I watch every Del Mar race, and review the pp's before and after, and I can tell you that I have no clue what you are talking about when you say the fastest horses aren't winning.

If it is so easy with dirt, why can't you answer my very simple questions? how do you determine in advance who is the fastest horse in the race? are you going by last race BSF? do you average all beyers? do you go by TG's

whatever method you use can you tell me that on dirt the fastest horse always wins? I would agree if you say that the fastest horse that day wins, but I don't think that is what you are saying.

is it at all possible that you simply are not good at handicapping polytrack?
I ask because you never give any examples, you only speak in wild generalities like "any buffoon can see" blah blah blah. you also seem to handicap using one dimension "who is the fastest horse".

have you really never seen a horse come off the turf and win a main track sprint? really? In general I salivate when I see a quality turf horse shorten up and move to the main track, dirt or poly. maybe you haven't noticed but the end of a turf route is run like a sprint.

How many graded stakes winners on polytrack have went on to repeat the success on dirt? How many have flopped?

It has pluses and minuses, but it is most definitely a third surface. If you have to pick, it is closer to turf than dirt. I am not saying that is good or bad, but it is not what was advertised.

I sent you a message jim, as opposed to arguing.

I will have to watch the San Diego before commenting specifically, I worked all weekend and didn't see anything other than Sumwon's race.

You are defining a "truely run race" as one that has good honest fractions (please correct me if I am wrong).

I certainly agree that I prefer the horse that can keep faster company, be he closer, stalker, pace-setter, over one that is lesser.

I think the difference in our opinions may lay here: I don't think that most races I have seen run over artificial surfaces fall into a "paceless race", "let's all group up, canter for a while, then sprint the finish" scenario.

Yes, we are seeing more of that on artificial surfaces, however from what I have seen I think that is a "new" phenomenon when these tracks are first opening - it seems to lessen as the meets go on and riders and trainers become more comfortable on the surfaces.

Comment?

I don't know what you mean when you say, " ... it is not what was advertised."

Give us your data!

It was supposed to replace, but behave similarly, to dirt. It does not.

No.

Thanks.

Give us your data!

Then I can't hold the opinion that graded stakes winners on poly are destined to flop on dirt, or have a significan risk of flopping on dirt. My opinion is open to change if anyone posts something here that shows it to be so.

Dominican? All kidding aside, he seems to be somewhat of a poly specialist.

It was also advertised to be an all weather surface yet has tons of problems in extreme heat or cold. The claims of no maintenance proved to be very untrue as well.

Than Pavarotti & Time Squared must be poly freaks.

I don't have the past performances in front of me, but how many of their wins came on artificial surfaces? Weren't all three of Dominican's wins on artificial? I guess he did run OK at Churchill...

I'd love to know how God and Discreet Cat feel about this surface.....oops!, there I go repeating myself again.

Compared to dirt, it most certainly seems to hold up alot better with less problems - Turfway has proved that in the cold, the track was open on freezing days they couldn't possibly have run on the dirt. The Keeneland Poly training track is open virtually every day all summer and winter - a dirt track couldn't be. It's holding up to the 90-degree, high humidity weather in KY today just fine.

We'll see how it holds up to heat in California. So far Hollywood has with Cushion, we'll have to see how Poly does. I read the manufacturer made the Poly in CA a little different than the Poly in KY.

I've never seen the manufacturers claim any of the artificials to be "no" maintenance. The claims I've seen is less maintenance than dirt. That's certainly true.

Naw, we have to wait and see what The Green Monkey decides!

Hoof up? Or hoof down?

(yeah, and I caught the God joke ... <g>)

They had major problems at Turfway on days that they could have raced over the surface at Aqueduct. The poly was balling up and sticking in the horses' hooves plus the kickback got dangerous. Hollywood had problems with the wax melting in the heat although that was cushion track rather than Poly.

I have been to Del Mar and prefer the atmosphere to Saratoga too, but that is as a fan. If I was a horse owner I would have all my horses at Saratoga. He shouldn't decide where to keep his horses based on which "atmosphere" he prefers. I wouldn't put a horse on a new surface until atleast one year after it has been installed and the tweaks worked out.

All I know is that if ever there was a time for PolyTrack to possibly have a success story, it would be Del Mar. They had plenty of time to put it in and weather is not a factor. I would have expected that with the experience they have had in Kentucky and Toronto they would have been able to make the stuff work at Del Mar however they wanted to. If people say it's training ok in the morning but is too loose in the afternoon, then why the hell won't they put some water on it? If you leave most anything in 80 deg full sun all day, it will deteriorate. The stuff is made, after all, of wax. Who the hell would think it would not go bad in the heat?