I think that equates into a great year.. but I dont know about a "great" horse. Peoples definitions of "great" vary. If your definition of "great" means top 100 horse of all time, then Big Brown doesnt fit. not even close. If your definition of "great" is winning the Florida Derby, Kentucky Derby, Preakness, and Haskell... then Big Brown is "great". Its very subjective. Dont feel bad everyone here gives everyone crap about their opinions (myself included).

this is a insane statement hooves. ANY TC RACE IN THE LAST 10 YEARS?? Are you fing kidding me???

i'm sure he was thinking of sarava when he typed that. :D

Danzig,

I thought the field in the Kentucky Derby 2006 was a pretty strong one when Barbaro won. Do you agree? Or anyone else agree?

I think hes being sarcastic or was stoned when he wrote this!
Didnt that Ramsey horse Nolans Rat run 3rd in the Belmont?

Not so, skippy. Spectacular Bid's Belmont was not impressive. Neither was Secretariat's 3rd place finish in the Wood.

Danzig, IMO your calling Big Brown "ordinary" is almost as outrageous as Roller Doc calling him "great".

--Dunbar

I agree with this statement... but I do think he is having a great year, you cant blame the lack of competition on him. Any horse to win the type of races he has would have had a "great" year. At this point he is much more accomplished than Curlin was at the same time last year.

I shouldnt have said "terrible". I just had an issue with the "ordinary" comment.. Because if there is one thing Big Brown is not, it's ordinary.

Here is why Big Brown is GREAT to me:

He has attained over 3.5 million in winnings, including several hundred for me because of my wagers on Big Brown. Actually my girlfriend is the benefactor of my winnings. So she thinks I am great for her getting her a new Louis Vitton bag, therefore I think Big Brown is great. Hopefully this puts the Big Brown is GREAT argument to bed :)

You also have to take a look at just how much Big Brown is beating his competition by, which I agree 100% is very weak.
He was pulled up in the Belmont and he barely got up to win the Haskell against a bunch of goats. But before that he won the KY Derby and the Florida Derby by the easiest of margins from terrible posts which put him at a disadvantage right from the get go. He won the Preakness by a ton. He won his maiden debut on the grass by a mile. Thats got to count for something and you have to also consider his most impressive races, which I just mentioned were all won under close to hand rides with very little urging. His margins of victory could have been even more.

The horses he beat were pretty awful, but realistically not that much worse than the 3 year olds that were running the year Giacomo and Afleet Alex won.

And I'd take a few of the 3 year olds Big Brown crushed over Barcola.

Well if BB would have got me some ..... I'd think he's great too.

I was thinking that when this thread dies down, I should start a new one titled:

WHO WAS BETTER.....SECRETARIAT or BIG BROWN?

But based on this crowd, I probably shouldn't.

You have heard of Secretariat??? Thats a good start!

I think he won the Preakness back in the 70s right? :)

Zito's take
 

I like Zito's summary.

From today's DRF:

--Dunbar

there's a reason i said he's ordinary. every year we have a three year old champ, every year said champ does a couple of things that are noteworthy. once in a while you have a horse that does so many things so extraordinarily, that years later he's still spoken of with awe and reverence.
big brown isn't extraordinary. he's going to be the top 3 yo, for good reason. but he's not extraordinary.

look at it this way-you have above average, average, and below average horses. three categories, so conceivably a third of all horses are above average, a third below, and a third in the middle. i'd put him in the middle. maybe the upper middle, but the middle all the same. in other words, average. ordinary. not ordinary as in a claimer, ordinary when you stack him up to others who have raced at this level in years past.

is it really..look at the other horses .. give me your weakest year befor this one..

Dunbar, I may have mistyped what i meant to say. A horse needs to be impressive in a majority or his or her races. A horse is still an aminal who is apt to have a bad day. However, when ones start to string those unimpressive performances together, you end with a horse who is good but not great.