dear bernardini fans....

SniperSB23 · #1 11-17-2006, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

If you have watched the horse's races critically, you would have realized by the half mile in the BCC that the horse was not on his A game.

He was on his A game, he finally met some competition and lost to a very good horse. Do we really have to continue this ridiculousness because a few people saw greatness where it didn't actually exist and are too stubborn to admit they were wrong?

ateamstupid · #2 11-17-2006, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

He was on his A game, he finally met some competition and lost to a very good horse. Do we really have to continue this ridiculousness because a few people saw greatness where it didn't actually exist and are too stubborn to admit they were wrong?

Do we have to continue this ridiculousness because too many people are letting one race determine how good a horse was?

How the hell would you know if he was on his A game or not?

I don't think he was. He had to be urged all the way around the track, something that has never happened before, then he made a big sweeping move and flattened out. "Not handling the track" is a perfectly valid excuse for every other horse except Bernardini these days.

avance2000 · #3 11-17-2006, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Do we have to continue this ridiculousness because too many people are letting one race determine how good a horse was?

How the hell would you know if he was on his A game or not?

I don't think he was. He had to be urged all the way around the track, something that has never happened before, then he made a big sweeping move and flattened out. "Not handling the track" is a perfectly valid excuse for every other horse except Bernardini these days.

hey ateam did you see where i agreed with you on page 6 of this thread?
now we have seen it all!

avance2000 · #4 11-17-2006, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

He was on his A game, he finally met some competition and lost to a very good horse. Do we really have to continue this ridiculousness because a few people saw greatness where it didn't actually exist and are too stubborn to admit they were wrong?

yes sniper i think we do. we had to listen to the bernmafia for 5 solid months.
now its payback time. some people might say "be the bigger person." not me. they annoyed the hell out of me......now it is payback time.

kentuckyrosesinmay · #5 11-17-2006, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

He was on his A game, he finally met some competition and lost to a very good horse. Do we really have to continue this ridiculousness because a few people saw greatness where it didn't actually exist and are too stubborn to admit they were wrong?

Look, he was not on his A game. It is not worth debating with me because you won't convince because I KNOW that he wasn't on his A game. I'm not too stubborn to admit when I am wrong.

I was wrong in thinking that he could win the BCC off of his B game. He was almost good enough to do it, but almost good enough doesn't count.

In my mind, he was talented enough to be a great horse if he would have kept racing. Everyone's definitions of greatness are different. He was on the verge of it.

I consider Ghostzapper to be a great horse. I consider Dubai Millenium and Tiznow to be great horses. I consider Deep Impact to be a great horse. Bernardini was certainly almost there as was Barbaro and Point Given. If Alex wouldn't have broken his leg, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have become a great horse. If circumstances would have been different for him, he would have won the TC, but lady luck was not with Tim Ritchey and Cash is King on that first Saturday in May. Charismatic was yet another one who may have become a great horse as was Smarty Jones. But almost doesn't count.

avance2000 · #6 11-17-2006, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

I KNOW that he wasn't on his A game.

oh okay....well if you KNOW it then that is good enough for me.
oh wait.....no.....actually that doesn't mean squat to me.

ArlJim78 · #7 11-17-2006, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Look, he was not on his A game. It is not worth debating with me because you won't convince because I KNOW that he wasn't on his A game. I'm not too stubborn to admit when I am wrong.

I was wrong in thinking that he could win the BCC off of his B game. He was almost good enough to do it, but almost good enough doesn't count.

In my mind, he was talented enough to be a great horse if he would have kept racing. Everyone's definitions of greatness are different. He was on the verge of it.

How can you say it was not his A game? He had never faced horses like that before. That was his first big test. There was nothing in his history that indicated that he should have blown away the field on BC day.

I don't know how much talent he may have had in your mind, but I do know he cannot and will not be considered a great horse because it never happened and that is a fact.

avance2000 · #8 11-17-2006, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

that is a fact.

there is the problem. you can't use facts against the bernmafia. they hate them.

kentuckyrosesinmay · #9 11-17-2006, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

How can you say it was not his A game? He had never faced horse like that before. That was his first big test. The was nothing in his history that indicated that he should have blown away the field on BC day.

I don't know how much talent he may have had in your mind, but I do know he cannot and will not be considered a great horse because it never happened and that is a fact.

I mentioned in a post on the previous page on the previous page how I knew that he wasn't on his A game . People like me know that the horse wasn't on his A game by comparing his previous races to his BCC. Plus, several friends who are insiders have agreed that he wasn't on his A game. If Invasor would have raced against Bernardini in a match race, Bernardini would have blown that horse away. Invasor's camp did the right thing when they pulled him out of the JCGC. They wouldn't have beat that horse in that race. Now, they have a HOY title because of that smart move. Also, if Barbaro would have been racing, he would have beat both Invasor and Bernardini in the BCC this year. However, Barbaro would not have beat Bernardini in the Preakness had he not gotten hurt.

I already stated that I couldn't consider him to be a great horse because he didn't accomplish enough on the track even though he was brillant in most of his performances. However, he most certainly had the talent to become one if he would have kept racing as a four year old. I know what that horse is, and he will prove it in the shed.

