Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Revolution
A poster here that is in the breeding business said there are numerous different types of synthetic surfaces and they have been racing on them for years outside the United States. This isn't new stuff. How can you make any decisions on "poly" based off a 17 day meet. How about Turfways numbers. Do just Keeneland's count? That would be ridiculous.
What about Steve Byk's theory and others who said Keeneland has more to do with the way they set up the track than the poly?
Based on the sires you listed, it means nothing. Those sires produce winners because they are the top sires. The sample is so small and it doesn't mention if these sires just had more horses run.
It would be crazy to change the way one spends millions of dollars choosing stallions to even consider the synthetic surfaces right now. They all are going to play differently, just like dirt tracks do.
|
No one is saying change your breeding methods by looking at 2 weeks worth of results. The point was its something every breeder should be looking at.
No, polytrack isnt "new" to the world. There are all-weather tracks all over Europe... but its new to North America and the majority of our dirt stallions.
Furthermore, those "top" stallions on the list are also good to great turf stallions. Thats the point that was being drawn from the results. Horses who can produce versatile runners on either surface seem to be reaping some success on the polytrack.
And these numbers are very limited... there's not enough info around to make a safe judgement, but it would be ridiculous to not pay attention and keep a tally of whats going on.
Until you can put your money where your mouth is and feel 100% confident that polytrack will have no impact on the foal you breed and the future worth of your mare, I wouldnt be so quick to jump into conversations balls out when the point of the whole topic is to keep a tally of possible outcomes and results not to make a definitive conclusion off two weeks worth of results.