Speed figures were intended for dirt races; in other words, for SIMPLE races. Turf races, and poly, are COMPLICATED. This is quickly proven by looking at charts for races on the different surfaces. If you have a speed favoring, bull ring type of track, then put your speed figures to use.

And, I don't really think there's much difference in the type of artificial surface. I've found it depends more on the number of horses in the race than anything else. So, GG, for example, has relatively SIMPLE races. But they also have very small fields. When the field is larger, result is then typically COMPLEX.

Why anyone would try to compare races over the different surfaces using numeric abstractions, in the case of turf and poly FLAWED ones at that, is beyond me. The race TYPES, the shapes, are typically different for these surfaces. Or, a bit weaker point: they indicate differences in degree, and kind, between the different surfaces.

As for the bolded section: typically POLY's biggest critics don't really seem to be those that actually play these courses regularly. :rolleyes:

The Derby super.:$:

Me too!

The poly database was pretty eye-opening. Got rid of a lot of the stigmas in my mind about this stuff.

I don't dispute that there is a difference or an adjustment needed to some figures, but is there an article or finding that shows how much the speeds are off? I mean, do we all agree that this "Synthetic to Dirt Conversion Program" is implementing it in the right way?

I believe everything CM Oreo says and types ....

Except the stuff about my mom anyway.