Bernardini ?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I am not sure why you dont think that your contention that a european turf horse "would beat" an American dirt horse isnt strange? It is an apples and oranges thing. If you cant see how it is impossible to compare these things I give up...

Track records are pretty worthless in America and completely useless in Europe.

Freedom Cry, Swain as a 3 year old and Pentire was not a great bunch regardless of how you spin it. I never said that they werent good horses but they were far from a great crop especially compared to other years.

Bernardini was far better three year olds than any of those three

Plenty of European "turf horses" have come to America and beaten American "dirt horses". If not for Tiznow (who wasnt the favorite in either of his BC wins i might add) it would have happened two years in a row in 2000 and 2001. Those "turf horses" didnt look so bad on the dirt did they? I dont know if you are belmont on saturday but...

How do you know that Lamtarra wouldnt have taken to the dirt? To me, he was just a more talented horse. We are talking about horse racing right?

And who said it was a great crop Lamtarra faced? You said it was a terrible crop and i disagreed and now you are saying that they were good horses.

And what did Bernardini beat in his little run? A bunch of goats in "grade 1" races.

[jcs11204]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Plenty of European "turf horses" have come to America and beaten American "dirt horses". If not for Tiznow (who wasnt the favorite in either of his BC wins i might add) it would have happened two years in a row in 2000 and 2001. Those "turf horses" didnt look so bad on the dirt did they? I dont know if you are belmont on saturday but...

How do you know that Lamtarra wouldnt have taken to the dirt? To me, he was just a more talented horse. We are talking about horse racing right?

And who said it was a great crop Lamtarra faced? You said it was a terrible crop and i disagreed and now you are saying that they were good horses.

And what did Bernardini beat in his little run? A bunch of goats in "grade 1" races.

lolol wow omg, you really dont get it
bernardini was a monster, look at the pp's, check out his beyers...its not his fault, that there was no one to face him, he wont all of his races with such ease... never asked to run, i mean really from the preakness on he did not get asked for run again till the BCC

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by jcs11204

lolol wow omg, you really dont get it

i dont.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by jcs11204

lolol wow omg, you really dont get it
bernardini was a monster, look at the pp's, check out his beyers...its not his fault, that there was no one to face him, he wont all of his races with such ease... never asked to run, i mean really from the preakness on he did not get asked for run again till the BCC

The purpose is not to knock Bernardini, who was a very nice horse. However, it is hard to say he was a "monster" or was "great" when the only time he was called on to dig down deep to win a race, he failed to defeat Invasor in the BC Classic. In this regard, Bernardini's 3YO campaign reminds me a lot of the 4YO campaign of Mineshaft. Both won several races against very modest competition; the only time that Mineshaft was in a real battle against a talented horse, he lost the Foster to Perfect Drift.

Neither did enough to be called "great." The problem in racing today is that few are ever asked to do enough that we could reasonably call them "great."

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

The purpose is not to knock Bernardini, who was a very nice horse. However, it is hard to say he was a "monster" or was "great" when the only time he was called on to dig down deep to win a race, he failed to defeat Invasor in the BC Classic. In this regard, Bernardini's 3YO campaign reminds me a lot of the 4YO campaign of Mineshaft. Both won several races against very modest competition; the only time that Mineshaft was in a real battle against a talented horse, he lost the Foster to Perfect Drift.

Neither did enough to be called "great." The problem in racing today is that few are ever asked to do enough that we could reasonably call them "great."

This totally sums up my feelings on BOTH horses that you named. I felt the same way about mineshaft but that was disregarded as blasphemy.

And I agree Bernardini was a very nice horse.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Plenty of European "turf horses" have come to America and beaten American "dirt horses". If not for Tiznow (who wasnt the favorite in either of his BC wins i might add) it would have happened two years in a row in 2000 and 2001. Those "turf horses" didnt look so bad on the dirt did they? I dont know if you are belmont on saturday but...

How do you know that Lamtarra wouldnt have taken to the dirt? To me, he was just a more talented horse. We are talking about horse racing right?

And who said it was a great crop Lamtarra faced? You said it was a terrible crop and i disagreed and now you are saying that they were good horses.

And what did Bernardini beat in his little run? A bunch of goats in "grade 1" races.

What evidence is there that Lammtarra would be able to be a grade 1 type horse on the dirt? Far more europeans have failed miserably than have succeeded on the dirt. It is a pointless argument because you are basing your opinion on total speculation. I for one am not willing to concede that Lammatarra's turf talent would translate to dirt and as i have pointed out i am not so sure that he was more than a really good turf horse either. How you can determine that Lammtarra was a more talented horse than Bernardini was based upon what we know is beyond me. I also never said anything about "terrible". It WAS a weak crop, since when is weak=terrible?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What evidence is there that Lammtarra would be able to be a grade 1 type horse on the dirt? Far more europeans have failed miserably than have succeeded on the dirt. It is a pointless argument because you are basing your opinion on total speculation. I for one am not willing to concede that Lammatarra's turf talent would translate to dirt and as i have pointed out i am not so sure that he was more than a really good turf horse either. How you can determine that Lammtarra was a more talented horse than Bernardini was based upon what we know is beyond me. I also never said anything about "terrible". It WAS a weak crop, since when is weak=terrible?

Weak, terrible its all semantics. Same implication. You call the horses he beat "good" and then say it was a weak crop. Okay...I dont get it but maybe that is tainer speak.

What evidence was there that Sakhee would do so well? How about Dubai Millenium or Giants Causeway? Before they raced on dirt, how would you have known? To the really good ones, it often times doesnt make a difference.

