Trying To Make Money On Big Brown Today...

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by RollerDoc

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!

[RollerDoc]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

You have heard of Secretariat??? Thats a good start!

I think he won the Preakness back in the 70s right?

[Dunbar]

I like Zito's summary.

From today's DRF:

Originally Posted by DRF

Zito also said he was surprised to read some of the comments made by trainer Rick Dutrow regarding Curlin following Big Brown's hard-fought victory over Coal Play in the Haskell.

"Curlin is the Horse of the Year, so when Rick makes those statements, I'm thinking maybe he should get the phone number of Tony Soprano's psychologist," Zito said with a smile. "Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Big Brown. But Rick still needs to get that phone number."

--Dunbar

[Danzig]

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.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

In other words, Big Brown is an ordinary very good horse? I guess I'd agree with that. Affirmed was an ordinary horse, too. He was an ordinary great horse. If we look at Sniper's 'elite of elite' list, we could probably say that Affirmed is a below average horse. Use of "ordinary" can be okay, depending on who we are comparing to.

Who are we stacking Big Brown up against? All of the 400+ horses nominated to the Triple Crown in recent years? I'm sure you'd agree he is in the top third of those horses. Are you comparing Big Brown to the actual triple crown runners of the past 10 years? I'd still put him well into the top third. I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't, too. Now if we are comparing Big Brown to other recent horses who were in the top 2 or 3 of their respective generations, I can at least see how you might use the words "ordinary" or "average".

I took issue with your original post, "big brown wouldn't be any faster if mother theresa owned him and the pope rode him. he's an ordinary horse, but he's better than his peers. that doesn't make him great.", because it wasn't clear to me that you were comparing him to anything but all other horses. If you meant he's an ordinary top 3-yr-old, I'd agree at this point. Your point that most top 3-yr-olds have done something that's considered noteworthy is right on.

--Dunbar

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

[center]

In other words, Big Brown is an ordinary very good horse? I guess I'd agree with that. Affirmed was an ordinary horse, too. He was an ordinary great horse. If we look at Sniper's 'elite of elite' list, we could probably say that Affirmed is a below average horse. Use of "ordinary" can be okay, depending on who we are comparing to.

Who are we stacking Big Brown up against? All of the 400+ horses nominated to the Triple Crown in recent years? I'm sure you'd agree he is in the top third of those horses. Are you comparing Big Brown to the actual triple crown runners of the past 10 years? I'd still put him well into the top third. I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't, too. Now if we are comparing Big Brown to other recent horses who were in the top 2 or 3 of their respective generations, I can at least see how you might use the words "ordinary" or "average".

I took issue with your original post, "big brown wouldn't be any faster if mother theresa owned him and the pope rode him. he's an ordinary horse, but he's better than his peers. that doesn't make him great.", because it wasn't clear to me that you were comparing him to anything but all other horses. If you meant he's an ordinary top 3-yr-old, I'd agree at this point. Your point that most top 3-yr-olds have done something that's considered noteworthy is right on.

--Dunbar

the mother theresa/pope comment was a response to something that roller doc said, that he wasn't getting called 'great' due to his connections. i just wanted him to understand that i didn't think big brown would run faster if someone else owned him, even if it was a saint.
also, i meant better than the other three year olds this year, his actual peers in this crop.
and yes, historically, i would call him ordinary compared to some of our best ever-that is exactly what i meant.

perhaps i am being a bit too harsh with the horse-after all, other than his belmont, he's won every race. and of course we all know you can't help what competition you face. however, competition has to be taken into consideration when you start throwing the word 'great' around. and like in so many other years, i think people are far too quick to use that word in reference to the horse of the moment. so maybe i go too far in the other direction in an attempt to 'right the ship' so to speak. there is no way we have the amount of great horses some people are trumpeting every year. we want a great horse, everyone wants that. so too often a horse is called that-maybe to make a wish a reality? problem is, you have to find a horse who really fits that bill.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the mother theresa/pope comment was a response to something that roller doc said, that he wasn't getting called 'great' due to his connections. i just wanted him to understand that i didn't think big brown would run faster if someone else owned him, even if it was a saint.
also, i meant better than the other three year olds this year, his actual peers in this crop.
and yes, historically, i would call him ordinary compared to some of our best ever-that is exactly what i meant.

perhaps i am being a bit too harsh with the horse-after all, other than his belmont, he's won every race. and of course we all know you can't help what competition you face. however, competition has to be taken into consideration when you start throwing the word 'great' around. and like in so many other years, i think people are far too quick to use that word in reference to the horse of the moment. so maybe i go too far in the other direction in an attempt to 'right the ship' so to speak. there is no way we have the amount of great horses some people are trumpeting every year. we want a great horse, everyone wants that. so too often a horse is called that-maybe to make a wish a reality? problem is, you have to find a horse who really fits that bill.

Well said.

--Dunbar