Dubai World Cup

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

I guess I shouldn't expect much out of you, because you're such a dumba$$ that you can't even tell I was admiring Invasor.

What is it with people named after Point Given on this board? He was a very nice 3yo, but people are doing more on this board to disgrace his name than even Point Determined did!!

[ateamstupid]

I love all of these folks playing the underdog Invasor card.

I don't see anyone on here ripping apart Invasor's competition like they ripped apart Bernardini's. I don't see anyone getting their panties in a bunch, huffing and puffing about how overrated Invasor is like they did about Bernardini. So quit with the "Invasor doesn't get any respect" tomfoolery. He might not get the "Bernardini = (Insert great horse here)" threads, but he also isn't getting the "I would give my left leg to see Bernardini run last" threads either. Take a breath.

Invasor is a great horse. Anyone who denies that is a moron. As is anyone who completely writes off Bernardini for losing by a length to Invasor. As is anyone who says Invasor is definitively better than Bernardini because of that race.

They're both in my Top Five list of greatest horses I've ever seen.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I don't see anyone getting their panties in a bunch, huffing and puffing about how overrated Invasor is like they did about Bernardini.

That is probably because Bernardini was overrated and Invasor is not.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by miraja2

That is probably because Bernardini was overrated and Invasor is not.

Right. One race, losing by ONE LENGTH to the horse that "isn't overrated," makes Bernardini overrated. Solid.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Right. One race, losing by ONE LENGTH to the horse that "isn't overrated," makes Bernardini overrated. Solid.

What? Where the hell did you get that from? Losing that race didn't make Bernardini overrated. He was overrated long before that.
Losing a race doesn't make a horse overrated. How highly that horse is rated does. I didn't say Bernardini was a bad horse. He wasn't. There is no shame in running second in the BCC or running second to Invasor. But he was overrated last summer/fall. No reasonable person could dipute that.
You don't seem to fully grasp what overrated means. It doesn't mean bad. It just means......well......overrated.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by miraja2

What? Where the hell did you get that from? Losing that race didn't make Bernardini overrated. He was overrated long before that.
Losing a race doesn't make a horse overrated. How highly that horse is rated does. I didn't say Bernardini was a bad horse. He wasn't. There is no shame in running second in the BCC or running second to Invasor. But he was overrated last summer/fall. No reasonable person could dipute that.
You don't seem to fully grasp what overrated means. It doesn't mean bad. It just means......well......overrated.

What the hell makes him overrated? It can't possibly be all his wins, so it has to be his one loss, right?

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I'm curious how one would come to this conclusion. What do you base this opinion on?

What do I base what opinion on? That a one-length victory in one race doesn't make one horse definitively better than another? Do I really need to elaborate?

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

What the hell makes him overrated? It can't possibly be all his wins, so it has to be his one loss, right?

Okay, so you really don't know what overrated means.
Neither his wins nor his losses "make him overrated." In my opinion the quality of all his starts after his debut make him a very good horse (you are of course wrong to credit him with only "one loss" but I know you know that). His victories and his quality second place finish in the BCC meant that Bernardini was a very talented and accomplished horse. I don't see anyone denying that in this thread. We aren't avance here.
What makes him overrated is the fact that a lot of folks took those impressive performances and got carried away with them by saying he was one of the all-time greats. People don't seem to be doing that for Invasor even though he has a very impressive record and despite the fact that - in their one meeting - Invasor defeated Bernardini.
That is why I say Invasor is underrated and Bernardini is/was overrated. It has more to do with how people respond to these horses' performances than the performances themselves.
See what I mean?

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

What do I base what opinion on? That a one-length victory in one race doesn't make one horse definitively better than another? Do I really need to elaborate?

You concluded that the horse that lost was better than the horse that won. Obviously you are going by something other than that one loss.
So yes, elaborate. How do you come to that conclusion?

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

A one-length victory in one race doesn't make one horse definitively better than another? Do I really need to elaborate?

Well this is certainly true. But by almost any measure in which horses could be evaluated, Invasor has a better career than Bernardini. Invasor has won more races, more stakes races, more money, won the only head-to-head matchup, and he has less losses (1) than Bernardini (2).
That doesn't mean Bernardini wasn't good. It just means that Invasor is very good.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I

Invasor is a great horse. Anyone who denies that is a moron. As is anyone who completely writes off Bernardini for losing by a length to Invasor. As is anyone who says Invasor is definitively better than Bernardini because of that race.

