Derby Trail Forums

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Charles Hatton Reading Room (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Where's the Scat Daddy Thread? (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6660)

eurobounce 11-08-2006 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
I think you are determined to not admit you were wrong IN ANY WAY. What you really should do is temper your specific enthusiam to a realistic level. Bernardini is a fine horse, most likely one of the best hundred or so in the time period you mention. But, his performances on the racetrack completely belie your opinion of him. Saying something is so does not make it so. A horse has only his performances to speak for him.

I have always thought Bernardini was a nice horse. I also thought highly of Invasor and was far from surprised at Saturday's result. They were two evenly matched horses who would probably split decisions fairly evenly if they met a number of times. But, make no mistake, neither has done anything on the track to place them in any kind of elite group.

Horses who were absolutely better? Off the top of my head....Ghostzapper, Holy Bull, Skip Away, Formal Gold, Candy Ride, Tiznow, Easy Goer, Sunday Silence, probably Cigar, AP Indy, Dubai Millenium. But the list of comparable horses is endless...Point Given, Medaglia D'Oro, maybe even Saint Liam, Smarty Jones, Silver Charm, Touch Gold, Lido Palace, Street Cry, Left Bank, Congaree, Will's Way...I'm sure you get the drift.

You feel some sort of connection to Bernardini, which is great, but that doesn't alter his resume. What he is/was is another in a long line of nice horses who has a reasonable resume of success.

Invasor accomplished far more "on the track" than Ghostzapper and St Liam. If you are looking at track results only (no sheets etc etc) Then Invasor has been better than those two I mentioned.

eurobounce 11-08-2006 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer
No way my friend. Buy American when it comes to things like cars.

Buy foreign when it comes to light and cold things that are simultaneously refreshing.

Light and cold---that describes most American women--ha ha ha.

Cajungator26 11-08-2006 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer
No way my friend. Buy American when it comes to things like cars.

Buy foreign when it comes to light and cold things that are simultaneously refreshing.

That's hilarious... we are of opposite opinions...

I buy my cars foreign (love Toyotas) and I'm a domestic beer drinker. Dammit... it's 5:00 somewhere, isn't it? HAHA! :D

Cajungator26 11-08-2006 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eurobounce
Light and cold---that describes most American women--ha ha ha.

Nah, most American women are FAT and cold. :eek: :p

eurobounce 11-08-2006 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cajungator26
Nah, most American women are FAT and cold. :eek: :p

Well I was trying to be a little nice. But fat and cold is better than hairy and bitchy (French women).

Cunningham Racing 11-08-2006 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
I think you are determined to not admit you were wrong IN ANY WAY. What you really should do is temper your specific enthusiam to a realistic level. Bernardini is a fine horse, most likely one of the best hundred or so in the time period you mention. But, his performances on the racetrack completely belie your opinion of him. Saying something is so does not make it so. A horse has only his performances to speak for him.

I have always thought Bernardini was a nice horse. I also thought highly of Invasor and was far from surprised at Saturday's result. They were two evenly matched horses who would probably split decisions fairly evenly if they met a number of times. But, make no mistake, neither has done anything on the track to place them in any kind of elite group.

Horses who were absolutely better? Off the top of my head....Ghostzapper, Holy Bull, Skip Away, Formal Gold, Candy Ride, Tiznow, Easy Goer, Sunday Silence, probably Cigar, AP Indy, Dubai Millenium. But the list of comparable horses is endless...Point Given, Medaglia D'Oro, maybe even Saint Liam, Smarty Jones, Silver Charm, Touch Gold, Lido Palace, Street Cry, Left Bank, Congaree, Will's Way...I'm sure you get the drift.

You feel some sort of connection to Bernardini, which is great, but that doesn't alter his resume. What he is/was is another in a long line of nice horses who has a reasonable resume of success.

And you are certainly entitled to your OPINIONS ;) I've seen most of those horses that you mentioned run and he is every bit as good as they were from a raw talent perspective IMO. Keep in mind that those horses got to run as older horses, which I think is VERY improtant to keep in to perspective because most of those were at their best as OLDER horses and not 3yos....

Also, I think Invasor is a nice horse, but I also think that if he and Bernardini were to race 10 times, I reaqlly believe Bernie would win decisively 8 of the 10 times if they were both 100% - that is just my OPINION and can never be proven as fact......

The way Javier had to scrub on Bernardini going into the far turn I believe was evidence that he was not getting over the track well and he got beat by a horse who was getting over the track better than he was that day....it happens....that is why horses like Secretariat, etc. have lost before....

ArlJim78 11-08-2006 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing
So you are saying that my opinion of Bernie being one of the more talented horses in the last 15-20 years was somehow proved otherwise by fact?....I don't think so, not after one race where he didn't fire big and never had a chance to run at the peak of his career......

