 |
I was involved in a rather heated debate with some racing friends recently when I proposed a legitimate case for why Big Brown would not be an ideal winner of the Triple Crown for a variety of reasons. I said Big Brown was good but not great, and they said I was "learning impaired."
If you query the word great in the Dictionary, you get a list of 23 possible definitions, which is far more than the word sex, or the word ambiguous produce. The results are even longer than the word history, which was the central point of their argument.
History is history, you can never take it away. But history is not always great, nor is it always good, or bad. Big Brown is looking to make history, he's looking to do something that which be talked about for decades to come. But, does this make him great? Does my questioning him make me impaired? Hardly. Perspective is a brilliant tool, a necessary utensil when defining greatness.
Cigar never won the Triple Crown, does that him "not great?" Does Big Brown belong in the same sentence as Cigar? When you put them both in perspective, the image is far more significant than what we're seeing now.
12 Comments
Add this link to...
Tell a friend
Bury
If you query the word great in the Dictionary, you get a list of 23 possible definitions, which is far more than the word sex, or the word ambiguous produce. The results are even longer than the word history, which was the central point of their argument.
History is history, you can never take it away. But history is not always great, nor is it always good, or bad. Big Brown is looking to make history, he's looking to do something that which be talked about for decades to come. But, does this make him great? Does my questioning him make me impaired? Hardly. Perspective is a brilliant tool, a necessary utensil when defining greatness.
Cigar never won the Triple Crown, does that him "not great?" Does Big Brown belong in the same sentence as Cigar? When you put them both in perspective, the image is far more significant than what we're seeing now.
12 Comments
Add this link to...
Tell a friend
Bury
Comments
Travis,
Welcome to the club. When I happened to mention on our TV show that Big Brown had beaten a mediocre and inconsistent lot of horses, you would have thought I had criticized the Pope.
One guy even sent me an email saying Big Brown was the best horse to race since Secretariat. Pardon me, but we don't know yet if he's the best horse since Bernardini, Barbaro, Curlin, etc, etc, etc.
I think the most accurate thing that could be said should Big Brown go on to win the Belmont and capture the Triple Crown is that the ACCOMPLISHMENT would be great. Since he would be only the 12th horse to accomplish the feat, I think his doing it would be a great thing. As for whether the horse himself is great, I don't think we'll ever be able to accurately say since he will likely be retired on Sunday or race maybe once or twice more before the end of the year. He will lacking a concrete body of work to underscore his alleged greatness. Real Quiet is the closest horse since Affirmed to get to the Triple Crown and he certainly was not a great horse, and he wouldn't have been great had the headbob in the Belmont gone the other way. Not every Triple Crown winner can be considered great (Sir Barton!), but completing the near-impossible task certainly should be.
I think we do know he is better than Barbaro - considering he made it through the Preakness and won it.
I'll be honest - I have trouble thinking that Big Brown could be a Hall of Fame horse if he wins the Triple Crown, having beaten, potentially, a bunch of nobodies - and will probably never race at four.
At this point in the 3YO campaign, I disagree with Nick a bit in saying he's beaten "mediocre" horses, but completely agree with the "inconsistent." Our "need immediate analysis" culture requires us to automatically place every event in history the moment it happens. Realistically, it will be difficult to say how good the current crop is until we sit back and let them grow and develop...and race.
All of that being the case, I don't care WHO you beat if you win the Triple Crown. I DON'T CARE. The feat itself is impressive enough to win three races totaling 3 15/16 miles in five weeks.
I'm mesmerized by all the people who have repeatedly yearned in previous years for a Triple Crown winner and are so anxious to lessen the accomplishment as it approaches. Truly in this game, so many people will NEVER be happy as they rarely like to sit back and just enjoy what could be.
Now - let it be said - I'll bet about $50 or so in trifectas against Big Brown (frankly, it's the smart thing to do). But if I see him bounding home in my binoculars from Section U in the Belmont grandstand to win the Triple Crown - the first in my lifetime - I'm going to be ecstatic.
I think what is hurting Big Brown is that he does not have a rival that it fighting him all the way. Most of the Triple Crown winners had that one rival who was always there. Big Brown has none. That's not his fault of course, because you can only run against the horses that line up against you, but I think that most fans feel that horses like Silver Charm, Real Quiet, and Funny Cide were more legitimate because they had horses that were very good dogging them every step of the way. I don't see a Sham or an Alydar in this group.
I don't really think of Funny Cide as having had anyone dogging him through the Triple Crown.
But you know - it's always about the past being stronger than the present. Grandfathers worldwide have taught their grandchildren..."you don't know how easy you had it, back in my day..."
Empire Maker was the next Secretariat, and I think Ten Most Wanted was better than anything Big Brown has seen so far. I wasn't trying to make a great rivalry when none existed, but there is nothing about any horse that really sticks out as a formidable rival, yet.
Plaguing oneself with the question of whether Big Brown is great when he still has potentially three more starts before retirement is an exercise in futility. There's no way of telling right now whether he is "great." What we do know, in my opinion, is that he's very good. Performances like his Derby and Preakness, no matter who you're running against, are remarkable.
Thankfully we'll have at least one more chance to see Big Brown.
I remember when Lost in the Fog was going into the '05 BC Sprint Steve Crist wrote (not an exact quote) but that naysayers of Lost in the Fog were promptly criticized as if they were drowning their puppies in water.
Remember, it's about more than just a "Triple Crown winner" - it's about a championship race horse. I would argue this "yearning" is more for a good horse, not so much a Triple Crown winner. Horses like Cigar prove this point true.
Now, in a desperate attempt to continue to downplay the prowess of Big Brown, you're comparing him to Lost in the Fog? Travis seems to have had an overwhelming dose of Big Brown "hater-ade."
Be careful not to ever confuse what a Triple Crown winner would mean to the world outside of our small racing circle. Cigar's accomplishments were tremendous and I'm glad that I was able to see him win the Donn in 1996, however his winning streak would never garner the same attention for racing that a Triple Crown winner would.
Whoa -- the LITF angle was not a comparison of horses but rather how people seem to jump down the throats of others who try to look at horses with an unfiltered screen. When they do so, they get attacked as being "anti-horse racing" or in Steve Crist's case, anti-dog. It's a bit presumptuous to put words in my mouth regarding that. Remember, it's still horse racing.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a Big Brown Triple Crown will equate to more coverage and more memory of racing than Cigar ever, EVER will. Now it just has to happen.
I think that a Big Brown close but no cigar effort would be better for the sport in the long run. Where's the boost for the sport to have Big Brown win and disappear from the track forever? Selling breeding shed videos?
If he wins, good for him, but there's no feel good angle on this horse. No Alex's lemonade, no yellow bus gang. Just a really good horse and a trainer who cannot shut up with connections that look seedier by the day.
Who is harder to root for, a smug and unapproachable Neil Drysdale, a curmudgeonly Barclay Tagg or this gang?