Arlington Park gets it

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

Wow....there is a horse player on this planet who loves it. This is a first.


Hopefully in time when handles continue to decrease/purses go down, the tracks realize that they need to re-install dirt tracks. A majority of the horseplayers I know wont go near a lot of these poly tracks. Keeneland's spring meet was all you need to look at.

I've been asking this for some time now but I'll ask it again one more time:
We know that not all of these synthetic surfaces are the same, so why do many people feel the need to be 100% pro-synthetic, or 100% anti-synthetic, across the board?

Del Mar's surface was an absolute joke. Santa Anita's was worse. Keeneland was pretty bad too.
But that doesn't change the fact that it has pretty much been a good thing at Arlington. The surface plays pretty fairly, field size was up last year, etc. Overall I am not a big fan of synthetic surfaces, but to lump all of these surfaces together never made much sense to me. Did we judge ALL dirt surfaces based on the way the old Keeneland track played? Of course not.
Do I think most tracks would be better served investing money installing the best and safest dirt tracks? Yes. But that doesn't prevent me from seeing that the change at Arlington seems to have worked out pretty well.

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I've been asking this for some time now but I'll ask it again one more time:
We know that not all of these synthetic surfaces are the same, so why do many people feel the need to be 100% pro-synthetic, or 100% anti-synthetic, across the board?

Del Mar's surface was an absolute joke. Santa Anita's was worse. Keeneland was pretty bad too.
But that doesn't change the fact that it has pretty much been a good thing at Arlington. The surface plays pretty fairly, field size was up last year, etc. Overall I am not a big fan of synthetic surfaces, but to lump all of these surfaces together never made much sense to me. Did we judge ALL dirt surfaces based on the way the old Keeneland track played? Of course not.
Do I think most tracks would be better served investing money installing the best and safest dirt tracks? Yes. But that doesn't prevent me from seeing that the change at Arlington seems to have worked out pretty well.

You make great points and I agree with most of what you are saying. That being said last year's first few weeks at AP was ridiculous. The speed bias on the poly was unbelievable. Now I am not paying nearly as much attention this year because I refuse to wager on the crap AP is putting out. So maybe this year is different...but while at the track yesterday I thought what I was seeing at AP was still rather pathetic.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

You make great points and I agree with most of what you are saying. That being said last year's first few weeks at AP was ridiculous. The speed bias on the poly was unbelievable. Now I am not paying nearly as much attention this year because I refuse to wager on the crap AP is putting out. So maybe this year is different...but while at the track yesterday I thought what I was seeing at AP was still rather pathetic.

You're going to judge an entire track's meet over what you saw the first two weeks LY? At the end of the meet LY it was w/ in % pts of winning horses being equally speed, pressers and closers. They won from the rail and they won outside. Opening weekend TY was crazy fast, but it wasn't all speed...they were closing too.

If you hate poly and therefore hate betting AP, that's fine, but if you think fields are bad because of it, you are mistaken. It's all about the purses. You reallly want to see bad races? Imagine AP if they HADN'T put the poly in.

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by GBBob

You're going to judge an entire track's meet over what you saw the first two weeks LY? At the end of the meet LY it was w/ in % pts of winning horses being equally speed, pressers and closers. They won from the rail and they won outside. Opening weekend TY was crazy fast, but it wasn't all speed...they were closing too.

If you hate poly and therefore hate betting AP, that's fine, but if you think fields are bad because of it, you are mistaken. It's all about the purses. You reallly want to see bad races? Imagine AP if they HADN'T put the poly in.

What it comes down to is my opinion that racing was fine there on the dirt. There was (in my opinion) no reason to change over to poly. Polytrack is ruining racing. Look at Keeneland...look at Del Mar....two meets that have become jokes. I just didnt see the need to switch in Chicago. AP is one of the best tracks in the country to attend live....great place....I just think they ruined it with poly.