Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ateamstupid
Would you be saying that if Bernardini had beaten Invasor in the Classic?
|
i think had bernardini won the race that most would say he was better. only having one race to go by, it's not much of a study. but then, multiple face-offs don't mean much either. sunday silence won 3 of 4 meetings with easy goer, but there are still plenty of people who will say easy goer was the better horse.
but winning the one time two horses face each other doesn't mean much. does anyone REALLY think seabiscuit was a better horse than war admiral?? i don't-he just managed to win that day. swaps beat nashua in the derby, and then nashua won a match race-so who's better?
i can see where many would come to the conclusion that invasor is 'better' than bernardini-but i can see why that would cause disagreement as well.
as for those who say bernardini was 'overrated'-in the sense that he didn't accomplish some of the more outlandish things some said he would-then yes, you could say that-but losing a race by one length doesn't make a very good horse suddenly very bad! considering who bernardini lost to, i don't see that his reputation should suffer for that loss. one length is NOT the difference between very good, and a nag.