Yes, it is.

In other words, Big Brown is an ordinary very good horse? I guess I'd agree with that. Affirmed was an ordinary horse, too. He was an ordinary great horse. If we look at Sniper's 'elite of elite' list, we could probably say that Affirmed is a below average horse. Use of "ordinary" can be okay, depending on who we are comparing to.

Who are we stacking Big Brown up against? All of the 400+ horses nominated to the Triple Crown in recent years? I'm sure you'd agree he is in the top third of those horses. Are you comparing Big Brown to the actual triple crown runners of the past 10 years? I'd still put him well into the top third. I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't, too. Now if we are comparing Big Brown to other recent horses who were in the top 2 or 3 of their respective generations, I can at least see how you might use the words "ordinary" or "average".

I took issue with your original post, "big brown wouldn't be any faster if mother theresa owned him and the pope rode him. he's an ordinary horse, but he's better than his peers. that doesn't make him great.", because it wasn't clear to me that you were comparing him to anything but all other horses. If you meant he's an ordinary top 3-yr-old, I'd agree at this point. Your point that most top 3-yr-olds have done something that's considered noteworthy is right on.

--Dunbar

Methinks 'blinkers on' did not help this fellow. Look for 'blinkers off' next out.

Check out the Thoroughbred Racing Hall of Fame and you might see some other names you should know, as well:

http://www.racingmuseum.org/Hall/index.asp

Consider this horse:

1978 PLEASANT COLONY,Dkbbr,c,His Majesty 2 14 6 3 1 965,383 71.10
DP = 7-1-25-1-4 DI = 1.17 CD = 0.16
At 2 Won Remsen S. -G2 (100,000), 2nd Pilgrim S. (50,000)
At 3 Won Kentucky Derby -G1 (200,000), Preakness S. -G1 (200,000),
Woodward S. -G1 (200,000), Wood Memorial -G1 (150,000), 2nd Travers S. -G1 (200,000), Fountain Of Youth S. -G3 (65,000), 3rd Belmont S. -G1 (200,000)

A very nice 3yo, beat his elders in the Woodward (10f and more important in those days, not just a rerun of the Whitney), no BC Classic around for him then. But not a great horse by anyone's calculation.

the mother theresa/pope comment was a response to something that roller doc said, that he wasn't getting called 'great' due to his connections. i just wanted him to understand that i didn't think big brown would run faster if someone else owned him, even if it was a saint.
also, i meant better than the other three year olds this year, his actual peers in this crop.
and yes, historically, i would call him ordinary compared to some of our best ever-that is exactly what i meant.

perhaps i am being a bit too harsh with the horse-after all, other than his belmont, he's won every race. and of course we all know you can't help what competition you face. however, competition has to be taken into consideration when you start throwing the word 'great' around. and like in so many other years, i think people are far too quick to use that word in reference to the horse of the moment. so maybe i go too far in the other direction in an attempt to 'right the ship' so to speak. there is no way we have the amount of great horses some people are trumpeting every year. we want a great horse, everyone wants that. so too often a horse is called that-maybe to make a wish a reality? problem is, you have to find a horse who really fits that bill.

Well said.

--Dunbar

So what is being said is competition makes a great horse great?

What if Secretariat had no competition and faced only bad horses, yet won his races by 10-12 lengths virtually every time with a few mediocrely good efforts that still resulted in small margin wins?

What if Affirmed didnt run against Alydar, instead faces horses as slow as Barcola? Yet he beat these Barcola types by 10 lengths under hand rides?
Would he still have been great? Its not really a horse's fault who shows up next to him.

no, not just competition. and many have said, myself included, that obviously a horse can't control what he faces.