[Danzig]

there is no way anyone could possibly argue that a preakness win is comparable to a derby win, esp not lately when so many have skipped md to rest for belmont--which bernardinis connections decided to skip as well. the derby is THE race in the spring for 3 yo's. barbaros win was emphatic, over (again) the best field assembled in years. some say since secretariats field, others say since iron lieges, when bold ruler, gallant man and round table ran.
also, his margin of victory was one of the largest ever in the derby, and the largest in 60 years since assaults won en route to his triple crown. barbaro started on grass, and made the switch to dirt, winning his first try on that surface in the slop. some said let's see him on fast ground, he answered that question as well. then there was the five week layoff, first horse to win the derby off that length of time off. the withers doesn't equal the holy bull, certainly doesn't equal the florida derby. imo, barbaro was the better horse--he certainly had accomplished far more in his short career than many horses ever do. a catastrophic injury cut his career short, a career that answered any question someone could have about a horse.
as for bernardini, he hasn't won at 10f yet, he hasn't faced the level of comp that barbaro faced yet. he may accomplish more--he has the time to do so i hope! but IMO barbaro is the better of the two.

like i said, comparisons will lead nowhere. bernardini isn't done yet. maybe he'll win the bcc...maybe my opinion will change down the road. but RIGHT NOW, imo, barbaro is the top horse from this crop.