Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
I fail to see your logic. If he runs badly on dirt than we have something concrete to base our judgement on. IMO the only way you can judge a horse is based upon his accomplishment, not what might have happened. However accomplishments are not necessarily equal from year to year. Is the Arc winner =BC Classic winner? Is the 2007 BC Classic winner = 2008 BC Classic winner? It is all debatable but I cant tell you if Miesque was a better horse than Sunday Silense because they are different types of horses. If you want to debate Miesque and Lure, you have something solid to base that on. If you want to debate Curlin and Cigar, fine.
it is like asking who is a better baseball player? a pitcher or a batter? They both play baseball but they do entirely differnt things.
I mean no one thinks that Goovy was a better horse than Skip Away but at 6 furlongs I would take Groovy everytime.
|
Still the analogy doesnt work. Both were 3 year old route horses. One raced turf in europe and the other raced dirt in the US. Heck, they were even related by blood (cheap i know). Racing is racing. If you want to compare, you can compare them in their respective specialties and respective accomplishments. And if you want to compare year to year, the fields that Bernardini beat that year were...ummmm...light and none had the quality of the fields lamtarra bested.
it doesnt take your friend PG or the Aga Khan or any other luminary to look at two horses, even ones that are racing at diffferent times in different parts of the world and on different surfaces to make a judgement on quality. Quality transcends surface and style.
I brought up Dubai Millenium, a horse that raced one time on the dirt, and compared him to bernardini. You said they can be compared because Dubai Millenium actually raced on the dirt but you never said who you thought was a better horse.