The Classic

[1st_Saturday_in_May]

Originally Posted by ezrabrooks

1st..I thing he was getting his a$$ handed to him, and that is the reason he was hard ridden...no disrepect, but that what happens with you face better critters.

Ez

I guess tahts true enough. Honestly I'm shocked he held for 2nd (and that saved my exacta!). Please bring this horse back in 07!!!

[King Glorious]

Just want to say one thing here. All of u that are saying it was the step up in competition that got him beat need to stop. Really. It wasn't like half of the field beat him. He got beaten by ONE horse. And the one horse that beat him was an older horse that had won the Pimlico Special, Suburban, and Whitney. It wasn't like this was a fluke win. This was a horse that figured to have a big chance, even though I personally discounted him. So, again, to say that facing better HORSES is what was his downfall is just wrong. At best, it was facing a better HORSE. One horse.

It's incredibly narrow minded to me that Bernardini could lose a race to this caliber of horse and all the naysayers feel justified in saying that they knew all along that he wasn't worthy of all the hype and that they knew he wasn't an all time great. But then those same people that are so quick to dismiss Bernardini from the all-time great horse list will include Secretariat and Spectacular Bid even though they lost some races to some pretty ordinary and non-descript horses themselves. Why does losing to Invasor knock Bernardini out of the conversation but Secretariat is forgiven for losing to Angle Light, Onion, and Prove Out? Why is losing to Invasor seen as proof that Bernardini is not a superhorse but when Bid loses to Coastal, it's ok? Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying any of this to say that Bernardini is in the class of those two horses. What I am saying is that losing a race like this, to a horse like Invasor shouldn't be looked at as proof that he's not. This reminds me of the late 1970's. In 1978, superhorse 3yo Affirmed was beaten in the Marlboro Cup buy the champion older male Seattle Slew. In 1979, superhorse 3yo Spectacular Bid was beaten by the champion older male Affirmed. No disgrace in either situation. None here for Bernardini either. When really good horses face other really good horses, they both can't win. Who's to say that next time they were to face each other Bernardini wouldn't win? Sometimes horses don't care for a particular surface (Easy Goer and Skip Away at Churchill for instance) and it's actually a show of even more courage than thought just to run as well as they did. Bernardini looked to be in deep trouble going into the turn but still found enough to finish second. In the best dirt race in the world. I think that if he was anything but a superhorse, he wouldn't have been anywhere around at the finish. What I am saying is that whether u thought he was a superhorse or not going into the race, this one result shouldn't be used as justification either way.

[MLC]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Just want to say one thing here. All of u that are saying it was the step up in competition that got him beat need to stop. Really. It wasn't like half of the field beat him. He got beaten by ONE horse. And the one horse that beat him was an older horse that had won the Pimlico Special, Suburban, and Whitney. It wasn't like this was a fluke win. This was a horse that figured to have a big chance, even though I personally discounted him. So, again, to say that facing better HORSES is what was his downfall is just wrong. At best, it was facing a better HORSE. One horse.

It's incredibly narrow minded to me that Bernardini could lose a race to this caliber of horse and all the naysayers feel justified in saying that they knew all along that he wasn't worthy of all the hype and that they knew he wasn't an all time great. But then those same people that are so quick to dismiss Bernardini from the all-time great horse list will include Secretariat and Spectacular Bid even though they lost some races to some pretty ordinary and non-descript horses themselves. Why does losing to Invasor knock Bernardini out of the conversation but Secretariat is forgiven for losing to Angle Light, Onion, and Prove Out? Why is losing to Invasor seen as proof that Bernardini is not a superhorse but when Bid loses to Coastal, it's ok? Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying any of this to say that Bernardini is in the class of those two horses. What I am saying is that losing a race like this, to a horse like Invasor shouldn't be looked at as proof that he's not. This reminds me of the late 1970's. In 1978, superhorse 3yo Affirmed was beaten in the Marlboro Cup buy the champion older male Seattle Slew. In 1979, superhorse 3yo Spectacular Bid was beaten by the champion older male Affirmed. No disgrace in either situation. None here for Bernardini either. When really good horses face other really good horses, they both can't win. Who's to say that next time they were to face each other Bernardini wouldn't win? Sometimes horses don't care for a particular surface (Easy Goer and Skip Away at Churchill for instance) and it's actually a show of even more courage than thought just to run as well as they did. Bernardini looked to be in deep trouble going into the turn but still found enough to finish second. In the best dirt race in the world. I think that if he was anything but a superhorse, he wouldn't have been anywhere around at the finish. What I am saying is that whether u thought he was a superhorse or not going into the race, this one result shouldn't be used as justification either way.

