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.