Most are on the pace runners. The closers seem more likely to just be turf horses that take to the synthetics.

Like Intangaroo, Tiago, and Zenyatta?

Honestly some horses are going to take to it and some are not, I dont think style means much.

Bingo...some do, some don't. You just can't know for sure until it's attempted under race conditions.

I don't buy that Zenyatta and Intangaroo moved up much on the dirt, both are G1 winners on the synthetics. It is nothing like the difference with Hystericalady when she goes from synthetic to dirt. Tiago has always been hit or miss, he did run third in the BC Classic on synthetic. It of course isn't going to apply in all cases, that's why I said most.

Tiago's best race to date was probably at Oaklawn Park, was it not?

Probably. I still don't entirely get that figure. He went 9 furlongs in 1:50.34 and got a 110 Beyer. Zenyatta went 8.5 in 1:42.64 and got a 104 Beyer. That just seems strange to me but without the full card or knowing the pars there I don't really know what went on with it.

Just looked into it and the time was later corrected from 1:50.34 to 1:48.60.

Reporting for Duty was 3rd beaten 6 in that Oaklawn Park handicap - he got bought up and has been drubbed a couple of times in Saudi Arabia.

Tiago had already won the Santa Anita Derby - and was 3rd in the Belmont Stakes in a race where he got no pace at all before ever racing on a synthetic track.

He's basically about the same on both surfaces.

Tiago is so much better on dirt, what syn race has he won that he beat anything. He has been mismanaged.

None of those horses were better on dirt than synthetic.

The lousy Brownie Points was 2nd to Zenyatta in the Apple Blossom.

Closers with turf oriented pedigrees make the worst syn to dirt projections.

His first two starts on it were good:

Start #1: Won a Grade 2 stake by 2.5 lengths over Albertis Maxiumus

Start #2: Won a Grade 1 stake by a nose over next out BC Classic 3rd place finisher Awesome Gem

He also had the best finish of any American horse in last year's Breeders Cup Classic.

You look at the amount of turf a horse has in it's pedigree.

Glad you brought this up cause it ties in with some MAJOR research I've been doing lately. And, I do mean MAJOR: 50 years worth of races in my SUPER DUPER Database.

My starting point is the most INTEGRAL, IMPORTANT, and IMPOSING concept in the history of horse racing: THE BOUNCE.:rolleyes:

My data shows that those horses that never BOUNCE in their racing career are those most apt to run on ANY surface. Of course, once they bounce, this all goes out the window. There's the 'common trait'.

I believe his three dirt starts dating back to the SA Derby are two wins, a third in the Belmont and 7th in the derby.

I would love to see him in the Met Mile, he cant make it now. Maybe the Whitney.

Acoma broke her Mdn at Keeneland and then won 2 straight at CD, one that included the Dogwood Stks.

this is a tough subject and is only on a case to case basis. the breeding is not as big a deal as it may look. any horse who has the look of a contener off poly should be used as if he had the ped for the dirt.there is huge misconception that a horse does not like poly. he/she was not a fit horse last out. got a bad trip ect.dont buy into the press of people that say they didnt like the poly..chances are the horse was not ready for it [the race] and will not all of a sudden get on the dirt and fly..

Colonial John is perhaps the best and most interesting example, he didn't get the best of trips last year in the derby which resulted in only a 6th place finished, it would have been very easy to dismiss him as a synthetic surface horse after that race, instead he came back to win the Travers later that summer. This is a perfect example of letting biases and or predjudices getting in the way of making a winning bet, I know I dismissed him last year so what do you do? You live and learn and try to keep an open mind next time a similiar situation comes along.

For what its worth (not much probably) but the surfaces in Saudi Arabia are synthetic.

IMHO, AW surfaces put a premium on stamina, whether it is implicit in the pedigree or developed by the trainer. In the current state of racing in the US, a horse is likelier to get stamina from the turf runners in the pedigree than the dirt runners, leading to the impression that horses with 'turfy' peds will do better on AW. Stallions who explode the notion equating turf and AW include dyed-in-the-wool dirt stayers A.P. Indy and Tiznow.

Are you not counting the 07 Classic cause it was a sloppy track or cause he was beaten 18.5 lengths?