Dirt racings demise?

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Do we really want all tracks to play the same?

No, of course not- but the idiosyncrasies of Saratoga vs. Monmouth vs. Belmont is one thing, watching horses look like they can barely walk after running a :50 half is another.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by philcski

No, of course not- but the idiosyncrasies of Saratoga vs. Monmouth vs. Belmont is one thing, watching horses look like they can barely walk after running a :50 half is another.

I'd definitely agree with that.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by philcski

No, of course not- but the idiosyncrasies of Saratoga vs. Monmouth vs. Belmont is one thing, watching horses look like they can barely walk after running a :50 half is another.

Not to mention that an artificial dirt surface should at least remotely resemble dirt racing. It looks more like bad turf racing.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Not to mention that an artificial dirt surface should at least remotely resemble dirt racing. It looks more like bad turf racing.

Paint it green?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Paint it green?

That would be a start.

[MisterB]

Gamblers would bet on horses running on ICE. As far as GP goes, she must have meant the back streach is top notch. The track sucks donkey balls.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Why should synthetic surface racing resemble dirt racing? It's a different material, just as turf and dirt are different.

It is fine if they want to treat it as a third surface and add it to the two existing surfaces at major tracks. What I don't like is the idea of a surface completely different from dirt replacing dirt tracks.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Cardus

The "third surface" has become the "third rail" of racing, hasn't it?

I still don't have a definitive stance on the subject (synthetic surfaces), unlike, A) most everyone on this board, and B) almost everyone else (media, owners/trainers/jockeys, other fans). I've wagered very little on synthetic racing to date. I know that I am waiting for more form to develop. I know that I have posted previously that on the Del Mar surface, the racing looked unnatural, like some of the horses were bouncing up and down, but not running smoothly.

It makes me think, though: what will this sport look like in 10, 20 years? Can you imagine your reaction to the first Kentucky Derby run on a synthetic surface?

I don't even want to think about it. The only thought worse than that would be Saratoga replacing their dirt track with poly.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cardus

The "third surface" has become the "third rail" of racing, hasn't it?

I still don't have a definitive stance on the subject (synthetic surfaces), unlike, A) most everyone on this board, and B) almost everyone else (media, owners/trainers/jockeys, other fans). I've wagered very little on synthetic racing to date. I know that I am waiting for more form to develop. I know that I have posted previously that on the Del Mar surface, the racing looked unnatural, like some of the horses were bouncing up and down, but not running smoothly.

It makes me think, though: what will this sport look like in 10, 20 years? Can you imagine your reaction to the first Kentucky Derby run on a synthetic surface?

Interesting, and in my mind, thought provoking thought process. So, I have a question -- do you think that the majority of the trainers, who were racing at Del Mar this season, dislike the track surface? Do they dislike any poly/synthetic/etc. surface at all?

With regard to the fans -- do the majority of the fans in CA dislike the poly/synthetic/etc. What about nationwide? Sure, the bettors (perhaps a different strata than "fans" in general) might bet on horses running on ice, but contrary to what every hard-core bettor says, this industry and this sport is not about just the bettor. The chicken and the egg, and in this case, even more to the point -- cause and effect.

Handle and field size were up. I want to know why. I hear people say they are looking for predictability. How much? What about the Aqueduct inner track (of years ago)? What about the Keeneland Spring meet? Is that too much predictability? There will always be something less than ideal.

I think there will eventually be a medium with the alternative surfaces. However, until we get there, I think what might be overlooked is the alleged "greater good" so to speak.

Anyway -- great points. I learn a great deal from other perspectives on these types of issues.

Eric