Done with POLY !!!

[FrankD.]

I\'ve been reading all the Zenyatta comments and like Mine That Birds Derby run it was a thrilling & exciting story that is great for racing.

No doubt she is a great race mare but she is not Horse of the Year ! She\'s a pro-ride track specialist who beat a very overrated field for a Classic. She and Gio Ponti were the only horses that ran a step in the last 1/4 mile of the race.

Regal Ransom is nothing who at 45 to 1 led to the 1/8 pole in moderate 24 1/4\'s.
Einstein is 7 yrs. old and has run a series of clunkers throughout the year.
Rip Van Winkle was half lame, was almost scratched and stalked a moderate pace for 6f and quit. ( the second best horse in Europe ? )
Mine that Bird and Summer Bird both hate Poly and Summer Bird had to regress after his last 2 efforts. He will be next years Curlin as a 4 yr. old.
Gio Ponti is a great turf horse but only runs moderate dirt numbers compared to Grade 1 Dirt horses.
Richards Kid whom I bet had another clunker, not his first of the year for sure.

So let\'s not get crazy about the quality of the field !!!

The overriding theme of the weekend was that dirt horses that press the pace or run on a near it had no shot at all.

Only Informed Decision, Midshipman & Cost of Freedom ran on or stalked the pace in any of the Pro-Ride races and were in the picture at the end ?

Everything I\'ve learned about numbers & trips in the last 20 years can be thrown out the window on the plastic ! Speed horses are at tremendous disadvantage on the plastic.

 American Breeding for the last 30 years has been pointed for speed at a mile ?
So why have we installed all these plastic surfaces ?
There not any safer than dirt.
Many trainers won\'t let there horses run on them at all which kind of defeats the purpose of the Breeders Cup ?

First and foremost is the angle that no one thinks about at all. Big bettors cannot wager with any confidence at all on the plastic and they don\'t ! Look at the handle figures at Keeneland & the California tracks since plastic has been installed ? They speak for themselves.

Can you really picture Mike Smith fanning out 8 wide in the Saratoga stretch trying to run down Rachel Alexander on the lead after spotting her 10 lengths ?
Let\'s be serious folks !!!

Frank D.

[JimP]

\"She\'s a pro-ride track specialist\"

I don\'t understand this reasoning. Nearly every horse, even the great ones, are \"specialists\" of some sort. Some are surface specialists (dirt, grass, synthetic). Some are distance specialists (sprint, middle distance, route). But they are nearly all specialists of one sort or another. The Forego\'s don\'t come along very often. Far all we know, Rachel Alexandra is just as much a dirt specialist, as Zenyatta is a pro-ride specialist. After all, we have seen Zenyatta perform outstandingly on dirt. And I don\'t think we should exclude any of those specialists from consideration for HOY honors. Can\'t a great grass specialist get that honor? Can\'t a great sprinter get that honor? Then why can\'t a great synthetic specialist get the honor?  The only thing that makes the argument different in this case is that some of us aren\'t accepting the synthethics as legitimate surfaces. I think it\'s time for all of us to get over that. There are too many synthetic tracks, and they are very likely here to stay, for us to not accept them as legitimate. So Zenyatta is a great synthetic specialist. So Rachel Alexandra is a great dirt specialist. So what? They are both great. They both deserve consideration for HOY. It should be tough to eliminate either one of them. To just declare either one of them as not under consideration because they both specialized is silly. Thanks. Just wanted to get that off my chest. I\'m not looking for an argument on this point, so I want engage in one. I\'ve said my piece. Now back to handcapping the next race.

[jimbo66]

Jim P,

Yes, we have specialists in many classes.  But dirt racing is 100 years old.  As is grass racing.  

Poly/synthetic is a poorly thought out anomaly of the last few years.  So calling somebody a \"specialist\" on synthetics is quite different than calling them a \"specialist\" on dirt or turf.

Unless of course, the stubborn powers to be decide that synthetic racing is here to stay for the next 20 years, which I can\'t believe they will do.  Even the idiots who run racing have to be smart enough to correct this mistake.

[miff]

Jim P,

You make good points, however racing surfaces are supposed to be equal to all horses.Agree,most horses will have a preferred surface.

It is hard to dispute that synth surfaces(exc maybe Cushion track) are not favorable to foot rattlers with high brilliant early speed.Stalkers and closers fair much better, most of the time.Synth slugs/turfers that could never outrun  legit fast horses do it all the time over those surfaces.Everyone seems to forget that synths were supposed to replace dirt tracks, not create quasi turf racing.

That surface is not only generally biased to certain running styles/types but it is often \"anti\" fast horses with brilliant early speed.How\'s that racing?Is it a coincidence that the fastest dirt horses in the BC were mainly empty and turfers/synth specialists dominated?

