Dirt racings demise?

philcski · #1 09-09-2007, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No one said that betters should not have a say in the matter but to call Gulfstream a "superior" surface is like calling a Ford Focus a luxury car. The fact is that you guys do have a vote and it is with your betting dollars. And if you have a beef than it should be with your fellow bettors because handle at Del Mar this summer was strong and Keeneland has had record handle levels since putting in artificial surfaces. Maybe some bettors dont like the new surfaces but it seems that many do.

Bettors like large fields, and both delivered. I hate them both and didn't play Del Mar after the opening weekend, especially considering there are synthetic surfaces which play comparable to traditional dirt (see: Arlington, Presque Isle, even Turfway), which tells me the track maintenance is to fault.

Cannon Shell · #2 09-09-2007, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philcski

Bettors like large fields, and both delivered. I hate them both and didn't play Del Mar after the opening weekend, especially considering there are synthetic surfaces which play comparable to traditional dirt (see: Arlington, Presque Isle, even Turfway), which tells me the track maintenance is to fault.

Have you been consulting with No Chance to Dance?

philcski · #3 09-09-2007, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Have you been consulting with No Chance to Dance?

Well, we're both named Phil. Otherwise... no. I hate the stuff. I don't understand how Arlington can supposedly have the same sh!t and have reasonably run races and at Del Mar the horses in the stretch look like watching ducks swim upstream into Niagara Falls. Nobody had issues at Hollywood, either...

Cannon Shell · #4 09-09-2007, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philcski

Well, we're both named Phil. Otherwise... no. I hate the stuff. I don't understand how Arlington can supposedly have the same sh!t and have reasonably run races and at Del Mar the horses in the stretch look like watching ducks swim upstream into Niagara Falls. Nobody had issues at Hollywood, either...

Do we really want all tracks to play the same?

philcski · #5 09-09-2007, 11:19 PM

Quote:

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 · #6 09-09-2007, 11:20 PM

Quote:

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 · #7 09-09-2007, 11:23 PM

Quote:

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 · #8 09-09-2007, 11:53 PM

Quote:

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?

MisterB · #9 09-10-2007, 01:22 PM

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 · #10 09-10-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

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.

Sightseek · #11 09-09-2007, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Have you been consulting with No Chance to Dance?

If he has I'm forming an intervention.

cmorioles · #12 09-10-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philcski

...especially considering there are synthetic surfaces which play comparable to traditional dirt (see: Arlington, Presque Isle, even Turfway), which tells me the track maintenance is to fault.

While these tracks may be closer to dirt than Delmar and Keeneland, there is no way they are even close to be comparable to dirt the way we are used to seeing it.

JJP · #13 09-10-2007, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philcski

Bettors like large fields, and both delivered. I hate them both and didn't play Del Mar after the opening weekend, especially considering there are synthetic surfaces which play comparable to traditional dirt (see: Arlington, Presque Isle, even Turfway), which tells me the track maintenance is to fault.

Arlington definitely does NOT play like a regular dirt surface. Their published stats are a bit distorted since they now card many 1 1/16 mile races, which they had carded maybe 10 in the previous 20 years combined. These races have a fairly short run to the first turn, then a 700 foot stretch run so speed horses have an unfair advantage in those races. And despite this, Saturday saw head-scratchers like Gold Hornet and Solo Survivor win. IMO, Turfway is by far the most realistic of the Poly tracks.