Trying To Make Money On Big Brown Today...

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

when did i say he was horrible? not going to argue about the fact that only two horses are better either, as i agree with that.
as for his accomplishments, i thought he ran two very good races in florida and kentucky, as i've said countless times..doesn't make him to be the great horses that others have said he is. absolutely he's the best 3 yo this year-but how much is that saying exactly, considering the level of talent this year.
this is not a black and white issue. it's not accurate to say he's either great, or he's terrible-that if you don't feel one way, you feel the other.

I shouldnt have said "terrible". I just had an issue with the "ordinary" comment.. Because if there is one thing Big Brown is not, it's ordinary.

[RollerDoc]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I agree with this statement... but I do think he is having a great year, you cant blame the lack of competition on him. Any horse to win the type of races he has would have had a "great" year. At this point he is much more accomplished than Curlin was at the same time last year.

Here is why Big Brown is GREAT to me:

He has attained over 3.5 million in winnings, including several hundred for me because of my wagers on Big Brown. Actually my girlfriend is the benefactor of my winnings. So she thinks I am great for her getting her a new Louis Vitton bag, therefore I think Big Brown is great. Hopefully this puts the Big Brown is GREAT argument to bed

[Gander]

You also have to take a look at just how much Big Brown is beating his competition by, which I agree 100% is very weak.
He was pulled up in the Belmont and he barely got up to win the Haskell against a bunch of goats. But before that he won the KY Derby and the Florida Derby by the easiest of margins from terrible posts which put him at a disadvantage right from the get go. He won the Preakness by a ton. He won his maiden debut on the grass by a mile. Thats got to count for something and you have to also consider his most impressive races, which I just mentioned were all won under close to hand rides with very little urging. His margins of victory could have been even more.

The horses he beat were pretty awful, but realistically not that much worse than the 3 year olds that were running the year Giacomo and Afleet Alex won.

And I'd take a few of the 3 year olds Big Brown crushed over Barcola.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by RollerDoc

Here is why Big Brown is GREAT to me:

He has attained over 3.5 million in winnings, including several hundred for me because of my wagers on Big Brown. Actually my girlfriend is the benefactor of my winnings. So she thinks I am great for her getting her a new Louis Vitton bag, therefore I think Big Brown is great. Hopefully this puts the Big Brown is GREAT argument to bed

Well if BB would have got me some ..... I'd think he's great too.

[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.

[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.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

this is a insane statement hooves. ANY TC RACE IN THE LAST 10 YEARS?? Are you fing kidding me???

is it really..look at the other horses .. give me your weakest year befor this one..

[skippy3481]

Dunbar, I may have mistyped what i meant to say. A horse needs to be impressive in a majority or his or her races. A horse is still an aminal who is apt to have a bad day. However, when ones start to string those unimpressive performances together, you end with a horse who is good but not great.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

is it really..look at the other horses .. give me your weakest year befor this one..

Yes, it is.

[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

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by Gander

. I'm glad Pletcher ran Atoned in the Haskell (and not the Travers) because if he was in the Travers, I would have taken a huge shot with him. Man, he ran terrible. Stop like he had a piano dropped on him.

Methinks 'blinkers on' did not help this fellow. Look for 'blinkers off' next out.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by RollerDoc

It sounds like a clever retort. Jokes on me because I don't know who Dr. Fager is. Will you complete the joke for my purpose?

Check out the Thoroughbred Racing Hall of Fame and you might see some other names you should know, as well:

http://www.racingmuseum.org/Hall/index.asp

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by RollerDoc

Not sure why you are stumped? So he would not be great IF he wins two Triple Crown Races, Two Grade One Races, and the BCC?

Consider this horse:

1978 PLEASANT COLONY,Dkbbr,c,His Majesty 2 14 6 3 1 965,383 71.10
DP = 7-1-25-1-4 DI = 1.17 CD = 0.16
At 2 Won Remsen S. -G2 (100,000), 2nd Pilgrim S. (50,000)
At 3 Won Kentucky Derby -G1 (200,000), Preakness S. -G1 (200,000),
Woodward S. -G1 (200,000), Wood Memorial -G1 (150,000), 2nd Travers S. -G1 (200,000), Fountain Of Youth S. -G3 (65,000), 3rd Belmont S. -G1 (200,000)

A very nice 3yo, beat his elders in the Woodward (10f and more important in those days, not just a rerun of the Whitney), no BC Classic around for him then. But not a great horse by anyone's calculation.

[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

[Gander]

So what is being said is competition makes a great horse great?

What if Secretariat had no competition and faced only bad horses, yet won his races by 10-12 lengths virtually every time with a few mediocrely good efforts that still resulted in small margin wins?

What if Affirmed didnt run against Alydar, instead faces horses as slow as Barcola? Yet he beat these Barcola types by 10 lengths under hand rides?
Would he still have been great? Its not really a horse's fault who shows up next to him.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Gander

So what is being said is competition makes a great horse great?

What if Secretariat had no competition and faced only bad horses, yet won his races by 10-12 lengths virtually every time with a few mediocrely good efforts that still resulted in small margin wins?

What if Affirmed didnt run against Alydar, instead faces horses as slow as Barcola? Yet he beat these Barcola types by 10 lengths under hand rides?
Would he still have been great? Its not really a horse's fault who shows up next to him.

no, not just competition. and many have said, myself included, that obviously a horse can't control what he faces.