Strong field shaping up for Woodbine Mile

[CSC]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

That's all well and good. Propose that and let's get the ball rolling.

But that doesn't change the fact that you've spent two pages trying to point out that a course that's playing about 3 seconds slower at 5.5f is somehow NOT noticeably slower than it would have been on a different footing, ie "firm."

That's hogwash, and to use your words, "don't tell me you can't tell the difference."

I can assure you, I wouldn't waste 2 pages explaining the obvious. Nor would I ignore the fact that those races that were 3 seconds faster were run on a turf course that resembled concrete more than a turf course and somehow equating this to a race being run in a cut, induced bog. There are distortions and then there are distortions, I figure you should know better being that you are a public handicapper.

[clyde]

The fleet of 2 Canadian Spaceships will be dismantled.The disassembled pieces parts will be melted down and reconstructed into huge monoliths to be used in the Canadian upcoming movie entitled ,2001:How Canadian Time Flies.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by CSC

I can assure you, I wouldn't waste 2 pages explaining the obvious. Nor would I ignore the fact that those races that were 3 seconds faster were run on a turf course that resembled concrete more than a turf course and somehow equating this to a race being run in a cut, induced bog. There are distortions and then there are distortions, I figure you should know better being that you are a public handicapper.

This is still absolutely crazy. If let's just say, 12-15 lengths worth of time is NOT grounds for admitting that a course is likely "good/yielding," compared to its "firm" counterpart, what is?

Would 7 seconds be enough to these silly arbitrary designations we have to make sense? 10 seconds? If they had run 5.5f in 1:34.4 would it then have been yielding enough for you to accept these clearly far-too-simpleton-for-your-taste designations?

If a "firm" turf course was producing times of, let's say, 1:00.3, and a "yielding" course producing times some 15 lengths slower, it certainly shouldn't matter what job someone has to be able to see that rolling your eyes about the latter being called "yielding" may just be someone with too much time to pass today looking for a "debate" of any kind, yea?

Those are the designations we work with, and the differences in times on the two courses listed as "firm" and as "yielding" seems perfectly appropriate to me to label them as such, no distortions necessary. If you want to change the game and rename turf conditions with your special moisture meter, then as I said, that's great and let's get used to that -- that's an entirely different conversation.

But given the framework from which we're working in, this is an abjectly frivolous and silly argument to even be having, because it makes the most perfect kind of sense when actually looked at from a time v. condition of turf course perspective.

If you really believe that a difference of that kind in a 5.5f race doesn't indicate a significant amount of give in the ground compared to a dry and firm course, then nobody can change your mind. But that, in my estimation, is not so much a problem of an American inability to rate turf courses as it is your ability to understand it.

[clyde]

ABC News projecting Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and North Dakota all going with 'The horsey is dead'...

[CSC]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

This is still absolutely crazy. If let's just say, 12-15 lengths worth of time is NOT grounds for admitting that a course is likely "good/yielding," compared to its "firm" counterpart, what is?

Would 7 seconds be enough to these silly arbitrary designations we have to make sense? 10 seconds? If they had run 5.5f in 1:34.4 would it then have been yielding enough for you to accept these clearly far-too-simpleton-for-your-taste designations?

If a "firm" turf course was producing times of, let's say, 1:00.3, and a "yielding" course producing times some 15 lengths slower, it certainly shouldn't matter what job someone has to be able to see that rolling your eyes about the latter being called "yielding" may just be someone with too much time to pass today looking for a "debate" of any kind, yea?

Those are the designations we work with, and the differences in times on the two courses listed as "firm" and as "yielding" seems perfectly appropriate to me to label them as such, no distortions necessary. If you want to change the game and rename turf conditions with your special moisture meter, then as I said, that's great and let's get used to that -- that's an entirely different conversation.

But given the framework from which we're working in, this is an abjectly frivolous and silly argument to even be having, because it makes the most perfect kind of sense when actually looked at from a time v. condition of turf course perspective.

If you really believe that a difference of that kind in a 5.5f race doesn't indicate a significant amount of give in the ground compared to a dry and firm course, then nobody can change your mind. But that, in my estimation, is not so much a problem of an American inability to rate turf courses as it is your ability to understand it.

The game is better for players when it can cater to detail, horseplayers often complain about chart summaries for instance, high beyers, low beyers, inaccurate beyers. If there is more information, how can that be not good for the player? btw they do measure the moisture of the turf course for the Arc. I don’t think it would be revolutionary at all to expand on the 4 turf descriptions we have for turf races over here. I commend Arlington for doing this on Arlington Million day. I don’t know about you but I have seen ratings in the form that state yielding and soft, and frankly am left guessing how much give or cut was in the ground. Therefore, I always make an effort to evaluate final times to better gauge this. We all take into consideration horses that run better or worse with cut in the ground. As for the semantics of running 1:01 or 1:03 with one listed as firm and the other yielding, I can only surmise both were run on what generally could be termed as fast ground. The point is we have all seen in the past p’s races that the turf is rated as yielding yet run in excruciatingly slow times. 1:03 for 5 ½ is not an excruciatingly slow time for the distance, which leaves one to believe there can be room for improvement with the rating of course descriptions, especially with an emphasis on more detail in the future.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by CSC

The game is better for players when it can cater to detail, horseplayers often complain about chart summaries for instance, high beyers, low beyers, inaccurate beyers. If there is more information, how can that be not good for the player? btw they do measure the moisture of the turf course for the Arc. I don’t think it would be revolutionary at all to expand on the 4 turf descriptions we have for turf races over here. I commend Arlington for doing this on Arlington Million day. I don’t know about you but I have seen ratings in the form that state yielding and soft, and frankly am left guessing how much give or cut was in the ground. Therefore, I always make an effort to evaluate final times to better gauge this. We all take into consideration horses that run better or worse with cut in the ground. As for the semantics of running 1:01 or 1:03 with one listed as firm and the other yielding, I can only surmise both were run on what generally could be termed as fast ground. The point is we have all seen in the past p’s races that the turf is rated as yielding yet run in excruciatingly slow times. 1:03 for 5 ½ is not an excruciatingly slow time for the distance, which leaves one to believe there can be room for improvement with the rating of course descriptions, especially with an emphasis on more detail in the future.

I don't disagree at all with detail, or the general substance/endgame of what you're getting at.

I just think you chose an absolutely awful example to use to ignite that conversation about measuring give in grass courses. Honestly, not bad ideas, but honestly, a terrible place to jump in and start with them.

[clyde]

Say,that's a nice field they got there for the Autobon Mile.