SniperSB23 · #10 11-17-2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

I mentioned in a post on the previous page on the previous page how I knew that he wasn't on his A game . People like me know that the horse wasn't on his A game by comparing his previous races to his BCC. Plus, several friends who are insiders have agreed that he wasn't on his A game. If Invasor would have raced against Bernardini in a match race, Bernardini would have blown that horse away. Invasor's camp did the right thing when they pulled him out of the JCGC. They wouldn't have beat that horse in that race. Now, they have a HOY title because of that smart move. Also, if Barbaro would have been racing, he would have beat both Invasor and Bernardini in the BCC this year. However, Barbaro would not have beat Bernardini in the Preakness had he not gotten hurt.

I already stated that I couldn't consider him to be a great horse because he didn't accomplish enough on the track even though he was brillant in most of his performances. However, he most certainly had the talent to become one if he would have kept racing as a four year old. I know what that horse is, and he will prove it in the shed.

This has to be the funniest post I've read on this forum. You just know all this stuff? That is pretty amazing.

avance2000 · #11 11-17-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

This has to be the funniest post I've read on this forum. You just know all this stuff? That is pretty amazing.

yeah it is an effective strategy. you present people with facts and they respond with..."i know i am right and you are wrong. how do i know that....well, because i know it!"
how do you argue with that?

Pointg5 · #12 11-17-2006, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

This has to be the funniest post I've read on this forum. You just know all this stuff? That is pretty amazing.

Why do you guys even try to reason with these guys...They are never wrong and they know it...

kentuckyrosesinmay · #13 11-17-2006, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

This has to be the funniest post I've read on this forum. You just know all this stuff? That is pretty amazing.

They are called opinions Sniper. I just don't feel like typing IMO after every freaking sentence

SniperSB23 · #14 11-17-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

They are called opinion Sniper. I just don't feel like typing IMO after every freaking sentence

You did say "people like me KNOW he wasn't on his game" so I think you can understand how I could take the entire post as you knowing all of those other things as well.

avance2000 · #15 11-17-2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

If Invasor would have raced against Bernardini in a match race, Bernardini would have blown that horse away.

how is this germane to anything important? here i've got some more for you to answer:
who would have won if they had been forced to run backwards?
what about blindfolded?
what about with a 400 lb jockey?

#16 11-17-2006, 04:17 PM

I think calling Ghostzapper great in the same breath with calling Slew great is a mindblower. To me they are residents of different planets.

kentuckyrosesinmay · #17 11-17-2006, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Reasoning

I think calling Ghostzapper great in the same breath with calling Slew great is a mindblower. To me they are residents of different planets.

I'm going to ask a question that everyone usually hates. Why?

todko · #18 11-17-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bold Reasoning

I think calling Ghostzapper great in the same breath with calling Slew great is a mindblower. To me they are residents of different planets.

Ghostzapper would have blown Slew off the map. Pure and simple. Slew was never very fast.

ArlJim78 · #19 11-17-2006, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

I mentioned in a post on the previous page on the previous page how I knew that he wasn't on his A game . People like me know that the horse wasn't on his A game by comparing his previous races to his BCC. Plus, several friends who are insiders have agreed that he wasn't on his A game. If Invasor would have raced against Bernardini in a match race, Bernardini would have blown that horse away.

So you are this rare person who compares his previous races to the BCC? Are you kidding me? What do you think everyone else is doing?

So you and your insider friends got together and agreed that he wasn't on his A game? Well I guess that does it then, case closed.

For the last time, it was the pace, the number of horses, and the quality of the horses in the field that took him off his game. If you actually compare his previous races to the BCC you will see that those are facts.

Who cares what would have happened in some ficticious match race? I don't agree that its a foregone conclusion the Bernardini would have won. My guess is that he wouldn't have. The only race we actually know about is the one we saw a few weeks ago where he ran the best he could and got beat by the undefeated horse of the year. No big disgrace in that but, as talented as Seattle Slew? Only in your mind I'm afraid.

kentuckyrosesinmay · #20 11-17-2006, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

So you are this rare person who compares his previous races to the BCC? Are you kidding me? What do you think everyone else is doing?

So you and your insider friends got together and agreed that he wasn't on his A game? Well I guess that does it then, case closed.

For the last time, it was the pace, the number of horses, and the quality of the horses in the field that took him off his game. If you actually compare his previous races to the BCC you will see that those are facts.

Who cares what would have happened in some ficticious match race? I don't agree that its a foregone conclusion the Bernardini would have won. My guess is that he wouldn't have. The only race we actually know about is the one we saw a few weeks ago where he ran the best he could and got beat by the undefeated horse of the year. No big disgrace in that but, as talented as Seattle Slew? Only in your mind I'm afraid.

Yes, those are facts, and it is also a fact that the horse got sandwiched hard and bumped around in the first turn. It is also a fact that the horse dropped back to fifth place after coming up to fourth place on the backstretch signaling that he wasn't on his A game. It is also a fact that after getting hit like that, that he wasn't pulling at Javier like he did in the rest of his races. It is also a fact that Javier knew that Bernardini was not himself, so he started asking him just after the half mile pole. It is also a fact that Bernardini did not explode with as much force around the final turn as he did in the Preakness.

Invasor was is not the undefeated horse of the year. Discreet Cat beat Invasor in Dubai (Invasor was a distant fourth).

If you're afraid, then quit replying to me.