Quote:
Originally Posted by CSC
The game is better for players when it can cater to detail, horseplayers often complain about chart summaries for instance, high beyers, low beyers, inaccurate beyers. If there is more information, how can that be not good for the player? btw they do measure the moisture of the turf course for the Arc. I don’t think it would be revolutionary at all to expand on the 4 turf descriptions we have for turf races over here. I commend Arlington for doing this on Arlington Million day. I don’t know about you but I have seen ratings in the form that state yielding and soft, and frankly am left guessing how much give or cut was in the ground. Therefore, I always make an effort to evaluate final times to better gauge this. We all take into consideration horses that run better or worse with cut in the ground. As for the semantics of running 1:01 or 1:03 with one listed as firm and the other yielding, I can only surmise both were run on what generally could be termed as fast ground. The point is we have all seen in the past p’s races that the turf is rated as yielding yet run in excruciatingly slow times. 1:03 for 5 ½ is not an excruciatingly slow time for the distance, which leaves one to believe there can be room for improvement with the rating of course descriptions, especially with an emphasis on more detail in the future.
|
I don't disagree at all with detail, or the general substance/endgame of what you're getting at.
I just think you chose an absolutely awful example to use to ignite that conversation about measuring give in grass courses. Honestly, not bad ideas, but honestly, a terrible place to jump in and start with them.