Quote:
|
Originally Posted by King Glorious
I'd like to ask you about the part that I highlighted. In what way do you mean that the dirt horses were faster than the grass horses at each level? I don't want to go looking around but it seems to me that at many distances at the major tracks, the track records for grass races are usually faster than the ones for dirt races at the same distance. A lot of times, significantly faster. It sort of feels to me that synthetic surfaces, rather than evening the gap, has widened it more. In the past, I've always felt like in general, grass horses have been superior and that real dirt was what actually evened things out because it put them at a disadvantage. I thought Sakhee and Giant's Causeway were both better than Tiznow. If those two BCC's were on grass, I think they romp but on dirt, they were disadvantaged enough to get them beat. I have a feeling that they win both of those races on synthetic tracks.
A lot of people are saying that the mass crossovers haven't been taking place yet and grass racing is still doing ok. It's still early. Watch what's going to happen in California this year. Watch how the BC "dirt" races are going to be affected. So far, for the most part, we've seen modest grass horses having a lot of success on the synthetics. It won't be long before the people with real good ones start moving over. It's going to happen.
|
If good turf horses start running on the synthetic wont new turf horses emerge to take their place? Looking at CA turf races in particular arent the majority of the turf stakes run with imported horses? Why wouldnt we just import more to fill the turf stakes? Couldnt the sport overall be helped if there were full fields in turf and pseudo-dirt stakes?