Dubai World Cup

[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 ArlJim78

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?

I don't think he can. Is there any criteria to examine which wolud logically lead to the conclusion that Bernardini was better? There may be....but I can't think of any.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

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?

No. You can't read. I said that that race doesn't make Invasor definitively better then Bernardini. I didn't say Bernardini was definitively better than Invasor. I said they're both in my top five, and I didn't say in what order.

Originally Posted by miraja2

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?

Then I would refer you to the Bernardini bashers that were calling him a mediocre 3-year-old that just beat up on bad competition all year long. I guess that would make him underrated. It wasn't all Bernardini fans, believe it or not. These are the same people that are now praising Invasor as the second coming. I don't think you can have it both ways.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

No. You can't read. I said that that race doesn't make Invasor definitively better then Bernardini. I didn't say Bernardini was definitively better than Invasor. I said they're both in my top five, and I didn't say in what order.

At this point you shouldn't really be struggling trying to decide which horse is better. Its a no-brainer.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

At this point you shouldn't really be struggling trying to decide which horse is better. Its a no-brainer.

Thanks for telling me how I should be judging horses. I forgot that Bernardini's gotten smoked in every race since the Breeders' Cup.

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

At this point you shouldn't really be struggling trying to decide which horse is better. Its a no-brainer.

of course it is. don't you know, bernardini was the greatest of all-time!!
bernardini could have beaten citation in a match race at 10 furlongs......jogged a lap to rest up.......then defeated secretariat in a match race at 10 furlongs...........then done 3 back flips..........then beaten affirmed in a match race at 10furlongs........while running backwards.
don't try to fight it anymore dude.......he was the greatest.

[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.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by miraja2

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).

ateamstupid,
I really am not trying to pick a fight with you.....but are you going to address any of these points or not?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by miraja2

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.

If you're arguing that Invasor has accomplished more on the track, I obviously can't refute that. But I don't think more money and more stakes races makes him better, considering that Invasor has the benefit of having been in more races.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

If you're arguing that Invasor has accomplished more on the track, I obviously can't refute that. But I don't think more money and more stakes races makes him better, considering that Invasor has the benefit of having been in more races.

But despite being in more races....he has lost fewer races.
I just think that while both horses are/were accomplished, it only seems logical to say that at this point Invasor has established himself as the better overall animal.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by miraja2

But despite being in more races....he has lost fewer races.
I just think that while both horses are/were accomplished, it only seems logical to say that at this point Invasor has established himself as the better overall animal.

Would you be saying that if Bernardini had beaten Invasor in the Classic?