Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
Synthetic surfaces have done two things, and they are exacerbated in high level races. First of all they have narrowed the gap between dirt and turf horses as in a sense they've created an evening factor of talent in that both types of horses may handle this third surface. Where the dirt horses were " faster " at each level than their grass counterparts we now see these two divisions being brought together. So, the turf horses, in a sense, are " better " on the synthetic surfaces and the dirt horses are " worse. "
The second thing they have done, essentially because of the first, is they have marginalized high level racing. The supposed good dirt horses aren't as good and the supposed good turf horses are seemingly better. In a sense this has created an interesting new division.....but it has clearly destroyed the former theoretical high level some of these races inhabited. Take, for instance, the two biggest Grade 1s on Polytrack in 2007, the Spinster at Keeneland and the Pacific Classic at Del Mar. Panty Raid is a nice horse, but she is certainly below the field she beat on Polytrack on the dirt. If you disagree with this feel free to revisit the Alabama Stakes. And then there's Student Council. His dirt form, while not awful, was certainly not superior to a number that finished behind him on Polytrack. Thus, these races are meaningless as " dirt " races and can only be rated as tests of synthetic ability. Now, this may not necessarily be a wholly bad thing, but it is certainly a new thing.......and no winner of the Santa Anita Handicap, as long as Santa Anita is a synthetic track, can ever be truly compared to the past winners of this race.
But, if you like Polytrack, whether for gambling reasons or some other reason I can't fathom, then you have plenty of opportunities to enjoy it. And, if you don't, then find a track with dirt. But, it goes without saying that these races are no longer the races they were in the past, whether you believe it's for better or worse.
|
I'd like to ask you about the part that I highlighted. In what way do you mean that the dirt horses were faster than the grass horses at each level? I don't want to go looking around but it seems to me that at many distances at the major tracks, the track records for grass races are usually faster than the ones for dirt races at the same distance. A lot of times, significantly faster. It sort of feels to me that synthetic surfaces, rather than evening the gap, has widened it more. In the past, I've always felt like in general, grass horses have been superior and that real dirt was what actually evened things out because it put them at a disadvantage. I thought Sakhee and Giant's Causeway were both better than Tiznow. If those two BCC's were on grass, I think they romp but on dirt, they were disadvantaged enough to get them beat. I have a feeling that they win both of those races on synthetic tracks.
A lot of people are saying that the mass crossovers haven't been taking place yet and grass racing is still doing ok. It's still early. Watch what's going to happen in California this year. Watch how the BC "dirt" races are going to be affected. So far, for the most part, we've seen modest grass horses having a lot of success on the synthetics. It won't be long before the people with real good ones start moving over. It's going to happen.
__________________
The real horses of the year (1986-2020)
Manila, Java Gold, Alysheba, Sunday Silence, Go for Wand, In Excess, Paseana, Kotashaan, Holy Bull, Cigar, Alphabet Soup, Formal Gold, Skip Away, Artax, Tiznow, Point Given, Azeri, Candy Ride, Smarty Jones, Ghostzapper, Invasor, Curlin, Zenyatta, Zenyatta, Goldikova, Havre de Grace, Wise Dan, Wise Dan, California Chrome, American Pharoah, Arrogate, Gun Runner, Accelerate, Maximum Security, Gamine
|
02-22-2008, 08:43 PM
Hybrid Mode