Remember, most of the all-time greats lost races - Does that make them not great IN YOUR OPINION? :confused:

He is a very nice horse and unfortunately he was retired too early for us to really know him. But,
He is not an all-time great because he never did anything great. The all-time greats you're referring to that lost races also did great things. Name one great thing Bernardini did. He had one chance on the track to show us something great and he came up somewhat short of great.
It doesn't make him great just because he won easy with Durkin screaming "OHHH its hot out and Bernardini didn't even break a sweat!!!" He didn't win any battles and he didn't overcome great adversity to win a race.
He also didn't accomplish enough on the track to say with absolute certainty that he was one of the more talented horses in the past 15-20 years.

You can take that opinion and no one can say you're wrong because of his short career, but don't act like there was enough actual racing evidence to reach your conclusion.

LARHAGE 11-08-2006 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cajungator26
LMAO!!! Good lord, I haven't laughed all week... but that was hilarious. :D

Me too! I actually laughed out loud, and I'm at work! :D

Cunningham Racing 11-08-2006 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78
He is a very nice horse and unfortunately he was retired too early for us to really know him. But,
He is not an all-time great because he never did anything great. The all-time greats you're referring to that lost races also did great things. Name one great thing Bernardini did. He had one chance on the track to show us something great and he came up somewhat short of great.
It doesn't make him great just because he won easy with Durkin screaming "OHHH its hot out and Bernardini didn't even break a sweat!!!" He didn't win any battles and he didn't overcome great adversity to win a race.
He also didn't accomplish enough on the track to say with absolute certainty that he was one of the more talented horses in the past 15-20 years.

You can take that opinion and no one can say you're wrong because of his short career, but don't act like there was enough actual racing evidence to reach your conclusion.

An all-time great - No, he was not - but only because you have to prove that on the track and he wasn't given the chance...

One of the most naturally talented horses to ever grace a racetrack - Yes, at least he was the most talented I have seen...his upside to be a better older horse was insane....the horse had ZERO weaknesses and that is how judge horses...his biggest weakness was his trainer to me - and that isn't really even fair to Tom. How good of a horse ould he have been if he got the Ghostzapper treatment in the Frankel/Allday barn as a 4-year-old?...Scary to think.....:eek:

blackthroatedwind 11-08-2006 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing
And you are certainly entitled to your OPINIONS ;) I've seen most of those horses that you mentioned run and he is every bit as good as they were from a raw talent perspective IMO. Keep in mind that those horses got to run as older horses, which I think is VERY improtant to keep in to perspective because most of those were at their best as OLDER horses and not 3yos....

Also, I think Invasor is a nice horse, but I also think that if he and Bernardini were to race 10 times, I reaqlly believe Bernie would win decisively 8 of the 10 times if they were both 100% - that is just my OPINION and can never be proven as fact......

The way Javier had to scrub on Bernardini going into the far turn I believe was evidence that he was not getting over the track well and he got beat by a horse who was getting over the track better than he was that day....it happens....that is why horses like Secretariat, etc. have lost before....


You can believe what you want, and maybe you're right, but you seem to make too many excuses for the horses you like. Maybe Castellano was scrubbing on him because he was finally in a competitive spot. It isn't as though his speed figure was substantially different than his other races.

Suggesting he would beat Invasor 8 out of 10 times, especially being that he is already 0-1 is outlandish. You are underrating one and overrating the other. The simple fact is what happened Saturday disproved your previous opinions, so to speak. You were wrong about Bernardini, so what, but continuing to suggest something that is shown to not be true doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Remember, when he needed more, he didn't have it, and that is specifically in contradiction to many of your pre-race comments.

Cunningham Racing 11-08-2006 01:20 PM

No, the only thing I believe I was wrong about is that he lost the race because that is the only TRUE fact that you can point to. He didn't fire, but so what? We'll never know how good he really was and it will all be specualtion and OPINIONS on how good the horse really was.....period :)

Bernardini would have NEVER let Sun King take him to a photo finish, but obviously that race was probably not Invasor's best, right? Think about it....we're talking about Sun King here :rolleyes:

Cajungator26 11-08-2006 01:23 PM

It's too bad that Bernardini isn't running next year...

The way this topic has turned is pointless... he will never have a shot at proving anything because he isn't running again.

