For all the Big Brown Boneheads
 

For all of you convinced this is some sort of superhorse, please fork over $31.50 and buy this:

http://www.amazon.com/Champions-Perf...1429919&sr=1-3

I promise it will be the best $31.50 you ever spend. For anyone else on here that doesn't have this but might not be drinking the Big Brown brainwashing brew it is a steal for $31.50.

I'll ignore the bonehead part. Are you remotely open to the fact that he could become a superhorse? He has had five career races? What more does he need to prove through the five races? Obviously how he does in The Belmont factors in. He may not be a Super horse but I wouldn't count him out yet.

Maybe people including myself are excited for Big Brown because we would like a Triple Crown winner for this sport.

not me.

i just ordered it elsewhere for $60.00. can't wait to read the chapter on big brown.

Just how many more races do you think he's going to run?

And how many races does it take to become a superhorse?

And why don't you post under your main account?

You just confessed you don't know what a Beyer is in another thread. You're either a troll or completely clueless on what a superhorse is. Either way buy this book and it will be the best $31.50 you can spend.

I have no interest in a TC winner for a bunch of money hungry owners, a cheating trainer, a horse that had no real 2yo campaign, no 4yo campaign, and did nothing amazing as a 3yo outside of beating up on a crappy crop. Call me crazy but to ask for one of these expectations to be filled for the first TC winner in 30 years doesn't seem too much to ask.

What, exactly, is a superhorse? I thought it was a phrase that people in the mainstream media who know nothing about racing use to describe whatever horse they heard of most recently.

One can be both excited about Big Brown having a shot at the TC, and skeptical about how good he actually is. I don't think you have to be one or the other.

And why don't you post under your main account?[/quote]

This is the only account I have. What do you mean?

Not a troll at all. Just not as advanced as the majority it seems. I like Big Brown because he was so impressive at Fl. Derby so I've picked him twice. Both $200 bets to win in The Derby and Preakness in which I won $480 and under $50 respectively. Maybe I am a "moron" for making the Preakness bet, but I felt very confident he would win. It makes me enjoy the race knowing there is a little action on it. Even if he lost, big deal, it is $200. I can afford it so why does that make me a moron. I guess I can take some of my Big Brown winnings and buy the book :)

One other point is we are talking about how good Big Brown is or isn't? I know it is important to want to like the owners or trainers and while they are suspect, let's not let that take away from Big Brown (who is the one actually competing). He shouldn't be penalized because of his connections being suspect.

Champions: The Lives, Times, and Past Performances of the 20th Century's Greatest Throughbreds is book every serious horse racing fan should have.

I don't have the updated edition but the the original tells just as good of story of the way horseracing was. Comparing todays horses to the greats from years past is pointless. The breed is not the same. The owners are of a different breed too. In many cases the insurance cost of running your horse outweigh the financial benefits of running the horse. Today horse racing's establishment races to breed when in years past it was the opposite.

Big Brown is on the cusp of winning one of the most elusive prizes in sports today. The only other Triple Crown that might be harder to achieve is Major League Baseballs TC. I think it was Carl Yastrzemski who was baseballs last Triple Crown winner and that was in 1967, and he played in Fenway Park. If Big Brown wins the Belmont he should be considered a great horse because he will have accomplished a great feat that many others have tried to accomplish but came up short.

Agree 100% except for the baseball analogy.

I agree. MLB's hitting Triple Crown is even harder to accomlish than horse racings Triple Crown.

The owners and trainers are extraneous factors. If we are going to have another Triple Crown winner then let it be a horse that wowed as a 2yo or 4yo or a horse that has showed some amazing ability at 3. In the absence of all of those then let them at least have a likable owner or trainer. This horse goes 0 for 5 and it is why I think he's the exact wrong horse to break the 30 year slump on TC winners (and probably why he will).

The same argument you originally make also should be factored in to baseball regarding a different era.

In today's era the players are juiced and the baseballs are juiced. They either hit home runs or strike out. Today's players are not built to hit for averages. Just the long ball.

It's not a different era compared to the past five years in horse racing! For a baseball player to win the Triple Crown in Big Brown fashion would be to hit .311 with 35 HRs and 110 RBIs. A nice season but hardly TC worthy.

And if Big Brown wins Belmont as impressively as I predict he will, then it is more like

.362 BA
58 HRS
155 RBIs

Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year 2008

Oh My. I don't need to buy the book to cheer for him on June 7th.

affirmed, sixteen wins.
slew, fourteen wins.
secretariat, sixteen wins

wake me up when big brown hits double digits.

thank you, thank you, a million times over.

I guess you'll get the book after the race and still have $8.50 left.....:D
all kidding aside, it's a great book to have, I have the first edition and at this price it's a steal.
As far as BIG Brown, it's still 16 days to go to the race.....anything can happen...Pat, don't count on the wager just yet!

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.