:wf

Good Lord.....Now what did I do?

too much info

Like this:

Beyer speed figure pundits claim Big Brown wasn’t as fast as champions of the past, but his Ragozin and Thoro-Graph numbers for the Kentucky Derby were the fastest ever recorded, including those of Secretariat, Monarchos, Spend a Buck, and other brilliant Derby winners. What makes those figures even more amazing was the fact that he also recorded the fourth fastest final Derby prep ever. So, instead of regressing off that race or pairing up, as the three horses who ran as fast or faster in their final prep did, he actually jumped up and ran a bigger number. Horses just don’t do that.

You'd also have to recognize that those two scales have changed over the years. The writer fails to mention that but they've made it nearly impossible to compare horses of different eras.

OK then explain this:

Big Brown accomplished that in only his third and fourth races of his career and breaking from posts 12 and 20, respectively. The last horse to win the Derby with only three career starts was in 1915, and no horse had ever won the Derby from post 20. Although his speed figures regressed a bit in the Preakness, which was expected, he still won by 5 1/4 lengths and was virtually eased in the final furlong.

Have they changed that much to fully dispute the point?

Actually, good horses do improve off good races....especially lightly raced ones. Why would it be surprising when a 3YO ran better in his fourth career start than he did in his third career start?

Saying he ran a faster speed figure than Monarchos hardly places him in rarified air. And, furthermore, finding a speed figure that backs up your assertions, while rejecting another, especially if you have EVER used that other speed figure to defend a horse, is a slippery slope.

That's easy to explain.....he beat decidely slow horses.

Do you think the writer has his own agenda when he wrote the article? What is in it for him to be so flattering of Big Brown?

I don't think that way. I just happen to disagree with some of the things he wrote. I'm sure he disagrees with some things I say.

Exactly.

Many also criticized his competition, something he had no control over. Yet, the horses he defeated did manage to come back to finish 1-3 in the Travers (gr. I), 1-3 in the Ohio Derby (gr. II), 1-2 in the Jim Dandy (gr. II), 1-3 in the Swaps Stakes (gr. II), 1-3 in the Pennsylvania Derby (gr. II), 1-3 in the Northern Dancer (gr. III), and first in King's Bishop (gr. I). And the only one to compete against older horses in a major race (Anak Nakal) finished a fast-closing second in the Meadowlands Cup (gr. II).

Relax. Seriously. If anything, it just shows even further how terrible almost the entire crop was.

Did you see the Meadowlands Cup?

no offense but all you have to do is start talking about BB's "conformity" and you could be my rather tiresome neighbor

I think racing should take from cycling and add another component: the time trial. You have horses race together and horses time trial. Beyerlike speed figures make a lot of sense in time trials and Sheets type figures make more sense in races. (Running 11 lengths more than the winner, getting beat by a few lengths, and then getting a lower figure and thus being deemed TOO SLOW by the 'fanatics' doesn't quite make sense to me.)

I have no problem with acknowledging that a given horse is FASTER than another IF and only IF this comes as the result of a time trial type event. As I also have no problem with a horse that does something unique (goes against the grain) being better than its peers. Too bad the latter are very few and far between.

Of course, given that most of these horses can barely make it to the track for a handful of races a year (or career), we might not be seeing this new format any time soon. We're thus left debating FAST and SLOW. :rolleyes:

I did not.

Me or the writer?

OK then can we just agree on the following?

One time, after being led out to be washed, Big Brown looked up and intently eyed a pigeon on the roof for several minutes

In a head to head battle, who's head would explode first, pg1985 or RollerDoc's?

Or, as a third possibility, would all the rest of us undergo simultaneous explosive cranial decompression?

My opinion is that that argument would most likely result in Roller Doc's unrelenting illogic causing pg1985's head to explode first.

somebody better remove clyde van dusens name from that derby trophy then....that fraud.

you are aware tho, that those races are run pretty much every year, and generally have a winner? :rolleyes:

define intently. i think that's a silly remark to make-and how it indicates anything special about the horse, i don't know. he eyed a pigeon, so what. my dog eyed a squirrel, doesn't make her the next lassie.
besides, maybe it just indicates big brown is brain damaged. i can't imagine a pigeon would be interesting enough to eye for long-unless he's hovering over your newly washed car.

both of you

i don't think pgs would explode, he'd just disappear for a bit and come back with a new moniker.

I said it because it was the most insignificant part of the article. I guess that is part of my twisted sense of humor.