Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS
It's obvious that the further the race is---the worse speed does on all artifical surfaces so far, polytrack especially.
I certainly don't believe the races are more random because of the surface, I'm not sure many do.
However, the overwhelming majority of major horse races are run beyond the distance of a mile --- and it's those races that are complete eyesores to watch run over polytrack.
That is my only beef with the surface...and as someone who loves top class horse racing, it's a huge beef.
I have many beefs with the way people are going about trying to defend and justify the surface in such a dishonest and naive way....but I agree with you on your point, I don't believe it makes the outcome of the races random.
|
my beef is with arguments that seem to imply that different is bad. turf is different than dirt, is turf racing also an eysore?
calling route races on poly complete eyesores and ugly hardly seems like a real rigorous argument to me. There have not been many chances for top quality horses to train and race on the surface yet.
how do you define top quality horse racing? top quality horses I assume, but what else?