I think Big Brown wins the Belmont on Saturday. If I were a betting man (and I am, just not usually on horses), I'd bet that we see the first Triple Crown winner in 30 years. And I think that this time, it would be good for horse racing if it happened. There's more focus on horse racing now than at any time I can remember (due in large part to tragedy, see: Barbaro, Eight Belles), and in past years (with Smarty Jones, Funny Cide, War Emblem, etc.), I've argued that a loss in the Belmont actually enhances the sport. The Belmont only matters to the general public if a horse as a shot at the Triple Crown, and the Triple Crown only matters because its been so long since the last one. Every year removed from Affirmed just added to the anticipation of the next Triple Crown winner, and that was only way for horse racing to garner any real attention from the casual sports fan. That tease is what brought the casual fan back to the Kentucky Derby the next year, and the year after that, and the year after that. Thirty years is along time to tease the audience; at some point you have to have a payoff, otherwise people will just tune out altogether (take note, Lost producers). I think that payoff is Saturday.
(Oh, and Big Brown didn't say that.)
Friday, June 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
But do you think Horse Racing needs the publicity? Horse racing, to me and to most casual sports watchers, will always be a "fringe 'sport'". It's 99% pomp and 1% actual race. It's a lot like WWE in that respect; even with the funny names and all. How many times have you been to Foxfield and actually saw the race? It's the sport of kings (unlike poker) where people go to see and be seen and not really watch the race. Not including the owners,trainers,jockeys the only real people who come for the race, stay for alcohol are the hopelessly addicted gambling addicts. It allows betting on it's athletes. But you are right, people only care when a horse dies or eats a child. So all they get is questions about the "morality" or horse racing. Still I don't think that a horse winning the triple crown will do al ot for "the sport of kings" in general. It'll be a blurb and then the world moves on... unless Brown wins the triple crown and THEN eats a child.
Well, as I've heard a lot of sportswriters say, back in the day, the absolute biggest sports in this country were baseball, boxing, and horse racing. So while horse racing is a fringe sport now, it didn't used to be; it used to be the shit. People used to care about horse racing year round (or however long the season is); now they only tune in to see if a horse can win the Triple Crown. Because it hasn't happened in 30 years, a Triple Crown winner would be news, not just sports news. Will it elevate the sport back into the national consciousness? No, probably not. But it will shine some positive light on the sport, which, after Barbaro and Eight Belles (and Big Brown's cracked hoof), it desperately needs. So yeah, I do think horse racing needs (and wants) the publicity that comes with a Triple Crown winner.
"back in the day". Why do I get the impression that this means circa 1920's (ie Man-o-War)? I don't think baseball, boxing, and horse racing were popular because they were chosen as the most exciting. (NFL formed in 1920, NBA in 1946, NHL in 1917 (in Canada)) now I agree that the possibility of a triple crown win will draw in the viewers. I admit I watched when Barbaro stood to win it, only to horrendously fail before the race really started. But I don't think a triple crown win would really "help" horse racing. It will bring some short term attention, but in the end it is not like chasing the home run record because of one simple fact: they are not people. People only seem to care is animals are cure and not inhumanely treated. And since horses aren't "cute" and the onus of potential cruelty to animals always hangs over any animal sport, a triple crown win won't bring in any new fans. Sure horse racing wants a good story to print but A TC win, in my opinion, will be a small nice thing about the sport in a lot recent bad things. The average joe is not going to care about the triple crown. In the end Big Brown's potential win will only be an important sports news (and a potential trivia question).
"Back in the day" refers to the 70's (3 TC winners), when most of the sportswriters I'm talking about where alive (some of which already covering sports). "Back, back in the day" would be the 30's and 40's (with 7 TC winners; the only other TC was in 1919), which, undoubtedly, was the golden age of racing (when there was nothing else going on). But in the 70's, there was plenty, and horse racing was at the top.
So in the the 70's, horse racing was bigger than football? Okay, I suppose Secretariat is one of those TC winners. I still can't believe that horse racing was more popular than football. I suspect shennaigans of "olde tyme" sport writers trying to be all elitists.
More popular, probably not. But more important to society, I think yes. A TC winning horse was embraced by the entire country because of its rarity (11). And I think its very telling of the attitude toward horse racing in the 70's when sports writers and historians today look back and rank Secretariat as one of the greatest athletes of the 20th century.
I don't think it is very telling at all. All it says is that Secretariat was one of the greatest athletic beings of the 20th century. It has no reflection on the sport in general, just that this horse was great. If horse racing the was the most popular sport of all time or the the least popular sport, secretariat's achievements would still hold up. So I don't see the status of the sport in general having anything to do with the greatness of ONE of it's athletes. I think that regardless of the popularity, the money and time put into horse would still be the same. I mean there is money to be made (gambling). I would be willing to bet that even if there were little to no race prize money in it, there still would be competitive horse racing. Look at dog shows. No prize money but you get "glory" (well there is money in breeding, but that is in horse racing to).... hmmm, I suppose that perhaps the actual racing is just an objective measure to get pricing for breeding (where I am sure the REAL money is made).
So, as for the entire nation embracing a TC winner; please. Maybe back then (which would indicate the higher prominence of horse racing), but I bet you that today the majority of the US wouldn't care if Big Brown won the TC.
I never said that today's America would embrace a TC winner like they did in the 70's. I was making the point that TC winners were embraced at one point, thus showing a higher level of importance of the sport. But they (the general public) will care if Big Brown wins the TC. My original point was that a TC winner would be beneficial to horse racing. Nothing will being horse racing back into the mainstream of sports, but it could use the positive attention that would come with a Triple Crown winner.
And you're wrong about the status/perception of a sport and its effect on its athlete's accomplishments, but i won't go into that here. that sounds like a good topic for a different blog post (a real good one, in fact...).
Perhaps I did not make my point clear. In HUMAN sports, I absolutely agree that the status of the sport effects the accomplishments of its athletes. What I was trying to suggest was that since horse racing is just that, about horses, the popular perception doesn't effect the physical athleticism. Horse racing, already an establish spectator sport, would have exactly the field it does now than if it were to most watched sport in all America. If fact, I would argue that the popularization of Horse Racing could damage the "sport" by introducing more incentives to use even shadier practices than usual. Still I could be wrong and this upcoming Belmont could be declared the new national holiday in honor of Big Brown. This is honestly the most I have EVER thought about horse racing.
Post a Comment