Among the many laments that followed the announcement of Big Brown’s not-quite-surprising, injury-induced retirement on Monday was the notion that he is now denied the opportunity to establish himself as a “great horse.” Indeed, that term was being applied, however rapturously, last spring, before the Belmont Stakes.
Great?
This is among the most overused terms in racing and its application in reference to Big Brown tests the gag reflex: Great horse?
Big Brown, were he 100 percent sound, had he won the Breeders’ Cup Classic then been retired, would not have earned that distinction. A lifetime will witness the emergence of perhaps a handful of “great” horses and Big Brown was not one of those. Big Brown failed even to impersonate a “great” horse.
Greatness in a horse in established over time and within the context of competition. Big Brown's resume begins in the Florida Derby and ends in the Preakness. He will be remembered most vividly for the abject failure in the Belmont Stakes. In the span of 30 years since the last Triple Crown winner, he failed to measure up to any of the other horses denied the Triple Crown in the final leg, set a new standard of failure, then was set on a course designed to avoid meaningful competition and succeeded in defeating, while all-out in both races, what amounted to allowance-class horses in the Haskell Invitational and a counterfeit turf race orchestrated for his benefit and the enrichment of his connections, both at Monmouth Park.
Great?
He established, perhaps, that he may have been the best of a mediocre crop of three-year-olds over a span of several weeks early in the year, but little else. Before the word “great” was applied with any authority to this horse, he would have raced and won on the appropriate stages – the Travers and Jockey Club Gold Cup.
Less than a fortnight before the Breeders’ Cup, it is unclear that Big Brown is a better three-year-old than Colonel John, the Travers winner, who, if he were to win the Classic, would pose a threat to Big Brown’s divisional title, suddenly not, to use one of trainer Rick Dutrow’s misplaced pre-Belmont expressions, a foregone conclusion. Nor is it clear that Big Brown is a better three-year-old than Casino Drive, who has reemerged in advance of the Classic and may be the true freak of his generation. And certainly, it is no longer appropriate to mention Big Brown in the same sentence with the vastly more accomplished Curlin.
Great?
Please.
--PM
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Mercy, I am gonna call you Harvey.
Curlin rules!
Paul, he was not even particularly that fast in terms of explosive speed figures except for perhaps the Derby as I recall. Who did he really beat? If his trainer was Neil Drysdale, or Louie Roussel, or some mid atlantic trainer who was quite, he would have faded into oblivion. His outfit is classless and a distraction to a great game.
GREAT column for a mediocre horse
PM- I also reserve my opinion regarding BB's "Greatness", but how would you address the many scribes, and fans alike, who use the dreaded "g" adjective to describe Barbaro? Does Barbaro deserve the title because of his tragic injury and death and his unpredictable fan appeal? To me they are similar in ability and accomplishment. I love 'em both, but neither is/was great on the track. AJV
Agree. Brown was a good horse for 6 weeks. How bad does that win over Proudinsky look now after his embarassing showing on the turf at Belmont against the real grass horses?
Outside of Col John, Did any horse he beat ever come back and win a big race?
A he ducked Col. John et al in the Travers.
His owners and trainer showed their true colors throughout this run, classless weasels looking for the quick buck who constantly lied and manipulated the system. And when caught, they played the poor me role. But most of the dopes in the media ate it up.
How lame is that? Thankfully Paul you were there to tell it like it is.
I will never forget Newsday's Ed MacNamaras article before the Belmont comparing this fraud to Secretariat and his opening line where he said now that Big Brown has won the triplr crown....
I still feel that BIG BROWN was well on the road to greatness but, off steroids and Kent D. for a jockey ruined BB'S chances. To me it was clear that the horse did not like his jockey.
The Belmont, WOW, BB wanted to run, one could see it. I feel Kent fighting BIG BROWN took a greater toll than most persons think. Too Bad his trainer did not try a person like Edgar Prado on BB things would have been diferent then. He would have won the Triple Crown. Edgar Prado is one classy person who truly loves the horse. A quaility of a select few jockeys.
Can't help but wonder if the new testing policy scared them away.
Thank you for the post. Agreed. Watching Casino Drive with great interest.
With his foot issues, I'm grateful Big Brown got to retirement with a treatable injury and had a chance to redeem himself after the Belmont. Wishing him a speedy recovery and a healthy and long life.
His retirement gives Curlin's connections more room to decide on the BC (and the ??? Santa Anita surface) from the standpoint of, will this be good for our horse. An idea whose time has come!
BARBARO rules my heart and soul to this day. Yes, he was on the road to greatness and even though Big Brown was called BARBARO on several occasions that is where the simularities end. Barbaro is not here to defend his chances of completing other races so lets be nice to his memory.
Curlin is my choice to win and I will never forget his loss in the Belmont 2007 to that stubborn Chestnut filly: Rags To Riches, first filly to win the Belmont in 102 years, yeah!! Ragsy
I honestly believe he would have finished off the board in the Travers. He looked great in Florida and through the Preakness against a weak 3 year old crop, but once the hoof problems came up before the Belmont, he was never the same horse again. He was all out to win two races he should have won for fun. I'm bummed that we won't eat money in the Classic.
Post a Comment