I think anyone who uses the BCC as their sole reason for Invasor being definitvely better than Bernardini is a tool as well.

But it certainly plays a part in coming to the overwhemingly obvious conclusion that Invasor, in all reality, is a definitively better horse than Bernardini was.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I think anyone who uses the BCC as their sole reason for Invasor being definitvely better than Bernardini is a tool as well.

But it certainly plays a part in coming to the overwhemingly obvious conclusion that Invasor, in all reality, is a definitively better horse than Bernardini was.

And what would be those other parts, considering that they never faced each other elsewhere? Obviously Invasor has beaten better competition, but does that make him a definitively better horse? You might say yes, but I disagree.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

And what would be those other parts, considering that they never faced each other elsewhere? Obviously Invasor has beaten better competition, but does that make him a definitively better horse? You might say yes, but I disagree.

I think the competition is a huge factor. Neither have beaten a TON, but then again there isn't/wasn't much out there to beat. But the fact remains that the only time Bernardini really got a test from anything resembling a top-class racehorse, he didn't come through.

On the other hand, I think the Classic is important and we shouldn't dismiss it because Bernardini had every right to win that race and couldn't do it, so regardless of the fact that they only met once the result was important. Sure it was one length, but it's not like there was even a second during the stretch where Jara and Invasor didn't have Bernie's measure. It's the richest North American race and the horse wasn't even being urged in the very late stages. I believe, there is more stock to put into that race than you're letting on.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I think the competition is a huge factor. Neither have beaten a TON, but then again there isn't/wasn't much out there to beat. But the fact remains that the only time Bernardini really got a test from anything resembling a top-class racehorse, he didn't come through.

On the other hand, I think the Classic is important and we shouldn't dismiss it because Bernardini had every right to win that race and couldn't do it, so regardless of the fact that they only met once the result was important. Sure it was one length, but it's not like there was even a second during the stretch where Jara and Invasor didn't have Bernie's measure. It's the richest North American race and the horse wasn't even being urged in the very late stages. I believe, there is more stock to put into that race than you're letting on.

But the point is that it was one race. There's no doubt that Invasor was the better horse THAT DAY (though not tons better like you say). But who's to say what would've happened on a different track on a different day? For example, does Discreet Cat's race in Dubai make Invasor definitively better than Discreet Cat? He might indeed be better than DC, but I'm not willing to make that claim off of one race.

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.

[brianwspencer]

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.

Cigar Mile H. (G1) winner DISCREET CAT (Forestry), who suffered his first loss when checking in last of seven in Saturday's Dubai World Cup (UAE-G1), underwent a thorough veterinary examination at Al Quoz Stables on Sunday morning, according to the Godolphin website.

An endoscopy of his respiratory tract found an "obstructive granulomatous mass" within the colt's throat, as well as "significant swelling of the underlying throat wall," attributed to an "infective process."

Godolphin's veterinarians believe that these throat issues compromised Discreet Cat's performance in two ways. His airflow was obstructed, and he was also suffering "significant discomfort." The four-year-old bay is being treated for these maladies.

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/edito...ll_edition.cgi

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

And what would be those other parts, considering that they never faced each other elsewhere? Obviously Invasor has beaten better competition, but does that make him a definitively better horse? You might say yes, but I disagree.

I'm curious how one would come to this conclusion. What do you base this opinion on?

Of the love of God get off the Bernardini. He is gone. Invasor is better this year than he was in the BC. Barbaro was also a great horse then by Bernadini standards. They just did not run enough to get all bent out of shape. I personally think Smarty Jones was better, but he had a short career also.

Invasor is a top flight older horse. The others never got to the older category.
If you take glory in Bernardini losing by one length fine. But he did not come back, Invasor has with a fury. He is a better horse now. Invasor barely even breathes hard after he is finished tough races. The animal is unique. And I love watching him run, great athlete. Maybe we can all say Candy Ride was the best horse we have ever seen cause he slaughtered Megs in such an awesome fashion. One time. And then he is done.

[outofthebox]

Lol. When and if Invasor loses this year, are we going to read all this "overated" crap again. I just love watching this horse run. I dont try and rate him against other great horses, or compare him either. I just am appreciative to his owners who have given us racing fans ther pleasure of watching him race.