With due respect to Plonk, at a cursory glance, isn't he missing, or avoiding, the bigger picture regarding the MAKE-UP of the horses succeeding on synthetic? Focusing willy-nilly on dirt/synth and turf/synth moves is hardly research about success of certain kinds of horses on synthetic surfaces.
In fact after going back and reading it again, I'm slightly horrified. Why and how, would or should, surface switches be the sole measurement of how synthetic does or doesn't play favorably with those perceived as turf-inclined horses?
Maybe I'm not properly interpreting the data as presented, but arbitrarily using surface switch statistics, without consideration of class levels, distance, locale and complete past performance records by the horses on all surfaces on which they competed, renders the 'research' totally irrelevant.
__________________
All ambitions are lawful except those which climb upward on the miseries or credulities of mankind. ~ Joseph Conrad
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right. ~ Thomas Paine
Don't let anyone tell you that your dreams can't come true. They are only afraid that theirs won't and yours will. ~ Robert Evans
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. ~ George Orwell, 1984.
Last edited by Kasept : 10-22-2009 at 06:22 PM.
|