Dubai World Cup

[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.