Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DogsUp
I get this post. However, I have a couple of issues with this. I do not believe one can compare Curlin and Big Brown to horses of past years. The game has changed too much. Curlin and Big Brown are the two most important horses that are racing in the U.S today. Talking about one's legacy is pointless. I think one should speak the truth regardless if it is rosey or black. One has to recognize what Big Brown and Curlin has done based on their racing career. They cannot help the quality of their foes. No matter what your opinion, you have to give respect to these two horses simply based on their wins:not beyers, times, foes, or mythical matchups.
|
I understand what you are saying. I said on the air exactly what you said in your last sentence but the connections are the ones who provide fodder for talk radio shows and newspaper columnists. Jackson is the one who continues to talk of Curlins legacy. Iavarone and Dutrow have certainly said enough not to have to rehash here. When
they make the statements like they have,
they are the ones who are putting their horses in a historical context. Big Brown has won the Fl Derby, Ky Derby, Preakness and Haskell. Pretty good but far from much different than any number of horses in the last 10 years, none of which had connections that wanted praise heaped upon their horse like the IEAH gang and Dutrow. As far as Curlin, he has won the Ark Derby, Preakness, Gold Cup, Classic, Dubai WC, and Steven Foster. Pretty nice record but not that different than Silver Charm or Real Quiet who never had their "legacy" discussed in hushed tones. They may be the most visable horses racing right now but that doesnt mean that we cant critique their performances (as BB's simply wasnt very inspiring) or their place in history (where exactly does Curlin fit?) in critical fashion.