Most silly post Triple Crown commentary?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Thank you! I was just coming here to post this one, though let's give the full credit for the stupid of the article to the Wall Street Journal, who put out the original article (though I found it via Deadspin, too. I like Deadspin).

Best comment after the article: "At last. Video evidence that 2:24 is faster than 2:26."

This morning I did find this fun comment by John Nerud, made in 1996 when Cigar got HOY, about Big Red:

"Cigar's better than Secretariat. But then, I never gave Secretariat that much credit. The knock on him is that he couldn't win on any kind of a track. Secretariat got beat by bums four times. Allen Jerkens, who beat Secretariat with Onion and Prove Out, used to say, 'I get him on a hard track and I've got a chance. He's not the same horse when you can hear his feet rattle.' "

I read somewhere that there was one voter when Bloodhorse put together the best 100 horses of the 20th Century who placed Secretariat so low it pushed him to number 2, behind Man O' War, in final voting. I wonder if we've found the culprit...

it's not often a horse is called great that lost one quarter of his races. his triple crown is a thing of beauty, and so many focus on that. good reason why...but when it comes down to it, i don't know that it's enough to put him on top.
i'd put the bid ahead of him, who lost less races while running many more. there's something to be said about a horse whose last lost was when he was three, to a tc winner/hoy 4 yo, and then went perfect at four and still holds the 10f record.
that horse was amazing.