I would have loved to see Bernardini at 4. Invasor at 5 too.

Thanks for the Eddie Maple reference. Hadn't thought of him in ages.

I thought it took Invasor a while to get past Bernardini, but that's just me.

I'm not sure that Invasor would have improved, but I guess all of this is conjecture, but I agree it would have been nice to see Bernardini at 4. There is more than a little reason to believe he might have been really terrific.

If Invasor had " moved a little earlier " as the other poster suggested I'm afraid I wouldn't have made the same big score in the Pick-3....as Bernardini was paying significantly less.

Invasor's move was timed perfectly.......and Bernardini still gave him all he could handle despite the difference in trips.

i actually agree with this statement! Good Jub!

i always wonder, if barbaro does not break down, what happens in the preakness ? i loved barbaro, but i truly think bernardini would have won fairly easily.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xvzZJzgk1d4

Actually, the moves were made at almost the same time. I posted the video again in case you missed it earlier in the thread. Bernardini's move was made probably about a second sooner. Invasor was simply able to sustain his run longer.

It seems that you are implying that Bernardini had a tough trip or at least a tougher trip than Invasor but in watching it again i dont see that. Invasor is four paths wider around the turn, has contact to the inside and has premium tap veering out on him in deep stretch. He looked to have the worst of it.

As freddie mo said, bernardini's jockey was trying to keep him out of trouble. Perhaps the move was a count early but it was better than getting him into trouble which often happens when they sit too chilly on the turn.

Yes, the Indiana Derby at Hoosier at 8.5f and the listed Sir Beaufort at a flat mile on turf (being a son of Gone West, Orientate was more than adept on that surface).

Well played.

Mabe your memory is faulty since I dont remember any of those horses winning on the dirt. I do remember swain bearing out in the stretch in the Classic in 1998. He didnt do much until he was 5. Freedom Cry lost to the great Nothern Spur in the BC. Pentire was a pretty good horse, nothing more or less.

Lammtarra was a good horse that happen to show up in a weak year, not his fault, but he is far from an all time great. In fact the comparison to Bernardini is strange considering that one was a dirt horse and one was a turf horse. I am fairly certain that Bernardini would thrash Lammtarra on the dirt and I dont know how anyone would think otherwise.

Why is the comparison strange? They were both racehorses at one time and we are discussing horse racing on a horse racing site. So they raced on different surfaces but does that make it a different breed or a different sport? Come on. And who insisted on the distinction between dirt and turf anyway?

Besides all of that how are you so sure that Bernardini would "thrash" lamtarra on dirt when Lamtarra never raced on it? How do you know Lamtarra wouldnt have loved it? He had plenty of dirt in that pedigree.

Regardless of how "weak" 1995 was (and that claim is quite dubious), he still set the record in the epsom derby. He still completed the triple of epsom, king george and Arc. Compare that to anything Bernardini accomplished.

In four races, he sets a record in the epsom (still stands today!)in his second start, wins the king george and the arc. But still not a great horse? LOL

Pentire was just a "pretty good horse"? LOL again. Multiple group 1 winner that won the irish champion stakes and the king george and beat singspiel twice. I guess that horse wasnt very good either?

Yeah Swain didnt do much until he was five. True, he did most of his damage when he was five but lest we forget he did win the coronation.

Which brings us to Freedom Cry. Yes, he lost to northern spur in the BC, three weeks after losing to Lamtarra in the arc. I dont know...I guess shipping across the world and running in a couple of weeks isnt a big deal. yes, the horse was a bum.

Orientate was by Mt. Livermore. He was a very solid sprinter (I specifically remember his Forego at Saratoga when he thrashed Aldebaran) during his 2002 championship season. I wouldn't say he was as adept on turf. He was off the board in the only two graded races (Aegon Turf Sprint and Shoemaker Mile) that he contested over turf.

I agree. However, I think the body of work is incomplete. I think 6-7 furlongs on the turf would have been interesting to see. He was a hell of a sprinter.

I don't think he can be a top contender as long as there are still people out there that think Barbaro or Big Brown were better.

Pentire wasnt that great a horse, He won a very weak King George beating a 2miler, one of the worst derby winners in years and another 2 miler. Beat Freedom Cry in the Irish Champion, but wasnt a brilliant race. He also beat Singspiel when they were both 3. like Swain you cannot compare Singspiel at 3 and what he did in subsequent years.

Pentire Celebre on the other hand....

I am not sure why you dont think that your contention that a european turf horse "would beat" an American dirt horse isnt strange? It is an apples and oranges thing. If you cant see how it is impossible to compare these things I give up...

Track records are pretty worthless in America and completely useless in Europe.

Freedom Cry, Swain as a 3 year old and Pentire was not a great bunch regardless of how you spin it. I never said that they werent good horses but they were far from a great crop especially compared to other years.

Bernardini was far better three year olds than any of those three

Plenty of European "turf horses" have come to America and beaten American "dirt horses". If not for Tiznow (who wasnt the favorite in either of his BC wins i might add) it would have happened two years in a row in 2000 and 2001. Those "turf horses" didnt look so bad on the dirt did they? I dont know if you are belmont on saturday but...

How do you know that Lamtarra wouldnt have taken to the dirt? To me, he was just a more talented horse. We are talking about horse racing right?

And who said it was a great crop Lamtarra faced? You said it was a terrible crop and i disagreed and now you are saying that they were good horses.

And what did Bernardini beat in his little run? A bunch of goats in "grade 1" races.

lolol wow omg, you really dont get it
bernardini was a monster, look at the pp's, check out his beyers...its not his fault, that there was no one to face him, he wont all of his races with such ease... never asked to run, i mean really from the preakness on he did not get asked for run again till the BCC

i dont.

What evidence is there that Lammtarra would be able to be a grade 1 type horse on the dirt? Far more europeans have failed miserably than have succeeded on the dirt. It is a pointless argument because you are basing your opinion on total speculation. I for one am not willing to concede that Lammatarra's turf talent would translate to dirt and as i have pointed out i am not so sure that he was more than a really good turf horse either. How you can determine that Lammtarra was a more talented horse than Bernardini was based upon what we know is beyond me. I also never said anything about "terrible". It WAS a weak crop, since when is weak=terrible?

The purpose is not to knock Bernardini, who was a very nice horse. However, it is hard to say he was a "monster" or was "great" when the only time he was called on to dig down deep to win a race, he failed to defeat Invasor in the BC Classic. In this regard, Bernardini's 3YO campaign reminds me a lot of the 4YO campaign of Mineshaft. Both won several races against very modest competition; the only time that Mineshaft was in a real battle against a talented horse, he lost the Foster to Perfect Drift.

Neither did enough to be called "great." The problem in racing today is that few are ever asked to do enough that we could reasonably call them "great."