Grass Ranks Thinning Because of Synthetics

[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.

[Danzig]

it's not as tho turf horses will become extinct. many don't like synthetics. wait a while, for instance, hated the surface.
so some slow dirters will try synthetics before turf....big deal. or some turfers will switch if they like poly better. since poly races inherited former dirt status (which i think will change-it has to) such as the santa anita h'cap, there is more prestige in winning those races-for now.

[Linny]

More horses will step up from allowance and high claiming company to fill slots in bigger grass stakes vacated by turf horses moving to synthetics. This will further the notion that grass horses are inferior to dirt horses.

In the US grass racing is secondary and always will be. No matter what the "actual" quality of the particular renewal, races like the SA h'cap, the Suburban or the JCGC will always have more status than the Turf Classic or the Kiroe Mile or the Arlington Million. Trainers with decent grass horses (Champs Elysees, Go Between) are looking to take a shot and earn G1 DIRT credentials. I can't say I blame them.

Speaking of Champs Elysees, he's a case study in how inferior our grassers are to most Euros. Maybe lasix helped (likely) but this horse, though royally bred was not much in Europe. Modest Euros arrive here, go on the lawn and look like champions.

I agree with BTW that "synthetic" is simply another "alternate" surface like turf or mud. Clearly some horses favor it. Student Council was a modest G3 horse trained by a pretty good trainer. Suddenly he's a G1 winner. Now, was that because he liked synthetic? Was it because the SoCal "G1" horses were so dreadful that they made him look "good" by comparison? It may take a while to get the answers. Since (thus far) most of the biggest events held on synthetics have been in Cali and Cali has a small, closed (and often weak) band of older horses who takes turns beating each other then results are inconclusive. (You may point to Awesome Gem's 3rd in the BCC, but I'd counter that no matter what the company, he can be counted on to run 2nd or 3rd because he's a determined plodder.)
A horse like In Summation transferred to a "big name barn" and moving up may be a slightly different case. You could make the case that he was always a very nice horse (he was dominant in Fla Stallion Series races at 2) who was waiting for someone to bring out his best. Obviously though, he does like the artifical surface, but he might have just reached a "breakout point" in his career and it coincided with his surface change.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't know that I believe that the only reason turf horses go faster than dirt horses are because the tracks are always rock hard. The record Secretariat set in the Belmont Stakes is 2:24. The next fastest time for the race is 2:26. Look at the BC Turf. The 2:26 mark has been bested many times:

High Chaparral/Johar 2:24 1/5 (Santa Anita)...Falbrav only 1/2 length back
Fantastic Light 2:24 1/5 (Belmont)....won by 3/4
Daylami 2:24 3/5 (Gulfstream)
Chief Bearhart 2:23 4/5 (Hollywood)....won by 3/4
Kotashaan 2:25 1/5 (Santa Anita)
Fraise 2:24 (Gulfstream)
Theatrical 2:24 2/5 (Hollywood)...won by a nose
Manila 2:25 2/5 (Santa Anita)...won by a neck
Lashkari 2:25 1/5 (Hollywood)

Ok, maybe that's not helping since six of the nine times were done on California tracks, which are usually pretty hard.

Let me take a quick look at the Turf Classic at Belmont, a track not usually known to be rock hard. I find that six times since 1980, the time has been under 2:26 for the race. A look at the Arlington Million, another track that's not known to be rock hard shows that since the start of the BC era, there have been five runnings of the race under 2:00 (out of 21 runnings) and the BC Classic has gone uner 2:00 five times (out of 24 runnings and one of those was around the one-turn Belmont course). The fastest Million is 1:58 3/5. The fastest Classic is 1:59 flat.

[Cannon Shell]

dude, run a 100 yards on grass. Then run 100 yards on sand. See what surface you are faster on. Dirt is simply more tiring than turf because turf is a firmer surface.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

dude, run a 100 yards on grass. Then run 100 yards on sand. See what surface you are faster on. Dirt is simply more tiring than turf because turf is a firmer surface.

