After his Derby performance and this lackluster crop of 3-year olds, Big Brown could very well be the next Triple Crown winner.

At first I was bummed thinking about this because it's a situation where he is essentially "the best of the worst"-- not exactly the kind of champion like Secretariat or Affirmed. But on second thought, you can't really hold Big Brown "responsible" for how crappy the rest of the crop is. If he wins it, it is still legitimate because he was better than every other 3-year old that ran against him.

If he isn't retired two days after his win in the Belmont (and that's a big "if"), it would be interesting to see how Triple Crown Champion Big Brown would stand up against a horse like Curlin in the Breeders Cup Classic. That would be a decent measure of what his real class is.

I don't think it would be a decent measure of what class is -- not here in this forum. Read the threads (most of them) that, before the race, said he had no shot; and then read all of the commentary (perhaps "excuses" would be a better word) after the race. It's ironic that this year's crop got massively worse immediately after Big Brown crossed the finish line.

Personally, I said Big Brown was a "bet against" right from the get-go. No sour grapes here, nor celebrating as I didn't have the filly on one ticket. I took my stand, put up my money and watched that colt go right out and beat me.

Eric

I love this post. Spoken Like a true man of the game and I agree wholeheartedly.

Although, there were a few on here (BTW comes to mind) that had questions about the quality of the crop BEFORE the race.

I think we have our triple crown champ and i think he beats curlin.

Hilarious.

The same thing happened with the Florida Derby. Before the race, it was a very good field, but afterwards, he beat a bunch of nags.

Of course the crop is bad. But we knew that before the race, and a lot of people still said Big Brown has no shot.

please show me where most of the threads before the race said that Big Brown had no shot. I somehow missed all those threads.

Please. Let's try and do a real reality check here. Go back and check all of the threads that said this horse had no shot, was a bet against, and so on. The prevalent and most overwhelming reasons was everything else -- except on a rare occasion -- other than a weak, pathetic crop.

Did the majority people here say he was a lock? I guess I completely misread the the entire pre-Derby discussions here.

Eric

To be fair, there weren't a ton, and most of the people who were wrong about him have been pretty gracious about his win.

I'm speaking to the larger point of people trying to explain away a wrong opinion with the same ol' "he beat nothing" argument as soon as the race ends. It happens quite a bit.

Good crop, bad crop, it is what it is. I am not debating that it's not a great crop -- even a bad one. I am pointing out that before the race the fact was an afterthought or also ran as a reason why Big Brown wouldn't, couldn't, win. Now that he's won -- the crop is the # 1 justification, rationalization, vacillation or whatever you want to call it.

Hey, I am not surprised. Just amused, LOL.

Eric

Not many said he was a lock but that doesn't mean that they felt he had no shot either.

I did look and didn't find any threads that said he had no shot. I did see that many considered him a bet against which is not the same thing. I took a stand against, it sounds like you did as well. Both of us knew that it was possible that he would decimate the field, but wanted to make him earn it and if he couldn't do it we would be there to clean up.
I'm quite sure that most of the people that post here are sharp enough to know that the race went through Big Brown, that if he ran like he did in Florida it would be no contest.

As far as him beating a pathethic crop, I think its a fair statement. Not to diminish Big Brown any, he might have been good enough to beat a solid crop, but it is what it is, and the group he beat, excepting for the filly was awful.

Bet against and no shot are 2 completely different things. Being the favorite in a 20 horse field was the main reason for betting against him.

Has anyone heard how he came out of the race??

Sure, of course there's a difference. My point is that before the race, those who were taking a stand against him -- regardless of to what degree -- were doing so for all of the popular and valid reasons sharp players should have (add to the list if you like). After the race, it appears to me that the major vacillation to the victory is the weakness of the crop. That's all.

Eric