What you say makes sense. I was not a Bernardini fan, but I do respect his ability more after today's race. What I think put me off was the belief by alot of his fans that he would perform the same way he had in Saratoga and put away this field with little effort and in under 2 minutes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some people here felt that he would put in a 1:58 or 1:59 race when he was challenged.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by MLC

What you say makes sense. I was not a Bernardini fan, but I do respect his ability more after today's race. What I think put me off was the belief by alot of his fans that he would perform the same way he had in Saratoga and put away this field with little effort and in under 2 minutes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some people here felt that he would put in a 1:58 or 1:59 race when he was challenged.

Mark me down as one that thought he would win with the same minimal effort he used before. I guess I was caught up in the hype. I do think though that in his JCGC, he could have shaded 2:00 if asked. I mentioned a 1:58 and change in another post but the way I said it was that I don't think he's a 1:58 type of horse and that I thought he was already at his peak as a horse and that if he could have gone 1:59 and change in the JCGC, that was the best he could do.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Mark me down as one that thought he would win with the same minimal effort he used before. I guess I was caught up in the hype. I do think though that in his JCGC, he could have shaded 2:00 if asked. I mentioned a 1:58 and change in another post but the way I said it was that I don't think he's a 1:58 type of horse and that I thought he was already at his peak as a horse and that if he could have gone 1:59 and change in the JCGC, that was the best he could do.

I swear I thought I read somewhere where you actually said that you expected Bernardini to break the track record today. Am I wrong?
That is an example of the hype getting way out of hand.

[kgar311]

I hear everybody saying bring him back next year. For what? So the best horse in the world can sit in the back seat and play second fiddle to this horse so more. Discreet Cat would of won by open lengths here.

Originally Posted by kgar311

I hear everybody saying bring him back next year. For what? So the best horse in the world can sit in the back seat and play second fiddle to this horse so more. Discreet Cat would of won by open lengths here.

OOps. Here we go again with another horse. Discreet Cat beat Invasor when? Do horses change? I hope we see Bernardini again.

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Mark me down as one that thought he would win with the same minimal effort he used before. I guess I was caught up in the hype. I do think though that in his JCGC, he could have shaded 2:00 if asked. I mentioned a 1:58 and change in another post but the way I said it was that I don't think he's a 1:58 type of horse and that I thought he was already at his peak as a horse and that if he could have gone 1:59 and change in the JCGC, that was the best he could do.

Hey man, it is just tough to judge ability based on whoever you think a horse is running with.. In all honesty, I didn't know what to think of Bernie....so, I just sat the race out. One horse didn't beat him...a good field did..

Ez

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by ezrabrooks

Hey man, it is just tough to judge ability based on whoever you think a horse is running with.. In all honesty, I didn't know what to think of Bernie....so, I just sat the race out. One horse didn't beat him...a good field did..

Ez

I guess we'll just disagree then because I only thought one horse beat him. I thought a good field challenged him and maybe softened him up a bit but only one horse was able to beat him.

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I guess we'll just disagree then because I only thought one horse beat him. I thought a good field challenged him and maybe softened him up a bit but only one horse was able to beat him.

We agree...but that's racing.. Last time I checked...anybody who ran second..was beat by one horse. Right?

Ez

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by ezrabrooks

Hey man, it is just tough to judge ability based on whoever you think a horse is running with.. In all honesty, I didn't know what to think of Bernie....so, I just sat the race out. One horse didn't beat him...a good field did..

Ez

If anything Invasor had the rougher trip. He bobbled at the start when "the ground appeared to break from beneath him", was 3 wide then 5 wide then 7 wide off the turn.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

If anything Invasor had the rougher trip. He bobbled at the start when "the ground appeared to break from beneath him", was 3 wide then 5 wide then 7 wide off the turn.

Hey man...we are both on the same side of the street. The best horse won today..

