Absolutely!

Ghostzapper was better than Invasor and Bernardini.

You're right though. People on this board are so knee-jerk, it's absurd. A horse is only as good as his last race, and any horse who puts together a few wins is the second coming of Secretariat.

Dont go out on limb there ateam... and Bernardini. A few races, a few races. Who had a few races, Bernadini or Invasor or Ghostzapper? At last count I think Bernadini ran at least a couple of fewer races.

If I had to put horses in against Ghostzapper I would pull out a rabbit, and run a mile and a half or more with Invasor, if I had to beat him. You can use Bernardini.

Bernardini lovers, anyone?

Yes, they did it. As did the Barbaro fans, as did the Smarty Jones fans, as did the Ghostzapper fans, as are the Invasor fans doing it now.

Whoa, Bernardini fans are WAY different than Invasor fans. If you can't see that distinction, then we're at an impasse to begin with.

I loved GZ, but I would not say GZ was a better horse than Invasor. If it all came down to one race in July, then yes, GZ would probably win. But how about if they scheduled 10 races together at different tracks over the span of a year? Which horse would win the most races? I'd be tempted to put my money on Invasor showing up and running his excellent race every time. GZ was so fragile that he might make only half the races.

My point is that durability and consistency are components of greatness, too.

--Dunbar

In terms of on track performance GZ is the only one being mentioned that in my mind compares, although he had a much different style of running.
I think your point is like mine in that there is a difference between brilliance and greatness. GZ was brilliant, I think Invasor may be a great one. I'm not saying he is yet but if he keeps racing we'll have a chance to see.