Keeneland

[Kasept]

For all the enlightened pro and con commentary here regarding the KEE surface prior and present, I don't think I've seen anyone bring the CHANGE IN BANKING AND CONFIGURATION into the discussion.

While the surface is certainly exerting an enormous influence on the results, couldn't the new shape of the turns and MUCH long homestretch be responsible for the demise of the speedsters?

I think we're making too much of the surface and not enough of a stretch now longer than Churchill's.. (At least according to Rogers Beasley...)

Originally Posted by Kasept

For all the enlightened pro and con commentary here regarding the KEE surface prior and present, I don't think I've seen anyone bring the CHANGE IN BANKING AND CONFIGURATION into the discussion.

While the surface is certainly exerting an enormous influence on the results, couldn't the new shape of the turns and MUCH long homestretch be responsible for the demise of the speedsters?

I think we're making too much of the surface and not enough of a stretch now longer than Churchill's.. (At least according to Rogers Beasley...)

Come on Steve, have you been watching? The speed doesn't EVEN MAKE IT TO THE STRETCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Kasept

For all the enlightened pro and con commentary here regarding the KEE surface prior and present, I don't think I've seen anyone bring the CHANGE IN BANKING AND CONFIGURATION into the discussion.

While the surface is certainly exerting an enormous influence on the results, couldn't the new shape of the turns and MUCH long homestretch be responsible for the demise of the speedsters?

I think we're making too much of the surface and not enough of a stretch now longer than Churchill's.. (At least according to Rogers Beasley...)

I agree that is definitely a major factor but at the same time I think 3 for 50 is a little low. I do see a lot of pacesetters holding on for second though, and a lot of stalkers winning so I don't think the problem is as bad as the 3 for 50 makes it sound.

I guess the real question is how many times has the best horse in the race been alone on the lead and able to set reasonable fractions and lost the race? I'd guess not many, if any. I hate cheap speed winning races so I love the racing on the polytrack so far even though I was extremely skeptical going into the meet. I'll take a good polytrack race over a snoozer like the Meadowlands race the other day where they all ran the same order the whole way.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I think we're making too much of the surface and not enough of a stretch now longer than Churchill's.. (At least according to Rogers Beasley...)

AND the stretch is no longer DOWNHILL...

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

AND the stretch is no longer DOWNHILL...

Well the old track was ridiculous and 50% frontrunners was just plain wrong. I think if we are truly looking for an unbiased surface then frontrunners winning at a 15% (maybe 20%) clip should be about right. 3 for 50 is probably significant enough to say it is biased against frontrunners, at least to a small degree.

[NoCarolinaTony]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Well the old track was ridiculous and 50% frontrunners was just plain wrong. I think if we are truly looking for an unbiased surface then frontrunners winning at a 15% (maybe 20%) clip should be about right. 3 for 50 is probably significant enough to say it is biased against frontrunners, at least to a small degree.

I was there the first three days, and I would say that the jockeys rode a little tentatively on the surface the first few races trying to get a feel. In the very first race no one wanted the lead. Was run like a turf race.

NC Tony

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Well the old track was ridiculous and 50% frontrunners was just plain wrong. I think if we are truly looking for an unbiased surface then frontrunners winning at a 15% (maybe 20%) clip should be about right. 3 for 50 is probably significant enough to say it is biased against frontrunners, at least to a small degree.

I agree that the bias has switched to closers but I stilll think that as the track gets used and the maitenance crew works it the numbers will even out.
plus tony makes a good point that the jocks may have been playing it differently trying to figure it out.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

I agree that the bias has switched to closers but I stilll think that as the track gets used and the maitenance crew works it the numbers will even out.
plus tony makes a good point that the jocks may have been playing it differently trying to figure it out.

Not to mention as word of the bias gets out there may be trainers shipping their good frontrunners out rather than running them on a track with a perceived bias.

[pba1817]

Why was Kenneland the greatest place when it was a 100% inside speed biased track, but now the place sucks since it has changed to a different type of track bias?!?!?!?!?

It seems to me that the people who are struggling to figure the new Keeneland out have no idea how to handicap for anything but early speed.

[NoCarolinaTony]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

AND the stretch is no longer DOWNHILL...

Excellent Point!! The track itself didn't realize that you were running uphill on the backside and downhill down the stretch until they used GPS and regraded the surface.

NC Tony