Dubai World Cup

[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.