Barbaro vs. Bernardini

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Still no comparison in my opinion-

Barbaro would beat Bernardini easy

Here's why:

- Barbaro was undefeated if you throw out the Preakness, while Bernardini was losing allowance races not too long ago

- Barbaro won the derby in convincing fashion close to the lead in a race that was supposed to set up for a closer

- Bernardini won the Preakness against a horse with a bad pedigree who was worn down and a California horse in a year where the CA 3 yos have proven to be weak and inferior

- He won the Dandy against essentially no one since Sunriver didn't take to the mud

I'm not saying Bernardini's not a special horse, but Barbaro was a potential super horse

I am going to sound like I am contradicting what I said in an earlier thread where I said I thought Barbaro was better, but really I don't think I am.

It is hard to say because Bernardini is just coming into his own and has not faced top class competition yet. It is difficult to compare the two right now. Barbaro is obviously more accomplished at this point, but where will Bernardini be at the end of the year?
As for your statement that Barbaro "would beat Bernardini easy" I think you may be wrong about that. Bernardini ran a 113 Beyer in the Preakness. Could Barbaro have beaten him that day? Perhaps, (in fact I think there is a good chance he would have) but three year olds that run 113s are rarely "beaten easily" while they do it.
And Bernardini was not "losing allowance races not too long ago." He lost his debut and nobody has finshed close to him sense then.

My God! I find myself defending this horse from some people, and trying to make others calm down about him. I think he is a really good horse, who MIGHT end up being a great horse but sometimes it seems like people have to say he is either a sure-fire HOY or an absolute bum.