Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ArlJim78
May I ask you what you mean when you use the term, "run to a better level of form"? How do you know that GW's level of form in the QEII at Ascot on the turf, exceeded Invasors level of form in the Classic on the dirt?
Nothing in my prior statements denigrated George Washington. Why did they send him to the Classic, did they not think he could stay?
Also you have contradicted yourself. You are telling me that you can't make season long ratings based on one race, the BCC, yet you are making season long ratings for GW and Bernardini based on one race, (The QEII and the Travers).
|
I'm just using the QEII and the Travers as these two races represented the best performances in the world in 2006 (both 132). Also Bernardini's efforts in the JCGC (131+) and Jim Dandy (130+, from a form perspective, were better than his effort in the BCC. Now I will admit that these races don't represent the most solid of form, so it is difficult to make hard and fast conclusions. Also, Invasor's profile remains progressive, so it's impossible to say that he wont improve further.
As for George Washington, his QEII run we have rated at 132+ (cf with Invasor's 128+ for the BCC). I'm in no way simply looking to "compare a grass race run in Europe to a dirt race run in America" as someone else suggested, but rather assigning figures (in lbs) to what each horse has actually achieved, and establishing a figure to which they can realistically run to.
Therefore, for whatever the reason, I'm asserting that both Bernardini and GW were below their best in the BCC. For the latter the reasons are fairly obvious, but for Bernardini they are not at all so, are bound to raise debate, and represent a dilemma over which we all have a view.