Some people have this opinion that horse racing is divided up and the sports are completely different. Im not of this opinion. To me, horse racing is horse racing. They are all bred in the same place regardless of where they race.

Lamtarra showed me more talent on the track than Bernardini did. Whether it was on dirt or turf is immaterial in my opnion. But accomplishments? Those three wins (epsom, king george, arc) in starts 2,3,4 are things that Bernardini coudlnt have matched.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Weak, terrible its all semantics. Same implication. You call the horses he beat "good" and then say it was a weak crop. Okay...I dont get it but maybe that is tainer speak.

What evidence was there that Sakhee would do so well? How about Dubai Millenium or Giants Causeway? Before they raced on dirt, how would you have known? To the really good ones, it often times doesnt make a difference.

Some people have this opinion that horse racing is divided up and the sports are completely different. Im not of this opinion. To me, horse racing is horse racing. They are all bred in the same place regardless of where they race.

Lamtarra showed me more talent on the track than Bernardini did. Whether it was on dirt or turf is immaterial in my opnion. But accomplishments? Those three wins (epsom, king george, arc) in starts 2,3,4 are things that Bernardini coudlnt have matched.

Whatever...I dont see why a weak crop couldnt have some good horses in it. For instance...the 2008 US 3 year olds...

The evidence is that they DID IT!!! You cant say I think he will do it and have it mean anything. Before they did it was nothing other than guessing. It isnt like his dam was a dirt horse or his sire was a dirt sire.


I find it interesting that the Preakness, Jim Dandy, Travers and JC Gold Cup are somehow not important races or "as important" as the ones you mentioned.

When you say that you have this special talent to distinguish talent in a horse regardless of style of racing, surface or distance it makes me wonder why the rest of us are missing this trait and that you are morphing into a cross between my friend PG and KYRIM.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Whatever...I dont see why a weak crop couldnt have some good horses in it. For instance...the 2008 US 3 year olds...

The evidence is that they DID IT!!! You cant say I think he will do it and have it mean anything. Before they did it was nothing other than guessing. It isnt like his dam was a dirt horse or his sire was a dirt sire.


I find it interesting that the Preakness, Jim Dandy, Travers and JC Gold Cup are somehow not important races or "as important" as the ones you mentioned.

When you say that you have this special talent to distinguish talent in a horse regardless of style of racing, surface or distance it makes me wonder why the rest of us are missing this trait and that you are morphing into a cross between my friend PG and KYRIM.

If a crop has four quality horses, these days especially, then it rates as a pretty good crop. 2008 has about 1 good horse in it. What crop in the US in the last five years had four decent route horses and if there is one isnt it a good crop?

Preakness, Jim dandy and travers are all restricted races and restricted to a bunch of mutts. And the JCGC? The Jcgc lost most of its luster with the BCC. Definitely not the same race but then again wanderin boy is so much better than pentire was. And you are saying that is even in the same realm to a horse winning the epsom, king george and ARC in starts 2,3 and 4? ???????? The Arc is, in the opinion of some, one of the most important races in the world if not THE most difficult. He won it in his fourth start.

But hey, this is all subjective. If you think Bernardini was a better racehorse, then you are entitled to your opinion. I wonder how Sheikh Mo would rank them.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

If a crop has four quality horses, these days especially, then it rates as a pretty good crop. 2008 has about 1 good horse in it. What crop in the US in the last five years had four decent route horses and if there is one isnt it a good crop?

Preakness, Jim dandy and travers are all restricted races and restricted to a bunch of mutts. And the JCGC? The Jcgc lost most of its luster with the BCC. Definitely not the same race but then again wanderin boy is so much better than pentire was. And you are saying that is even in the same realm to a horse winning the epsom, king george and ARC in starts 2,3 and 4? ???????? The Arc is, in the opinion of some, one of the most important races in the world if not THE most difficult. He won it in his fourth start.

But hey, this is all subjective. If you think Bernardini was a better racehorse, then you are entitled to your opinion. I wonder how Sheikh Mo would rank them.

Actually I never said he was a better racehorse. I just questioned your assessment that Lammtarra would beat Bernardini. i just dont understand how you can come to that conclusion unless there were specific parameters laid down. I dont feel like rehashing the crop versus crop debate but I will say that Lammtarra didnt beat a superior group of horses much as bernardini did not beat a superior group of horses.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

When you say that you have this special talent to distinguish talent in a horse regardless of style of racing, surface or distance it makes me wonder why the rest of us are missing this trait and that you are morphing into a cross between my friend PG and KYRIM.

I think you need to speak for yourself here. It seems that there are plenty of trainers/owners/breeders that have this special talent. I dont possess the gift you describe but i dont think it was necessary in what we were discussing.

Aracangues? who would have known? Not bred for dirt and never raced on it but mysteriously wins on it.

The point is its another surface not another sport. Surface preference doesnt make for a whole other breed. A racehorse is a racehorse. But hey, what do i know? I foolishly think the arc is a tougher race to win than the jcgc.

Was

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I think you need to speak for yourself here. It seems that there are plenty of trainers/owners/breeders that have this special talent. I dont possess the gift you describe but i dont think it was necessary in what we were discussing.

Aracangues? who would have known? Not bred for dirt and never raced on it but mysteriously wins on it.

The point is its another surface not another sport. Surface preference doesnt make for a whole other breed. A racehorse is a racehorse. But hey, what do i know? I foolishly think the arc is a tougher race to win than the jcgc.

Was

And I dont think that european turf racing and American dirt racing are close enough to the same thing that it is possible to compare horses.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And I dont think that european turf racing and American dirt racing are close enough to the same thing that it is possible to compare horses.

How about a horse like Dubai Millenium? Could you compare him?