|
|
 |
|
#121
11-08-2006, 01:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I buy my cars foreign (love Toyotas) and I'm a domestic beer drinker. Dammit... it's 5:00 somewhere, isn't it? HAHA! 
__________________
http://www.facebook.com/cajungator26 
|
|
#122
11-08-2006, 01:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 
__________________
http://www.facebook.com/cajungator26
|
|
#123
11-08-2006, 01:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#124
11-08-2006, 02:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 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....
|
|
#125
11-08-2006, 02:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#127
11-08-2006, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.....
|
|
#128
11-08-2006, 02:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#129
11-08-2006, 02:20 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 
|
|
#130
11-08-2006, 02:23 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.
__________________
http://www.facebook.com/cajungator26
|
|
#131
11-08-2006, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#132
11-08-2006, 02:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#133
11-08-2006, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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...
|
|
#134
11-08-2006, 02:35 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.
|
|
#135
11-08-2006, 02:39 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....
|
|
#136
11-08-2006, 02:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#137
11-08-2006, 02:46 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.
|
|
#138
11-08-2006, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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 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
|
|
#139
11-08-2006, 02:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It is my opinion that he was one of the most talented horses since the Bid and that he was the best horse I have ever seen - and I don't need anyone to validate that....
|
Linear Mode
