Well Danzig, you and Coach Pants have a combined 20,000 posts. At some point you guys are going to be bored. Glad I could break up some of the excitement for you.

Well at least we know who Dr. Fager is. What the hell are you doing with your free time? Trying to breathe with your mouth closed?

i got up at four am, and worked 14 hours today, so now i'm relaxing and taking some down time. do you mind?

as for my post count, who cares? i rank pointing out a post count with saying 'he's done enough'. oh, and with starting yet another big brown thread.

I asked if he would be great if he wins BCC? Not sure if anyone agrees with me, or no one has so far in that scenario. I happen to think he will be great with the year he had. It is not Big Brown's fault that the quality of his competition does not satisfy you or anybody else.

The fact is, with the exception of The Belmont (and I think there are a lot of people including myself that would love to know what really went wrong), he will have won every race if he wins the BCC. He was hurt early as a three year old so his next race he had to heal. Then he raced three times in five weeks. Who else did that? The Haskell was two months later but that is because Big Brown had issues that needed to be looked into so there was no risk in endangering the horse. One more race before the BCC makes sense to me. That is a very solid attendance record for racing this year.

PS....Since Big Brown beat Da'Tara by over 30 lengths at FL Derby, isn't that a pretty good indicator that something was clearly wrong at The Belmont. Some say yeah, he was washed up. Very unfair to the Derby and Preakness champion.

At least that is progress over your past two posts. Welcome back.

Nobody's arguing against that part. . . it's not his loss that doesn't make him great - it's that his good performances aren't good enough.

so, if we ignore actual talent and ability, as well as level of competition. ignore history, ignore everything we've ever seen in the past...and go only by a horses win record....right?...



looks like peppers pride is going to be HOTY. at the very least, she ought to get top distaffer.

I wasn't pointing out your post count to be insulting. You said you were bored as a piggyback to Coachpants. I agreed I was the cause and sorry to break up the excitement. My fault not yours.

I think if Big Brown wins the BCC, you can expect plenty more deserving Big Brown threads.

If he doesn't, I'll still start one LOL

i'll sleep better at night knowing what i have to look forward to.

So can I throw it back at you what did he need to do in those wins for him to gain some accolades? Should he have won by 50 lengths in each race?

Against those horses? Probably. . . He could run faster races for starters. . .

i'd bring up cigar and ask whom big brown was supposed to beat if i was you. that's assuming a fictional you that knows who cigar is.

and it's a completely fraudulent comparison.

but it would be fun to see how people answered. excellent work with the poking stick so far. i don't know why i'm giving you advise. you're doing just fine.

I guess I just feel like I am on the Big Brown Titanic and it has hit the iceberg. I find it very interesting that if you would research the many positive posts about Big Brown on this Board (especially after the Preakness leading up to the Belmont), there were plenty of different tunes back then.
Now some say he is Big Crap or similar references.

I for one will not jump ship on this horse unless I witness him being beaten soundly in a race. Belmont doesn't count (officially it does) since he was right there before being pulled up.

And if he does lose before going to stud, then he loses with a fairly solid season in 2008.

But be careful naysayers! If he does win in his next race and the BCC, won't that make him Eclipse and HOY winner? That can't sit too well for you :)

I'm not sure if I can answer since I am not fictional. But I do like your avatar.

I dont think he would win HOY unless he beats curlin. I think hes a good horse but i dont think you could ever label him great. What he did in Fl and the KD was was impressive. Just like what afleet alex did was impressive. But to be considered a great horse he needs to be impressive every race. You seem as if your trying to learn which is a great thing.

You shouldn't feel the need to defend the horse. It doesn't matter what people think of the horse. He will prove what he is on the track and and history will be a great guide to how good he was. The horse speed wise just does not compare with horses in the past 10 years. Regardless of who he beats or who beats him, this stands out against everything else.

there is nothing ordinary about Big Brown.. except maybe that he's brown. There are two horses running in the US better than Big Brown, Curlin and Commentator. He's not this horrible horse that you make him out to be. He has amazing accomplishments even if they were done against not so hot horses.

You could never label Big Brown great, but you can use the word great with Curlin? How exactly?

People bash the horses Big Brown has beaten this year, but what about the horses Curlin has beaten? That was the worst field ever in the Dubai World Cup (I dont even think thats arguable). He beat Well Armed and Asiatic Boy. And lets look at who he beat in the Foster...Barcola (couldnt even run a competitive race against Evening Attire), Einstein (nice turf horse but not top class on dirt).

Curlin hasnt been impressive in every race either. He got whipped by Any Given Saturday last summer and that horse wasnt that good. He wasnt impressive in his turf race. He got a perfect trip in the Belmont and still lost to a filly. I wouldnt call any of those races impressive.

By today's standards, I guess I'd call him great. But so is Big Brown too. Whats the barometer anyways? We no longer have real horses like Skip Away and Cigar. So I guess we use Curlin and Big Brown to define greatness?!

when did i say he was horrible? not going to argue about the fact that only two horses are better either, as i agree with that.
as for his accomplishments, i thought he ran two very good races in florida and kentucky, as i've said countless times..doesn't make him to be the great horses that others have said he is. absolutely he's the best 3 yo this year-but how much is that saying exactly, considering the level of talent this year.
this is not a black and white issue. it's not accurate to say he's either great, or he's terrible-that if you don't feel one way, you feel the other.

i don't consider either of them great, by any means. to lower standards to meet the reality of horse racing these days would be wrong, which is why i take the stand i do.

the last couple of years we've had decent horses- i thought last years crop was a deep one-but i don't know that any of those horses, curlin included, really hold a candle to horses we've had the pleasure of watching over the years. contentious doesn't mean spectacular.

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.