Betting Music Note to Show

[Danzig]

you need to remember tho betsy, music note-if she goes to the bc-will be running on an AWT. that may well be the deciding factor. it's not who is the best horse this year, but who handles that track the best.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you need to remember tho betsy, music note-if she goes to the bc-will be running on an AWT. that may well be the deciding factor. it's not who is the best horse this year, but who handles that track the best.

That's right - I do have to remind myself. I find it pathetic that we have to take into account this fake surface and who can handle it or not. It's frustrating because in this instance I have no clue if MN will take to it. If the race were to be run on a regular dirt track, I could just accept the results as it were. Now, we have a day where championships could be decided based on the results on a freaky sort of surface. It's really unfortunate.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by Betsy

That's right - I do have to remind myself. I find it pathetic that we have to take into account this fake surface and who can handle it or not. It's frustrating because in this instance I have no clue if MN will take to it. If the race were to be run on a regular dirt track, I could just accept the results as it were. Now, we have a day where championships could be decided based on the results on a freaky sort of surface. It's really unfortunate.

And if the races are held on a sealed, sloppy track, which places many horses at a disadvantage, you are willing to accept the results as definitive? Churchill Downs for years has been disparaged as a 'cuppy track', that not all horses 'take to'.

Note to the newbies: this is why we oldsters liked the previous way of determining champions - the entire campaign was taken into account, and performances on unsuitable surfaces discounted. Skip Away didn't like Churchill - no problem, he won a lot of races elsewhere. Some other champions couldn't handle wet tracks as well as dry. Well, if it was sloppy for the Woodward, it could be dry for the JCGC. Horse racing is not a tournament sport; there is no 'final' where a win determines the champion.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

And if the races are held on a sealed, sloppy track, which places many horses at a disadvantage, you are willing to accept the results as definitive? Churchill Downs for years has been disparaged as a 'cuppy track', that not all horses 'take to'.

Note to the newbies: this is why we oldsters liked the previous way of determining champions - the entire campaign was taken into account, and performances on unsuitable surfaces discounted. Skip Away didn't like Churchill - no problem, he won a lot of races elsewhere. Some other champions couldn't handle wet tracks as well as dry. Well, if it was sloppy for the Woodward, it could be dry for the JCGC. Horse racing is not a tournament sport; there is no 'final' where a win determines the champion.

I would take a dirt track over a fake track any day of the week. Besides, did I say that the BC was the end all and be all? I don't think one race should be the deciding factor in a championship unless that is the only race where the competitors meet head to head. To me, head to head trumps all. Other than that, obviously the whole season has to count for something. Also, you used my point completely out of context. I was saying that if Music Note doesn't run well in the Distaff this year, I would be very frustrated because it's being run on a surface that she may not handle.....many horses don't handle it. If it were being run on dirt (even sloppy dirt) and MN didn't run well, I wouldn't be happy, but I could accept it a lot better.