He was on his A game, he finally met some competition and lost to a very good horse. Do we really have to continue this ridiculousness because a few people saw greatness where it didn't actually exist and are too stubborn to admit they were wrong?

of course it is an injustice!!
comparing an all-time great like slew to bernardini is absolutely laughable. i couldn't believe people were making those kind of comparisons before the bcc, and i certainly cannot believe that they are still doing it now. apparently it doesn't matter what we think though jim because "Bernardini knew that he was great." why analyze horses at all? just let the horses tell you who was great!! hell even if had finished last in the bcc.....he is still great because he thought he was!!! what wonderful logic!
oh by the way.....
the best horse seattle slew ever beat was.......Affirmed
the best horse bernardini ever beat was...........nobody worth remembering.

Do we have to continue this ridiculousness because too many people are letting one race determine how good a horse was?

How the hell would you know if he was on his A game or not?

I don't think he was. He had to be urged all the way around the track, something that has never happened before, then he made a big sweeping move and flattened out. "Not handling the track" is a perfectly valid excuse for every other horse except Bernardini these days.

yes sniper i think we do. we had to listen to the bernmafia for 5 solid months.
now its payback time. some people might say "be the bigger person." not me. they annoyed the hell out of me......now it is payback time.

Of course its all opinion. I'm just wondering what yours is based on, that's all.
Slew won 14 races, won the triple crown, was a champion at 2,3, and 4.
What is it about Bernardini that is similar to that?
How about the Marlboro Cup when Slew was four? He beat the current triple crown winner Affirmed even though he had several excuses not to.

hey ateam did you see where i agreed with you on page 6 of this thread?
now we have seen it all!

Look, he was not on his A game. It is not worth debating with me because you won't convince because I KNOW that he wasn't on his A game. I'm not too stubborn to admit when I am wrong.

I was wrong in thinking that he could win the BCC off of his B game. He was almost good enough to do it, but almost good enough doesn't count.

In my mind, he was talented enough to be a great horse if he would have kept racing. Everyone's definitions of greatness are different. He was on the verge of it.

I consider Ghostzapper to be a great horse. I consider Dubai Millenium and Tiznow to be great horses. I consider Deep Impact to be a great horse. Bernardini was certainly almost there as was Barbaro and Point Given. If Alex wouldn't have broken his leg, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have become a great horse. If circumstances would have been different for him, he would have won the TC, but lady luck was not with Tim Ritchey and Cash is King on that first Saturday in May. Charismatic was yet another one who may have become a great horse as was Smarty Jones. But almost doesn't count.

yeah but jim.....slew naver had to tangle with the likes of doc cheney and hemingway's key. would he have even had a chance against such superstars?

oh okay....well if you KNOW it then that is good enough for me.
oh wait.....no.....actually that doesn't mean squat to me.

How can you say it was not his A game? He had never faced horses like that before. That was his first big test. There was nothing in his history that indicated that he should have blown away the field on BC day.

I don't know how much talent he may have had in your mind, but I do know he cannot and will not be considered a great horse because it never happened and that is a fact.

there is the problem. you can't use facts against the bernmafia. they hate them.

That's my point. I'm trying to remember who all was in that Marboro Cup because if i'm not mistaken it was a stellar cast in addition to Affirmed and Seattle Slew. Do you remember?

i know nasty and bold (who was a good horse and a G1 winner) finished 3rd.

I mentioned in a post on the previous page on the previous page how I knew that he wasn't on his A game . People like me know that the horse wasn't on his A game by comparing his previous races to his BCC. Plus, several friends who are insiders have agreed that he wasn't on his A game. If Invasor would have raced against Bernardini in a match race, Bernardini would have blown that horse away. Invasor's camp did the right thing when they pulled him out of the JCGC. They wouldn't have beat that horse in that race. Now, they have a HOY title because of that smart move. Also, if Barbaro would have been racing, he would have beat both Invasor and Bernardini in the BCC this year. However, Barbaro would not have beat Bernardini in the Preakness had he not gotten hurt.

I already stated that I couldn't consider him to be a great horse because he didn't accomplish enough on the track even though he was brillant in most of his performances. However, he most certainly had the talent to become one if he would have kept racing as a four year old. I know what that horse is, and he will prove it in the shed.

This has to be the funniest post I've read on this forum. You just know all this stuff? That is pretty amazing.

how is this germane to anything important? here i've got some more for you to answer:
who would have won if they had been forced to run backwards?
what about blindfolded?
what about with a 400 lb jockey?

yeah it is an effective strategy. you present people with facts and they respond with..."i know i am right and you are wrong. how do i know that....well, because i know it!"
how do you argue with that?

Why do you guys even try to reason with these guys...They are never wrong and they know it...

They are called opinions Sniper. I just don't feel like typing IMO after every freaking sentence;)

You did say "people like me KNOW he wasn't on his game" so I think you can understand how I could take the entire post as you knowing all of those other things as well.

Well, how could I possibly know all of those other things for 100% sure? They never happened. I'm obviously not a psychic or I would be rich off of these ponies.

However, the BCC race did happen.

So you are this rare person who compares his previous races to the BCC? Are you kidding me? What do you think everyone else is doing?

So you and your insider friends got together and agreed that he wasn't on his A game? Well I guess that does it then, case closed.

For the last time, it was the pace, the number of horses, and the quality of the horses in the field that took him off his game. If you actually compare his previous races to the BCC you will see that those are facts.

