While winning the Triple Crown will always be a big deal. To put things in proper perspective. If justified had been in the field 45 years ago he would have finished a full 4.18 seconds behind Secretariat.
(06-12-2018 01:39 PM)Tiger87 Wrote: I don't think it works that way. Sport regulations, racing conditions, field competition all impact times.
When you win by 31 lengths and are over 4 seconds better than the current champion then field plays little into the outcome.
AP Indy, winner of the 2nd fastest Belmont ever in 1992, was 2 seconds slower than Secretariat. Justified doesn't even make it in the top 10 fastest winners
(06-12-2018 01:39 PM)Tiger87 Wrote: I don't think it works that way. Sport regulations, racing conditions, field competition all impact times.
When you win by 31 lengths and are over 4 seconds better than the current champion then field plays little into the outcome.
AP Indy, winner of the 2nd fastest Belmont ever in 1992, was 2 seconds slower than Secretariat. Justified doesn't even make it in the top 10 fastest winners
Doesn't matter how much you win by or what Justified's time was compared to past history. Still won the race and the triple crown. That is all that matters to people that don't always rain on others parade. You are racing your competitors, not history.
(This post was last modified: 06-13-2018 05:08 AM by karter25.)
(06-12-2018 01:39 PM)Tiger87 Wrote: I don't think it works that way. Sport regulations, racing conditions, field competition all impact times.
When you win by 31 lengths and are over 4 seconds better than the current champion then field plays little into the outcome.
AP Indy, winner of the 2nd fastest Belmont ever in 1992, was 2 seconds slower than Secretariat. Justified doesn't even make it in the top 10 fastest winners
Doesn't matter how much you win by or what Justified's time was compared to past history. Still won the race and the triple crown. That is all that matters to people that don't always rain on others parade. You are racing your competitors, not history.
This is no different than comparing LeBron or Curry to Jordan. How does a performer stack up against what is considered the best.
Of course reality is Bill Russell was the best, 11 titles while playing only 13 seasons. Most of those seasons going head to head with Chamberlain to get to finals.
You just can't compare people or accomplishments from different eras. Russell had Chamberlain and not much else. Too many variables and besides, it only matters to people that look for things to dwell on.
Would Ruth hit all those home runs against Koufax, Gibson, Carlton, Seaver and Ryan.
Would DiMaggio's hitting streak been longer if playing on artificial turf?
Would Gehrig streak been as long if he had to play on art. turf?
Would Petty win 200 racing Johnson, Stewart, Busch and Dale Sr. each week?
Would JFK be doing Monroe if we had the internet and social media back then?
All you can do is beat your competition. Trying to compare an event or a person that played 30 to 50 years apart is a waste of time.
/
Putting things in perspective
