Where's the Scat Daddy Thread?

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

" ...the best thing is that nobody is right and we are all right at the same time ... "


That is specifically, and exactly, false. And, frankly, it speaks volumes. You seem to think that, regardless of results, whatever opinions you have are correct as apparently it is the horse that was wrong...not you. However, some opinions are prescient and correct and are proven so and many are neither and are proven wrong. This is what happens in racing. This is important at the windows but not in cyberspace. It becomes more and more apparent where different posters make their bets so to speak.

OPINION :

–noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.


...you have your opinions and you come to a conclusion on them as they are the right beliefes in your mind....mine are the right beliefs in my mind, thus I am always right to me....there is no fact here, Andy

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

OPINION :

–noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.


...you have your opinions and you come to a conclusion on them as they are the right beliefes in your mind....mine are the right beliefs in my mind, thus I am always right to me....there is no fact here, Andy

Joel, I think we all know the definition of " opinion ". However, there are different kinds of opinions. Some are personal preference ( Food, music, literature, art, etc ) and some are predictive ( " in my opinion such-and-such horse will win Saturday ) and these kind are proven right or wrong over time. Surely you know this and can differentiate between which kind of opinions we are discussing here.

[Cajungator26]

Dude, my head is spinning... I need something domestic, light and cold.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Dude, my head is spinning... I need something domestic, light and cold.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

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

Nah, most American women are FAT and cold.

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Nah, most American women are FAT and cold.

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

[Cajungator26]

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!

[LARHAGE]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

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!

Hey, I'm with you, I too love Toyota's, but as far as men, prefer domestic!

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by LARHAGE

Hey, I'm with you, I too love Toyota's, but as far as men, prefer domestic!

I'm with you there!!!

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Joel, I think we all know the definition of " opinion ". However, there are different kinds of opinions. Some are personal preference ( Food, music, literature, art, etc ) and some are predictive ( " in my opinion such-and-such horse will win Saturday ) and these kind are proven right or wrong over time. Surely you know this and can differentiate between which kind of opinions we are discussing here.

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?

[blackthroatedwind]

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?

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.

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.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

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.

You honestly believe this? Wow..

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I don't think that Bernardini and Ghostzapper should even be compared since it's unfair to both... what was done by Bernie as a 3 year old definitely topped out GZ's 3 year old season, and what was done as a 4 year old for GZ defnitely topped out Bernie's 4 year old season, SINCE HE DIDN'T HAVE ONE! LMAO...

BINGO, Cajun..

Everybody dance now!

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I can't believe I just read this. I really can't. There can't be people out there who honestly believe this. It's impossible.



BINGO, Cajun..

How can you think differently. Lets recap here. Now we are only comparing on the track. We arent comparing times, sheet numbers, etc etc.

Ghostzapper
4 Grade I wins (Classic, Vosburgh, Woodward, Metropolitan) He has 9 wins from 11 starts for earnings of $3.4mm. Horse of the year in 2004

Invasor
4 Grade I wins ( Classic, Whitney, Suburban, Pimlico Special) To me these are more prestigous races than what Zapper won. Also, Invasor has 9 wins from 10 starts with earnings of $3.6mm.

Invasor will be crowned HOY of the year for the 2nd time.

So Invasor has won more money and has a better win % and has won more prestigious Grade I races. In addition, he is still racing. Now looking at these two it is pretty even. But, the edge goes to Invasor based "on the track."

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....

[blackthroatedwind]

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.

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

[SniperSB23]

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

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.