Who cares what would have happened in some ficticious match race? I don't agree that its a foregone conclusion the Bernardini would have won. My guess is that he wouldn't have. The only race we actually know about is the one we saw a few weeks ago where he ran the best he could and got beat by the undefeated horse of the year. No big disgrace in that but, as talented as Seattle Slew? Only in your mind I'm afraid.

I think calling Ghostzapper great in the same breath with calling Slew great is a mindblower. To me they are residents of different planets.:D

Yes, those are facts, and it is also a fact that the horse got sandwiched hard and bumped around in the first turn. It is also a fact that the horse dropped back to fifth place after coming up to fourth place on the backstretch signaling that he wasn't on his A game. It is also a fact that after getting hit like that, that he wasn't pulling at Javier like he did in the rest of his races. It is also a fact that Javier knew that Bernardini was not himself, so he started asking him just after the half mile pole. It is also a fact that Bernardini did not explode with as much force around the final turn as he did in the Preakness.

Invasor was is not the undefeated horse of the year. Discreet Cat beat Invasor in Dubai (Invasor was a distant fourth).

If you're afraid, then quit replying to me.

I'm going to ask a question that everyone usually hates. Why?

This is precisely the kind of criticism I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with.

You're completely right. He never proved on the track that he was great. Those who feel that he was immensely talented and wasn't on his A game in the BCC will continue to think he's great. Those who think that was his best effort will continue to think what they think.

What bothers me is the guys who come on here proclaiming his BCC SECOND-PLACE FINISH (Not up the track like their hero Lava Man) is indisputable evidence that he's a fraud. Listen, none of us KNOW ****.

People like me and KY Roses will continue to think he was one of the best horses we've ever seen. People like Sniper and Windu and ArlJim will continue to think he was an okay 3-year-old. There's no proving either opinion wrong, and they should be stated as that, opinions.

I don't think he's an okay 3yo, I think he's a very good with a possibility of being a great 3yo, unfortunately we'll never know...I always thought he was talented, but I did not think he was a great horse at least not until he would have had a chance to prove it...I thought he was going to win, he didn't, maybe I undervalued Invasior, he gets another prep and he might have won by more...He's going to be 3yo of the year, how many 3yo's race a year, that's pretty good to be the best of your generation...

Ghostzapper will not even make the Hall of Fame. He was too lightly raced.

That I'm fine with. Just sick of hearing that people know he didn't run his race when really it is just their opinion that he was a lot better than he showed in the BC Classic. He's certainly a lot more than an ok 3yo. I think he's a very good horse that could have been a great one if he improved next year. Unfortunately we'll never know, and that pisses me off more than anything.

You're right. He may not, but that horse was brillant. He is one of the fastest horses to have ever lived.

It would be a shame though if a horse like Barbaro made the Hall of Fame and Ghostzapper did not.

yeah, I think that about covers it in a nutshell.

He got passed by a great horse. :D

I can't really argue with that Pillow Pants. We were blessed with some incredible talent this year in Barbaro, Bernardini, and Invasor.

If Ghostzapper had raced more, we would have called him Dr. Fager II. He is one helluva horse. :D

I agree with that too.

It's a shame we didn't get to see these three run against each other next year. It can be a cruel game at times.

Thats what happens when racing in big fields, they bump, thay have to go wide, etc. Before this race you may recall that I said that Bernardini had never been in a battle and that Invasor had many times shown himself to be able to battle and come out on top. Talk to you insider friends about that, maybe it will make some sense.

I thought Bernardini exploded quite well on the turn, to me it was a powerful move. He could never have done that and finished so close to Invasor as he did if he was not himself and not on his A game. The whole thing people like you missed was how good Invasor is. That does not mean you have to bring Bernardini down. If Bernardini compares well talentwise with Seattle Slew, what comparisons should be made with Invasor?

In my mind,:) Invasor is undefeated because I throw out the Dubai race because I think it is suspect from what I can tell. If there was ever a case of a horse not being on his A game that was it. He is undefeated in the Western Hemisphere.:D

i won't rehash slews accomplishments at two, three and four. everyone knows his record.
i don't agree bernardini showed as much talent. he certainly didn't show any precocity as slew did. and of course slew never allowed his peers to catch up with him either.

as for having it all as a stallion...so did plugged nickel. a lot of horses with fantastic pedigrees end up standing in obscure places for less than huge money. bernardini will have a better shot than many at making it, as he'll get the BEST of mares. but he still has a an 80% chance of being a failure.

he ran figures on par with his others this year. he ran his race. he just had better competition this time. and that made all the difference.

Your first paragraph makes perfect sense and I already know all of that kind of stuff;).

However, I also know that horses that get sandwiched as Bernardini did usually can not run their best race after the fact. We saw it with Alex in the Derby too.

See, I think that Bernardini is more talented than Invasor and just didn't fire his best race. Although, Invasor is most certainly a lovely horse.

And if you can throw out Invasor's race in Dubai, then I am going to throw out Bernardini's BCC at Churchill because I think that it was suspect since he didn't run his A game. LOL.:p :D

Let's call this at a draw. I'm happy with the arguments that both of us have presented, and we really can't carry this any further. You like Invasor better, but respect Bernardini, while I like Bernardini better, but respect Invasor. If nothing else, some good information was conveyed, and that is what this board is all about.:)