Grass Ranks Thinning Because of Synthetics

[Linny]

How 'bout the idea of Go Between winning the Big Cap?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Linny

How 'bout the idea of Go Between winning the Big Cap?

I can't actually think of a horse running there that I think would be deserving to win so I don't think I'll be bothered by any outcome.

[letswastemoney]

go Tiago

[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.

[docicu3]

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.

Probably the most insightful thing you have ever posted here. Very smart!!

[King Glorious]

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.

[Danzig]

grass horses here will never be considered as superior, since most only end up there after failing on the dirt. dirt is our number one surface, and the ability to excel on that surface garners the most respect from american horsemen, the press and fans. synthetic may supplant turf as the one to go to when a horse can't run a lick on dirt-but a classic dirt horse will always reign supreme, regardless of 'feeling' that a turf horse may be 'better' than his dirt peers. if he was better, he'd be on dirt. right or wrong, that's the consensus in the sport.

[blackthroatedwind]

Turf track records are set on rock hard turf which is a faster surface than dirt ( real dirt that is ). Honestly, King, you should understand what I said implicitely.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

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.

If good turf horses start running on the synthetic wont new turf horses emerge to take their place? Looking at CA turf races in particular arent the majority of the turf stakes run with imported horses? Why wouldnt we just import more to fill the turf stakes? Couldnt the sport overall be helped if there were full fields in turf and pseudo-dirt stakes?

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If good turf horses start running on the synthetic wont new turf horses emerge to take their place? Looking at CA turf races in particular arent the majority of the turf stakes run with imported horses? Why wouldnt we just import more to fill the turf stakes? Couldnt the sport overall be helped if there were full fields in turf and pseudo-dirt stakes?

The sport could be helped from a wagering perspective. But what about the quality of the races themselves? Yes, if the good ones switch over, new ones will take their places. But won't the new ones just be ones that weren't good enough to win in the first place. It will be like this year's handicap division. If Curlin, Hard Spun, Lawyer Ron, Street Sense, and Any Given Saturday were still around, I am pretty sure that the top of the division would look better than it's going to look this year. But they are all gone and somebody has to step in and fill the voids and win the races. Doesn't mean they are anywhere near as good as the ones that left us though. I don't look at it as new horses emerging as much as old horses taking advantage of new opportunities.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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.
.

The Pacific Classic was Student Council's first race at 10f and he won it. The Hawthorne Gold Cup was his second race at 10f and he won that, too (and on 'real' dirt). This is a case of a horse needing a longer distance than he was running at, not a radical improvement on Poly. Milwaukee Brew was the same sort of horse - adequate form at 9f, superior form at 10f, and he did all of his running on 'real dirt.'

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Nope.

She's just keeping her record of complete inaccuracy consistent. Think of her as a more experienced KYRIM.