Bernardini ?

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

So if you don't care about figures, but you think Bernardini moved to soon, how do you decide who is the better horse, him or Invasor?

By the way, I'm a casual observer here, My selection, DAVID JUNIOR, PULLED UP TOO SOON.

Experience. Intuition. There are just so many different 'types' of races. When you see how a given type tends to play out, you get a sense of who got the better setup.

I'm not claiming that Bernie blows Invasor away with a better trip. However, his trip was certainly at least ONE LENGTH worse than Invasor's.

I concede that figures are useful when they involve horses I don't know much about (haven't seen their races). They have no use, however, in cases where I've seen the horses over time. If I need a figure to tell me who the better of two good horses is OR how good a horse really is, then I really shouldn't be playing.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Experience. Intuition. There are just so many different 'types' of races. When you see how a given type tends to play out, you get a sense of who got the better setup.

I'm not claiming that Bernie blows Invasor away with a better trip. However, his trip was certainly at least ONE LENGTH worse than Invasor's.

I concede that figures are useful when they involve horses I don't know much about (haven't seen their races). They have no use, however, in cases where I've seen the horses over time. If I need a figure to tell me who the better of two good horses is OR how good a horse really is, then I really shouldn't be playing.

Yeah, Invasor had to go out 4 paths wider on the turn (with contact to his inside!) and Invasor had the better "set up". Here is the race in case you havent seen it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xvzZJzgk1d4

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Yeah, Invasor had to go out 4 paths wider on the turn (with contact to his inside!) and Invasor had the better "set up". Here is the race in case you havent seen it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xvzZJzgk1d4

If Bernardini was good enough Costellano gave him a quality opportunity to win.. I am not saying he moved at the exact perfect time but understand he clearly thought he was on a monster and once clear and without trouble the likely winner. When you are sitting on what you believe is the best horse your job is to get a good trip and give the horse every opportunity to win.. Costellano clearly does as much.. On that day in that race Invasor was the better horse and IMO had more to overcome then Bernardini.

[CSC]

Speaking about bad rides as on the Saez thread, Jara's ride on Invasor in The Donn was far worser than what happened to Proud Spell last weekend. If Invasor wasn't such a superior horse to the field he faced Jara would have been brought to the shed I suspect.

[blackthroatedwind]

It was close but Bernardini was probably better. The ride he got in the Classic was vintage Castellano and anyone who has been paying attention to him over the last decade knows exactly what I mean. He must have learned to ride by watching old films of Eddie Maple....the king of the premature wide move on the turn.

The argument that " if Bernardini was such a great horse he would have won in spite of the ride " gets away from the very specific reality. The simple fact is that in the Classic, all things considered, Bernardini ran the better race. That's all that matters. Bernardini was never as good as many wanted to believe, just as Invasor isn't as good as some now seem to think he was, but that doesn't change what happened at Churchill that day.

I'll tell you one thing, if by some wild chance a genuinely remarkable horse should ever race again, I hope people can finally get some perspective.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It was close but Bernardini was probably better. The ride he got in the Classic was vintage Castellano and anyone who has been paying attention to him over the last decade knows exactly what I mean. He must have learned to ride by watching old films of Eddie Maple....the king of the premature wide move on the turn.

The argument that " if Bernardini was such a great horse he would have won in spite of the ride " gets away from the very specific reality. The simple fact is that in the Classic, all things considered, Bernardini ran the better race. That's all that matters. Bernardini was never as good as many wanted to believe, just as Invasor isn't as good as some now seem to think he was, but that doesn't change what happened at Churchill that day.

I'll tell you one thing, if by some wild chance a genuinely remarkable horse should ever race again, I hope people can finally get some perspective.

I would have loved to see Bernardini at 4. Invasor at 5 too.

Thanks for the Eddie Maple reference. Hadn't thought of him in ages.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

I would have loved to see Bernardini at 4. Invasor at 5 too.

Thanks for the Eddie Maple reference. Hadn't thought of him in ages.

I'm not sure that Invasor would have improved, but I guess all of this is conjecture, but I agree it would have been nice to see Bernardini at 4. There is more than a little reason to believe he might have been really terrific.