Ez

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

If anything Invasor had the rougher trip. He bobbled at the start when "the ground appeared to break from beneath him", was 3 wide then 5 wide then 7 wide off the turn.

No doubt he had a tougher trip than Bernardini. Starting with the post position and ending with what looked like an impossibly wide sweep on the turn.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Just want to say one thing here. All of u that are saying it was the step up in competition that got him beat need to stop. Really. It wasn't like half of the field beat him. He got beaten by ONE horse. And the one horse that beat him was an older horse that had won the Pimlico Special, Suburban, and Whitney. It wasn't like this was a fluke win. This was a horse that figured to have a big chance, even though I personally discounted him. So, again, to say that facing better HORSES is what was his downfall is just wrong. At best, it was facing a better HORSE. One horse.

It's incredibly narrow minded to me that Bernardini could lose a race to this caliber of horse and all the naysayers feel justified in saying that they knew all along that he wasn't worthy of all the hype and that they knew he wasn't an all time great. But then those same people that are so quick to dismiss Bernardini from the all-time great horse list will include Secretariat and Spectacular Bid even though they lost some races to some pretty ordinary and non-descript horses themselves. Why does losing to Invasor knock Bernardini out of the conversation but Secretariat is forgiven for losing to Angle Light, Onion, and Prove Out? Why is losing to Invasor seen as proof that Bernardini is not a superhorse but when Bid loses to Coastal, it's ok? Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying any of this to say that Bernardini is in the class of those two horses. What I am saying is that losing a race like this, to a horse like Invasor shouldn't be looked at as proof that he's not. This reminds me of the late 1970's. In 1978, superhorse 3yo Affirmed was beaten in the Marlboro Cup buy the champion older male Seattle Slew. In 1979, superhorse 3yo Spectacular Bid was beaten by the champion older male Affirmed. No disgrace in either situation. None here for Bernardini either. When really good horses face other really good horses, they both can't win. Who's to say that next time they were to face each other Bernardini wouldn't win? Sometimes horses don't care for a particular surface (Easy Goer and Skip Away at Churchill for instance) and it's actually a show of even more courage than thought just to run as well as they did. Bernardini looked to be in deep trouble going into the turn but still found enough to finish second. In the best dirt race in the world. I think that if he was anything but a superhorse, he wouldn't have been anywhere around at the finish. What I am saying is that whether u thought he was a superhorse or not going into the race, this one result shouldn't be used as justification either way.

You still don't get it. Its not only the competition from Invasor that was tougher, it was the rest of the field as well that contributed to Bernardini having a tougher time. You measure how great horses are when they race with adversity, not when they face small weak fields that they can dominate at will. If we still should consider Bernardini a super horse as you contend, what should we call Invasor?

BTW, didn't you make some bold claim this week that Invasor was in way over his head and that you were so sure about it that if he hit the top four you would stay off the board for a week? Not only did he break the top four but Bernardini (your lock of the day) was staggering as Invasor walked past him.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

You still don't get it. Its not only the competition from Invasor that was tougher, it was the rest of the field as well that contributed to Bernardini having a tougher time. You measure how great horses are when they race with adversity, not when they face small weak fields that they can dominate at will. If we still should consider Bernardini a super horse as you contend, what should we call Invasor?

BTW, didn't you make some bold claim this week that Invasor was in way over his head and that you were so sure about it that if he hit the top four you would stay off the board for a week? Not only did he break the top four but Bernardini (your lock of the day) was staggering as Invasor walked past him.

U miss the part in the post where I admitted that I discounted Invasor. And in case u need to see it again, I started another thread where I admit again that I was WAY WRONG on Invasor.

To answer your first question of what should we call Invasor? Well maybe we should be calling him a superhorse too. He's only lost one race and u don't find many that have seasons like he did this year. I was saying to some others that, while he may not be as good as Ghostzapper was, his HOY campaign, at least he should be, was more impressive than Ghostzapper's was. GZ ran in a weak sprint and in a low class race in Jersey before his two big races. Invasor ran in the best we have to offer. Sure, his competition sucked all year until today but when u run in the very best races, your competition can't be held against u. So, yeah, maybe we should be calling him a superhorse. Is it impossible to have more than one superhorse running at a time? I don't think so.

