The greatest athletes who lost this weekend

The weekend that might have been in sports might have been disappointing but at least spared us the self-indulgent exercise of assigning an athlete -- human or equine -- a place in history. It's what happens when you live in an ESPN "Instant Classic" world.

It seems as if no one can just sit back and enjoy an athletic achievement nowadays without trying to determine where it ranks. Even before Big Brown showed more horse sense than his handlers and decided during the race that given a cracked hoof, no steroids and a 90-degree day in New York, he'd rather not run in the Belmont Stakes, pundits were saying that the big 3-year-old colt was not in the class of Secretariat, Seattle Slew or Affirmed, all Triple Crown winners in the 1970s.

Well over 100,000 fans had come to Belmont Park hoping to see Big Brown become the first horse since Affirmed in 1978 to win the Triple Crown. Sports fans, and even non-fans, gathered expectantly around their TVs to watch as well, and yet, some people were already dissing the competition Big Brown had faced and speculating whether he was winning the Triple Crown by default.

Not to worry. You probably won't hear Big Brown's name mentioned among the legion of great thoroughbreds again.

Then, on Sunday, Roger Federer was in the final of the French Open with a chance to win his first Grand Slam event on clay and 13th Slam title, which probably would have cemented his status as the greatest player of all time.

The problem is that Rafael Nadal, the clay court wunderkind from Spain, was on the other side of the net. And Federer turned in the type of big-event performance that we haven't seen since, well, Saturday during the Belmont.

Nadal -- an absolute dynamo on red clay -- beat Federer for the third consecutive year in the French Open final. The score was 6-1, 6-3, 6-0, one of the worst final thrashings in more than 30 years. Federer didn't quit, but he too was eased up.

Nadal now has won the French Open four times in a row and did not lose a set in seven matches this year. It is probably fair to say that if someone -- anyone -- could have upset Nadal the past three years, Federer would have at least one French Open title.

Thus, he might already have tied or surpassed Pete Sampras, who has the most Grand Slam titles, with 14.

Comparing athletes from different generations is always tricky business because the playing field is constantly shifting. It used to be that track and field was a sport where you could measure the past and present because success is based on time and distance, but now you have to wonder how many records were steroid-aided.

And forgive the Monday Morning Quarterback for not being overwhelmed by baseball players reaching home run milestones because of the proliferation of performance-enhancing drugs in the sport for a generation.

In tennis, the consensus has been that Rod Laver deserves to be recognized as the greatest of all time because he won the Grand Slam twice and was the last to accomplish it almost 40 years ago. But the sport is much more competitive now than in Laver's day. And, whereas three of the Slam events were played on grass back then, all four are on different surfaces now (grass, clay and two types of hard-court).

Throw in all the clay court specialists, and it seems unfair that tennis historians are a little reluctant to crown Sampras and Federer -- both terrific athletes -- as the best because they haven't won the French.

So, reaching the French Open final three times might not be quite good enough for Federer, who is approaching 27 and might have to hope some other clay court marvel can eliminate Nadal to clear an obstacle-free path to tennis immortality.

No, it wasn't quite the hyperbole-filled sports weekend we envisioned. Instead we are reminded of the late Jim McKay, and how he would have said that Big Brown and Roger Federer had gone from the "thrill of victory" to "the agony of defeat."