If you are talking about a dirt surface like Belmont or Saratoga or Churchill, I would agree with you. But it's hard for me to believe that any turf surface could be harder or firmer than the dirt surfaces they had out here in California.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I don't know that I believe that the only reason turf horses go faster than dirt horses are because the tracks are always rock hard. The record Secretariat set in the Belmont Stakes is 2:24. The next fastest time for the race is 2:26. Look at the BC Turf. The 2:26 mark has been bested many times:

High Chaparral/Johar 2:24 1/5 (Santa Anita)...Falbrav only 1/2 length back
Kotashaan 2:25 1/5 (Santa Anita)
Manila 2:25 2/5 (Santa Anita)...won by a neck
.

You DO know that the first 3/8 of the course for 12f at Santa Anita is slightly downhill, don't you? Nine-furlong races are on the level, starting on the main track at the head of the stretch, but anything longer uses the downhill chute (as do 6.5f sprints).

[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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

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.

What does synthetic tracks have to do with horses retiring early to cash out at stud?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What does synthetic tracks have to do with horses retiring early to cash out at stud?

I think he just meant we shouldn't be satisfied with new lesser horses winning on the turf cause all the good ones went to synthetics anymore than we should be satisfied when new lesser horses are winning as older males because all the good ones have gone off to stud.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I think he just meant we shouldn't be satisfied with new lesser horses winning on the turf cause all the good ones went to synthetics anymore than we should be satisfied when new lesser horses are winning as older males because all the good ones have gone off to stud.

I believe that his point is moot because we have no idea what horses will emerge each year. Lawyer Ron was about the 8th best of his generation that wound up being top older horse because of defections but how do we not know that hemay have emerged anyway? It is hard to believe any horse could have beaten him at Saratoga this year. I have a hard time believing that all the major turf races will be abandoned because of synthetic. Actually turf racing will get a boost in this country because better mares are being bred to turf stallions because of the synthetic/turf relationship. You already see turf types brining more at the sales and this trend should continue if synthetic tracks expand.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I believe that his point is moot because we have no idea what horses will emerge each year. Lawyer Ron was about the 8th best of his generation that wound up being top older horse because of defections but how do we not know that hemay have emerged anyway? It is hard to believe any horse could have beaten him at Saratoga this year. I have a hard time believing that all the major turf races will be abandoned because of synthetic. Actually turf racing will get a boost in this country because better mares are being bred to turf stallions because of the synthetic/turf relationship. You already see turf types brining more at the sales and this trend should continue if synthetic tracks expand.

So you don't believe that taking away the top horses from one area is any more likely to produce new "top" horses than the natural evolution of things? If next year, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson, Dwayne Wade, Carmelo Anthony, and Dirk Nowitzki all miss the year with injury and Amare Stoudamire ends up leading the league in scoring, you don't think the absence of those other stars would have anything to do with it? You would think my point is moot because we don't know who would have emerged anyway? It's the same concept. Whether the top horses are taken away by retirements or by injuries or by trainers deciding to run them on a different surface, their departures create voids that will get filled but doesn't necessarily mean that the horses that fill them are just as good or would have done so anyway.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

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.

not necessarily. many sports have a season, with last years season really having no bearing on this years.
horse racing really should be considered the same way. we all expect that horses will improve at three, without necessarily having made a mark at two. the same can hold true for the next several years for horses. some late bloomers may well have surpassed their betters from previous years. it would be nice to have them all in the mix to know for sure...but we have no control over that.
mineshaft was nowhere to be found at three, he made quite a mark at four. where did cigar finish in the derby? john henry got better with age, as did the tin man....whether they were better or not, then those who left the scene can be debated, but they still put on a hell of a show.

you and carson hollow weren't world beaters. i doubt either got a nod in eclipse voting at that years end, but their test stake is still mentioned as one of the best races ever. you can have dammed good racing without having a derby winner in the mix.