you're right. i'll rank him right up there with omaha....maybe sir barton. but definitely not with war admiral, citation, secretariat, affirmed or slew. or even count fleet. hell, i think i'd even put assault ahead of him, as well as gallant fox and whirlaway.

speaking of past winners, 10 of the 11 had more starts at two then big brown has had in his career.

It will be hard, if not impossible, to compare any horse in the 21st century to those before them because the dynamics of the game have changed.

It is doubtful we will see any horse with a great record make it to their 4YO campaign because of breeding.

So Big Brown is an example of the "new" landscape.

As a comparision it's like college basketball players retiring and never playing in the pros.

So how will we know greatness over a short career with the horses only youngster? We may never unless we change the way we define greatness.

To go back to the college basketball analogy, Micheal Jordon really wasn't that great in college.

That being said, Champions may be a collection of horses and records that will never be seen again, this year or in the future. Our only hope, to be honest, would be a horse that has been cut. Kind of funny to thing the only real chance for greatness is a horse that gives up the chance to reproduce. Chance for Greatness = weannie off

ugh


seriously tho, i suggested a few months ago that if you wouldn't still be talking about the horse in 20 years, he's not great. man o war ran and retired before 1920-people still use him as a measuring stick. citation won the tc 55 years ago, and is still spoken of with reverence. secretariat, 35 years since he ran-we still wonder if we'll see something like him again.
you come back in 20 years and mention big brown-people will either say 'who?' or will say 'oh yeah, big brown. worst tc winner ever. but at least i got to see a tc win'. why? time will bring clarity, and lessen the emotions you're seeing right now.

I'm kinda getting ticked at all you boneheads that wont shut up about comparing bb to horses who ran 30 years ago and not enjoy what we have now.

No s hit he's not going to race as often as the past great horses, thats just the way it is, but he's fast, he's awesome and if he wins the Belmont in a couple weeks he'll be great.

Is there nothing that can make a horse racing fan happy??

[quote=Antitrust32]I'm kinda getting ticked at all you boneheads that wont shut up about comparing bb to horses who ran 30 years ago and not enjoy what we have now.

No s hit he's not going to race as often as the past great horses, thats just the way it is, but he's fast, he's awesome and if he wins the Belmont in a couple weeks he'll be great.

Is there nothing that can make a horse racing fan happy??[/QUOTE]


Come on..you know the answer to that..

When there is something to complain about

That's really my point. In the next 20 years do you think we'll see any greatness the way it was defined in the past? How? Horses will retire after 8-10 races and go to stud.

Man o' War was 20 for 21. Of course he was great as were the others you mentioned. I just think the game has changed where we won't see horses get to prove they are great. Maybe Big Brown wins the TC but maybe he would be better as a 4YO - 5YO but we won't find out with him or any 3YO from now on, unless for some reason they are gelded.

Maybe he's great, maybe he's not but you can't say in 6-7 races and that's all you'll get.

IF he wins the TC, 20 years from now he'll be remembered only because chances are it will not happen again or if it does, it will be very limited. He will be great because in the new world order we can only define these horses on limited running

O.k., Mr. Peabody, let's go see Big Red win again.

ok, so compare this horse to those who have run since whatever cutoff date. but someone compared this horse to secretariat the other day-there is NO comparison. you can't have it both ways. you can't say well, he can't be compared as he won't get the chance to prove himself like them, but then say he should be on the same list as those from the 'glory days'. and that's what people are trying to do.

some want a tc so bad, they are cheering for a horse who most years would get sneered at, because we need a tc just for the sake of winning a tc? how can it really mean anything, when a horse like big brown wins it? it would be a hollow victory.
hell, he has to win it first. it's all speculation one way or the other at this point...

are you talking about the boneheads who write that big brown is secretariat, or the ones who say he's not?

and i enjoy racing just fine, and am happy for the most part. not raining accolades on big brown doesn't mean i'm not enjoying myself-for the most part.

frankly it was better last year, with no triple crown on the line but 3-4 talented colts and a filly that made for some solid competitive races throughout the year.

its the people who feel Big Brown is so fast and awesome who are jumping on the bandwagon and comparing him to previous great horses and no, winning the Belmont will not automatically make him great

Amen!

Apologies to Danzig for this post that I am now editing out.

I find it interesting that there are so many people saying that IF he wins the Belmont, THEN he'll be great. I've always thought that if/then scenario was odd. It's my feeling that he's either a great horse or he isn't already. Winning that race won't prove it. It might help solidify the argument but not prove it.

I go back to the NBA. Hakeem Olajuwon won led the Rockets to back to back championships in 1994 and 1995. It solidified his position as one of the all-time great players in the league. But what if Michael Jordan hadn't retired? What if Jordan had stayed on and instead of the Rockets winning, the Bulls had continued their streak and won two more? Would that mean that Olajuwon wasn't as great as he was just because someone else was better? I don't think that's true. Same thing for Charles Barkley, Pat Ewing, Karl Malone, and John Stockton. All were great players and played as well as they could play but didn't win titles because they weren't as great as Jordan was. But that shouldn't mean they were less than they were.

Getting back to Big Brown, either he's great now or he's not. I've always been in the camp that says greatness and ability are natural things. A trainer might be able to raise it to a higher level but either the horse has it or he doesn't. If Affirmed's nose had been on the other side of Alydar's in one of those races, is he less great all of a sudden? Big Brown can be great and lose the Belmont. Spectacular Bid and Smarty Jones both did.

The answer is yes, Big Brown is GREAT.

Um.. Michael Jordan was ACC Freshman of the Year in '82, and won four different national Player of the Year awards in '84, including a little something called the Wooden Award.. Maybe Micheal Jordon sucked, but that other guy was pretty great in college, I'd say.

mighty pompous for a guy that on another thread confessed to not knowing what beyers are.

My point was not that he was bad, just that he got so much better in his career as a pro.

Maybe he was thinking of the guy who played at Penn

Not pompous. Like several other "pompous" veterans on here that seem to feel like they can be ignorant to people who don't know as much. I admit it, I am not close. I came on here to learn and have received very rude welcoming by a few with thousands of posts. I asked legitimate questions and received some ugly responses. Danzig took a quote of mine and trying to make a mockery of it.

You said he "wasn't that great". I'd say hitting the game-winning shot in the national championship as a freshman and being the consensus player of the year as a junior is pretty great.