[MLC]

What should we call Invasor? A really good horse. Probably the best running at this time this year. But just as Bernardini did not deserve the title of superhorse, neither does Invasor.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

U miss the part in the post where I admitted that I discounted Invasor. And in case u need to see it again, I started another thread where I admit again that I was WAY WRONG on Invasor.

To answer your first question of what should we call Invasor? Well maybe we should be calling him a superhorse too. He's only lost one race and u don't find many that have seasons like he did this year. I was saying to some others that, while he may not be as good as Ghostzapper was, his HOY campaign, at least he should be, was more impressive than Ghostzapper's was. GZ ran in a weak sprint and in a low class race in Jersey before his two big races. Invasor ran in the best we have to offer. Sure, his competition sucked all year until today but when u run in the very best races, your competition can't be held against u. So, yeah, maybe we should be calling him a superhorse. Is it impossible to have more than one superhorse running at a time? I don't think so.

I don't know or care about who is or is not a superhorse. All I will say about Invasor is that he has beat the best the world has to offer on dirt. Maybe there will be a fair rematch with Discreet Cat.

btw, if u thought the competition that Invasor faced this year before today sucked, then surely u must say the same about Bernardini.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I don't know or care about who is or is not a superhorse. All I will say about Invasor is that he has beat the best the world has to offer on dirt. Maybe there will be a fair rematch with Discreet Cat.

btw, if u thought the competition that Invasor faced this year before today sucked, then surely u must say the same about Bernardini.

I do think that what Bernardini beat all year sucked. I thought that what Lava Man beat all year sucked too. These are the three leading contenders for horse of the year. And the horse that I think is the best horse period, Discreet Cat, has also beaten nothing. I think that's racing today though. There are just too many spots to run in and trainers avoid having to face other top competition. They just lay it all in one basket for BC day.

I don't take anything away from Invasor at all. He's the champion and that's clear. I'm just thinking that maybe instead of knocking Bernardini off the pedestal because he lost to Invasor, maybe we should consider what Invasor has been able to accomplish this year and put him up on the pedestal with Bernardini and consider that they are both special horses instead of neither.

[King Glorious]

What else is ironic is that it was Invasor that beat Bernardini. A lot of us had started to really get down on the sheikhs for being unsporting and not running Discreet Cat here against Bernardini and for other moves like pulling Dubai Escapade from the Sprint because they had Henny and pulling Ashkal Way from the Mile because they had Librettist and Echo of Light. Ironic that as we call them unsporting, they beat Bernardini with another of their own horses. I really didn't think they would run Invasor and when they did, I took it as a sign that they really didn't think he was able to beat Bernardini because they wouldn't sink their own ship. Guess again.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I do think that what Bernardini beat all year sucked. I thought that what Lava Man beat all year sucked too. These are the three leading contenders for horse of the year. And the horse that I think is the best horse period, Discreet Cat, has also beaten nothing. I think that's racing today though. There are just too many spots to run in and trainers avoid having to face other top competition. They just lay it all in one basket for BC day.

I don't take anything away from Invasor at all. He's the champion and that's clear. I'm just thinking that maybe instead of knocking Bernardini off the pedestal because he lost to Invasor, maybe we should consider what Invasor has been able to accomplish this year and put him up on the pedestal with Bernardini and consider that they are both special horses instead of neither.

About the competition, maybe it does suck if you look at it in a historical context. There just doesn't seem to be a great deal of depth or quality to the older handicap ranks anymore. I guess that part doesn't bother me so much, I have just accepted the horses we have as a fact of life.

As far as your last point, hey I've already been there, glad you are now joining me. I know you have already said you were wrong about Invasor but remember you recently called him a fraud. Now you want to put him on the pedestal with Bernardini. That's fine. I give you credit for admitting it. I have for a long time considered both of these horses as the best ones running here today and knew that it would be a close race.

In my view a combination of things occurred, Bernardini was over-rated and Invasor underated. So Bernardini drops a bit and Invasor goes up a bit and we find the truth which is that they're a couple of really nice horses, not separated by much.

Imagine what it would do for racing if both of these horses were to campaign next year!! I know it won't happen, but just imagine how thrilling it would be to follow them marching towards a possible rematch in the Classic.
I know, I know, I'm a dreamer.