Big Brown vs. The Others

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by pick4

In 1998 Yankees won 114 games and won an additional 11 in the postseason and won the World Series. In 2006 the St,Louis Cardinals limped into the playoffs after winning 83 games. They got on a roll and won the World Series. The Yanks didn't get extra credit because they won more games. Both organizations won a World Series championship.

The analogy I'm trying to make is it's pointless to compare different years, era's, etc. Curlin had his foes and Big Brown has his. If Big Brown is good enough to win the Belmont Stakes he should be held in high regard for accomplishing the feat. Winning the Triple Crown is a very difficult thing to win.

Spectacular Bid was one of the best horses to ever run. He failed to win the Belmont. Perhaps Dutrow Jr. should ban women and Ron Franklin from entering the barn area for the next three weeks. Big Brown has a big test ahead of him. They don't call the Belmont Stakes " The Test of The Champion for nothing.

Winning the TC will not make him a better horse than he is.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Winning the TC will not make him a better horse than he is.

Obviously, his talent level is what it is regardless of whether he wins the Belmont. But.....

I don't see how anyone can say they know how good he is, with the exception of his (biased) jockey and trainer. Big Brown has never been remotely tested by another horse. He's had to overcome more in the way of circumstance (injury, missed training, tough post, etc.) than he has in the way of opposition.

Can anyone argue that Big Brown COULD NOT have run the Derby one second faster had they gone one second faster in the opening 6 furlongs? I mean, the only possible knocks against him are his final times, which are a product of his opposition.

There's no doubt that he has beaten a weak group this year. Probably the weakest group I have seen since I began following the sport in 1995. And while there were no Silver Charms or Smarty Jonses in the field, it's difficult for me to imagine Big Brown losing to either of them.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by justindew

Can anyone argue that Big Brown COULD NOT have run the Derby one second faster had they gone one second faster in the opening 6 furlongs? I mean, the only possible knocks against him are his final times, which are a product of his opposition.

Yes, I can....and I will for as long as I follow racing. This kind of thought is simply wrong. In fact, had he gone his first 6 Furlongs a second faster he almost certainly would have run a slower final time. Had the fraction been a scond faster, and Big Brown been six lengths farther back while running the same six furlong time, he probably would have gone a very similar time.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Yes, I can....and I will for as long as I follow racing. This kind of thought is simply wrong. In fact, had he gone his first 6 Furlongs a second faster he almost certainly would have run a slower final time. Had the fraction been a scond faster, and Big Brown been six lengths farther back while running the same six furlong time, he probably would have gone a very similar time.

You just used the words "almost certainly" and "probably" while saying my thought was "simply wrong". I'll take the small element of doubt and combine it with the fact that he won as he pleased and say he could have run faster.

Also, I am rooting for Casino Drive, and I expect to be disappointed.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by justindew

You just used the words "almost certainly" and "probably" while saying my thought was "simply wrong". I'll take the small element of doubt and combine it with the fact that he won as he pleased and say he could have run faster.

Also, I am rooting for Casino Drive, and I expect to be disappointed.

You don't get it.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You don't get it.

If by "it" you mean your point, yes I do get it. You are saying with "almost certainty" that had Big Brown run the opening 3/4 mile of the Derby in 1:10 3/5 rather than 1:11 3/5, he would have likely not been able to come home in :25 2/5 as he did, and would have instead come home in slower than :26 2/5. Based on seeing him in the Derby and yesterday, I think he could have come home faster than :26 2/5, resulting in a faster final time.

Just because I disagree with your opinion doesn't mean I don't understand your opinion.

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Yes, I can....and I will for as long as I follow racing. This kind of thought is simply wrong. In fact, had he gone his first 6 Furlongs a second faster he almost certainly would have run a slower final time. Had the fraction been a scond faster, and Big Brown been six lengths farther back while running the same six furlong time, he probably would have gone a very similar time.

.....L.O.L