Quote:
|
Originally Posted by miraja2
I've been asking this for some time now but I'll ask it again one more time:
We know that not all of these synthetic surfaces are the same, so why do many people feel the need to be 100% pro-synthetic, or 100% anti-synthetic, across the board?
Del Mar's surface was an absolute joke. Santa Anita's was worse. Keeneland was pretty bad too.
But that doesn't change the fact that it has pretty much been a good thing at Arlington. The surface plays pretty fairly, field size was up last year, etc. Overall I am not a big fan of synthetic surfaces, but to lump all of these surfaces together never made much sense to me. Did we judge ALL dirt surfaces based on the way the old Keeneland track played? Of course not.
Do I think most tracks would be better served investing money installing the best and safest dirt tracks? Yes. But that doesn't prevent me from seeing that the change at Arlington seems to have worked out pretty well.
|
You make great points and I agree with most of what you are saying. That being said last year's first few weeks at AP was ridiculous. The speed bias on the poly was unbelievable. Now I am not paying nearly as much attention this year because I refuse to wager on the crap AP is putting out. So maybe this year is different...but while at the track yesterday I thought what I was seeing at AP was still rather pathetic.