SniperSB23 11-08-2006 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing
No, the only thing I believe I was wrong about is that he lost the race because that is the only TRUE fact that you can point to. He didn't fire, but so what? We'll never know how good he really was and it will all be specualtion and OPINIONS on how good the horse really was.....period :)

Bernardini would have NEVER let Sun King take him to a photo finish, but obviously that race was probably not Invasor's best, right? Think about it....we're talking about Sun King here :rolleyes:

How is beating a horse that lost the Met Mile and the Whitney by a nose, two of the most prestigious races in the country for older horses, a negative for Invasor? Don't make the mistake of confusing 10 furlong Sun King with the 8-9 furlong Sun King on his best days. Using Sun King as a slap in the face for Invasor is about as relevant as using the horses that beat Bernardini in his first race as a slap in the face for him.

blackthroatedwind 11-08-2006 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing
No, the only thing I believe I was wrong about is that he lost the race because that is the only TRUE fact that you can point to. He didn't fire, but so what? We'll never know how good he really was and it will all be specualtion and OPINIONS on how good the horse really was.....period :)

Bernardini would have NEVER let Sun King take him to a photo finish, but obviously that race was probably not Invasor's best, right? Think about it....we're talking about Sun King here :rolleyes:


It's really amazing. Continuing to suggest that Bernardini somehow didn't run his race, because to not say that allows for the possibility that you overrated him ( dramatically ), even though it flies in the face of logic, is actually incredible. I guess speed figures are only relevent to you when they somehow prove your point.

Not as incredible, however, as how you consistently deviate from the real conversation with some complete nonsequitor to somehow deflect from the real issue. It doesn't strengthen your argument....it weakens it substantially.

Pointg5 11-08-2006 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cajungator26
It's too bad that Bernardini isn't running next year...

The way this topic has turned is pointless... he will never have a shot at proving anything because he isn't running again.


That's true and to think he would have been better is no guarantee, he ran some nice sheet#'s, probably more consistent than any 3yo, but maybe he was done developing and was just an early developer, we don't know...But he never hit a Ghost Zapper, St. Liam, Commentator like number...

Coach Pants 11-08-2006 01:35 PM

Invasor would probably lose 8 out of 9 to Bern because the fields wouldn't be that large. Probably would avg. 5.4 horses in the 9 races and Bern more than likely wouldn't have to suffer for being asked too early or have to move five wide, you know, like most champions of days past.

Pointg5 11-08-2006 01:39 PM

Also, the Great Horses did lose, but they ran more frequently and horses now are timed for big events, so one loss does diminish your standing. On the biggest day, he didn't win and he lost the HOY because of that....

Coach Pants 11-08-2006 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pointg5
Also, the Great Horses did lose, but they ran more frequently and horses now are timed for big events, so one loss does diminish your standing. On the biggest day, he didn't win and he lost the HOY because of that....

His downfall was overconfidence by the connections. He was moved too early and too wide and simply didn't have the stamina to finish. And to think some were predicting the track record to fall.

Cannon Shell 11-08-2006 01:46 PM

I know this will flip a few people out and I am the last person to knock a trainer because I understand all the little things that go on beyond the publics eye but... I think that Albertrani ran a short horse. I have been trying to understand how a lightly raced three year old that wins as easily as he did in his prep could be fit enough to go a mile and a quarter in a big field against the best competition that he ever faced off off with works that barely broke 103 and in the final case 105? It just is hard for me to believe that he could be dead-ready fit with that kind of work schedule. He doesn't gallop at a high speed and his works are slow for a bad horse let alone an ultra talented one. That's not saying that he wasn't 95% but in a bigger field where he was forced to lose a little ground on a surface that wasn't especially fast, his not having a hard race or work for over a month and a half may have left him a little below where he should have been.

Cunningham Racing 11-08-2006 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
It's really amazing. Continuing to suggest that Bernardini somehow didn't run his race, because to not say that allows for the possibility that you overrated him ( dramatically ), even though it flies in the face of logic, is actually incredible. I guess speed figures are only relevent to you when they somehow prove your point.

Not as incredible, however, as how you consistently deviate from the real conversation with some complete nonsequitor to somehow deflect from the real issue. It doesn't strengthen your argument....it weakens it substantially.

Okay, lets talk sheets if you want to bring in speed figures.....He was running negative 2s and negative 1s when just in a gallop in winning some of his races earlier this year. If you really belive that Saturday was his best effort then you must not have been following the horse well this year. I knew he wasn't running his best race Sat. when they went into the far turn...it happens.....it is all specualtion that it was or was not his best race....

Answer me this:

If Secreatriat would have retired after his Wood defeat to Angle Light and Sham prior to his Triple Crown run, would that have meant that he would have been not as good as Angle Light and Sham to you?....please :rolleyes:

I'm sorry you don't have the instincts to recognize raw talent when it is in front of you, which may be because you are so blinded by the fact that you don't like the big shots in this sports and their horses are always going to start off behind the eight ball with you....

You are entitled to your opinion like we all are ion this great country, but to say for fact that Bernardini was proved Saturday to be not as talented as he was made out to be is just pure specualtion - and STRICLTY your OPINION


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.