Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ateamstupid
You might say that it's a different situation because DC wasn't himself yesterday, but I don't think Bernardini was himself in the Classic either. I hesitate to say that, because the Bernardini snipers will rush on here and say I'm making excuses, but I'm not saying that that makes the result phony at all. I'm also not saying, however, that the one race makes Invasor better than Bernardini.
|
Your logic is spot-on, and I can't argue with it. And I know we've rehashed the whole "was Bernie at the top of his game in the BCC" discussion about 10 times. I do, and have stated why previously, and you don't. I think it was a fair assessment of their respective abilities and it actually got run exactly how I thought it would. My tickets on the race that day reflected exactly what happened straight.
Can you ever PROVE definitively that one horse is better than another? In all likelihood, minus the obvious examples (Secretariat vs. a 3200 claimer at CT), you can't. It's all in what you see. The way I view it, Invasor is a clearly superior animal to Bernardini. Not loads superior, but obviously better. I think he was much better (please know that when I say "much," I mean like 2-3 lengths, but not 10 lengths) than Bernie in the BC, all things considered. These types of conversations are never "definitive," because someone can always raise some sort of objection, even if illogical, that has to be considered. To me, it's a no-brainer in every sense.