing the Triple Crown, he didn't run in the Derby and despite the bad trip AA beat him in the Preakness....


I would think RHT and Eddington are better horses than Scrappy T...

In my opinion Smarty was a better horse, but there's no arguing this with Repent. Why can't he just take this hatred to a horse that deserves it like Bernardini...

Why does Bernardini deserve hatred?

It amazes me how anyone can hate a horse that is the best horse to come around in a very, very long time...

H e l l, it amazes me how anyone can hate ANY horse if they love this sport. These horses die for us!

Good question... :confused:

Also, for the record, I agree with Cardus. Smarty Jones actually had a triple crown run since he won the Kentucky Derby... Alex didn't even have a shot... you gotta win the first one to be considered a triple crown candidate.

Too many people are as Bold would say goo-goo and just flat out rediculous about the horse, he's very good, probably the best in training, but not what all of the goo-goo's make him out to be...I am sick of hearing about him, Repent could bring these people the pain they need to zap them back to reality...

Why isnt Real Quiet mentioned in this thread--unless I missed it. He was closer than Smarty or Alex in my opinion.

I still don't see why he deserves "hatred"...

The horse has done everything he's asked and then some... if you want to hate his connections, then so be it, but the horse doesn't deserve to be hated. And this is coming from a non-Bernie believer... JMO.

I think you could say that about A LOT of horses...................

I meant that Scrappy T gave AA a hard time winning in the Preakness in almost falling on his face, yet AA still found a way to win. Just meant that AA faced trouble with other horses too. He just missed in the derby.

It really is a strong argument for both horses. They were both really nice horses who had a heck of a run at the triple crown.

P.S. RHT would have crushed both of them in their 4 yr old campaigns. (BUT THAT IS JUST MY OPINION).

And why should we hate on Bernardini? Shouldn't hate the horse. Horse is a good horse. Everyone is just tired of people calling him "GREAT". He hasn't proved that yet. To me anyway.

So don't hate any horse, they are only doing what they are asked to do. Hate the playas. :)

Settle down, I was joking...I don't hate the horse, just the rediculous praise he's received...Repent would have these people crying....

LOL... I'm settled, I'm settled. :p

It just cracks me up because the horses don't give a shiat about who likes em or who doesn't... LOL :D

Noone hates this horse. I think that the superlatives being thrown around without beating a good or large field or setting any track records has caused the polarity between the worshippers and those who dont worship him.

Those who worship the horse think those who don't are irrational, and vice versa.

I can't wait for the BC to be run and hope he stamps himself one way of the other.
A narrow loss with a troubled trip is my worst nightmare as we will have to listen to the debate over how good he was for decades.
Lets let him get it on, and have the final judgement come after the last chapter in the book is written.

That's about the most logical thing that anyone has said all day long. It will be decided on November 4th...I can't wait!!!

The problem is that Repent likes Bernardini.:D

No it won't, if he wins people will say they want to see him as a 4yo and that he beat no one...If he loses, the lovers will think of something else...It will spiral out of control, and the only thing we will ever talk about is Bernardini and how great or overrated he is and Steve will have to change the name of the site to the something related to Bernardini...

I can see where your coming from though...one of the dangers of reading internet boards is hearing about the same horses over and over and over again. (If I had to hear about AA's Immaculate Recovery one more time I was going to scream)

That said, I think there are two different sort of fans; those who read about all the greats and want to believe what they are seeing is it and those who question to the very end.

It really isnt his fault that he hasnt beaten a large field or a good field. He has run in the biggest races for three year olds except for the Derby and Belmont. He also ran in one of the biggest races for older horses as well. So you cant fault the horse for his competition. You can only judge by what the horses does in the races he competes in.

Also, he really hasnt been asked in any of his races to set a track record. The Travers and JCGC he was freaking jogging the entire time. I judge a horse based on what he does in big races regardless of his competition. Also, the fact that so many trainers dont want to face tells me they also think he is the best horse out there. That speaks volumes to me.

Dini should be regarded as the best race horse in training today based on fact, not what if or what should be scenarios.

I hear you on the AA recovery.
I mean it was an amazing thing to see, but only real dimwits who don't understand racing think it cost him more than a length, if that.
The amazing thing about that was that he recovered so quickly!! But he never really lost his momentum and its not like he got stopped and lost all his momentum and had to start over again. Victory length may have been one more length, but thats about it.
Folks were talking like he would have won by 20 lengths, and its just not so.

Hadn't had the opp to chime in here and haven't read the whole thread, but it would seem pretty clear that Smarty Jones was by far closer to winning a crown than Afleet Alex.

While I consider any dual Classic winner who didn't win the third a "near miss", it's harder to make cases for those that don't win the Derby or Preakness than those that win the first two legs. Without the pressure of the three week lead-up to the Belmont, or even the pressure of going into the Preakness as the Derby winner, it's difficult to know how trainer and jock react. You also don't know who might have lined up in the races with different outcomes, etc.. The scenario of going into the Preakness with a Derby-winning Alex is totally different than that of them going in off the near miss at Louisville, etc..

Smarty Jones was yards away from a crown and would certainly have been a winner under a slightly revised race script that gets Elliott to avoid the harassment of Solis and Bailey so early and so long.

The notion that he could have run much faster in either of his last two "if asked" is something I don't buy.
Historically based on FACTS as you say, Ragozins guys have done vast studies(I dont know if TG and Jerry Brown have, I assume they have) on horses and their best and fastest races, and concluded solidly that hores run their fastest races under no pressure in "easy wins".
Its something I first became aware of in 1992, and have used that as a guideline ever since then, much to my advantage.
I also used to conclude off an easy win that a horse was "just jogging" or could have gone much faster, but I was wrong.
If you check out horses and their performances, they run their best races "while jogging". Smarty Jones preakness comes to mind. He earned his best number that day.
I'm not sold that he can go faster, but it may not be necessary for him to go faster on Cup Day.

I never got that Orahole, why is it they run these fast times while jogging then everyone says they have another gear and so on, they could of run faster. But then when they are finally being worked on and whipped to no end they do not end up running faster.

I understand what you are saying and agree to a certain extent. But he hasnt needed to go fast. I certainly think he can go faster. I dont think he needs to go all that fast to win the Classic.

How would you explain a horse like Saint Liam then? He only ran his best numbers if heavily pressed (not that his others sucked).

I actually like both horses and I understand what you are saying about going into the belmont. I was looking on the three races as a whole not as one then another, then the last one.

I guess AA's ability to get back up and win impressed me more. (Not that I am a dimwit and think he would have won by 20) He reminded me of Alysheba in the derby that day and I guess it stuck in my head.

I would though agree with anyone that REAL QUIET should be the one who has come the closest to winning the triple crown. He is my fave anyway.


And by the way, don't think I wasn't mad at how Solis rode in that Belmont!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: I was very upset when Gary didn't come back to ride him. I knew then that he wasn't going to win, but I didn't expect that kind of ride from Solis.

The whip will get you a length, tops, according to the finest jockeys.
Its a fallacy that the whip can get you so many lengths.
Also, most horses run best when they are free and running how they wanna run with no pressure alongside of them.
Its a different story when another horse gets in your face and you have to quicken NOW instead of when you wanna quicken.
I can't recall too many horses who "jogged" in a big stakes race who then came back and ran better in a dogfight.
If anyone can, name them.