Mike

[JimP]

I said I didn\'t want to engage in an argument on this point, but I do feel compelled to comment on the \"fairness\" issue. I can\'t agree that just because a track has a dirt surface that it is any more fair. Was Keeneland fair to closers when they had the dirt surface? I don\'t think so. That\'s just one example. Dirt tracks have biases just like synthetics do. For that matter, so do grass surfaces. I think that we had a front running bias on that SA track this weekend. I\'m givng extra credit to horses that managed to close well on that surface. Now I\'ve probably started another argument about the SA turf bias. I\'m an old-timer like many of you seem to be. It\'s hard for me to accept changes as fundamental as synthetic surfaces. But I believe they are here to stay, so as a handicapper I am just trying to work them into the equation as another factor. I just don\'t see it to be productive to reject all the tracks with the synthetic surfaces or to automatically discount the performances of those horses that find those surfaces to their liking. Change happens. Horse racing has changed. We now have more than 2 surface factors to contend with as handicappers. So let\'s handicap.

[girly]

Honestly, I have an aversion to synthetic materials, and am wondering-Do they call Aquaduct Big Sandy because the dirt is grainy or it is actually mixed with a little sand? This may sound crazy, but I had the thought, that if tracks wanted their dirt to be softer, why not use a blend of dirt and a little bit of the sand like they use in Mexican resorts. It\'s made of real sand and mostly finely ground sea shells. The beauty of it is, that the sand stays cool even on the hottest days, because the seashells don\'t absorb heat. Better than rubber, ugh!

[HP]

Belmont is \"Big Sandy.\"  Not Aqueduct.  I believe most tracks are composed of a mix of clay, dirt and sand.

[girly]

Duh, My Bad-I had Aquaduct on the brain... I think a blend of natural materials is far better than this rubber concoction. Sea shell sand is rather light and cool to the touch.

[sighthound]

Dirt tracks that we have today are nowhere near \"natural\".   Horses run on turf.  That is their natural surface.  That is what their hooves and legs were designed for.

Horse racing started in America by racing \"from here to there\" (across country, across fields, miles), then developed into short bursts down city streets in town.  Then regular racing fields (locations) where horse owners could gather to compare their stock and gamble.

Dirt was created because you run horses over turf a few times, and it obviously gets completely torn up.  

Aside:  England has figured out how to keep turf courses intact for a couple centuries, without going to dirt courses, but Americans couldn\'t - I don\'t know why.  Something to research.  Might have to do with the climate differences and farming/field/forest differences between the countries a couple centuries ago, but I digress ...

But torn-up turf with holes and divots breaks ankles and tears tendons.  So somebody took a disc to the turf where the horses ran, like a farm field, to break up the clods and dangerous holes.   Then harrowed it smooth.  

Then the clubs in charge of keeping the course added in sand, for drainage, loam, for softness, clay, for firmness; all dependent upon the soil in the area of the country.  Then the dirt was gradually deepened to the surprising depth it is now.

Dirt was the first \"artificial, created\" surface!

[magicnight]

\"That is what their hooves and legs were designed for.\"

You, of all people here, sight! Don\'t you mean, \"this is how their hooves and legs evolved\"?

Otherwise, I love this post. Europe can run on grass because they rotate meets on a regular basis, with some courses even having staff that repair divots in between races. Our \"boutique meets\" are nothing more than what has sustained European racing for a couple of centuries.

[girly]

Very interesting read! I agree about the grass, but feel that as long as dirt is going to be manipulated, I\'d rather it be with natural materials over man made like rubber... If I had my way, horses would run on grass and be drug free, getting adequate rest between races. Ah, well... I can dream!
  I had just as much fun looking at these spectacularly beautiful animals as betting or watching them race this weekend.

[sighthound]

I stand corrected, indeed!  

[FrankD.]

FrankD. Wrote:
-






I\'m re-posting this from 11/9 in the hope that we can put last years R vs Z debate to bed. It\'s old & non-productive. The eclipse voters have spoken and God willing this year at some point it will be resolved on a racetrack or tracks. I\'m awfully tired of hearing how that BC Classic field was the greatest one ever assembled !!!
------------------------------------------------------
> I\'ve been reading all the Zenyatta comments and
> like Mine That Birds Derby run it was a thrilling
> & exciting story that is great for racing.
>
> No doubt she is a great race mare but she is not
> Horse of the Year ! She\'s a pro-ride track
> specialist who beat a very overrated field for a
> Classic. She and Gio Ponti were the only horses
> that ran a step in the last 1/4 mile of the race.
>
> Regal Ransom is nothing who at 45 to 1 led to the
> 1/8 pole in moderate 24 1/4\'s.
> Einstein is 7 yrs. old and has run a series of
> clunkers throughout the year.
> Rip Van Winkle was half lame, was almost scratched
> and stalked a moderate pace for 6f and quit. ( the
> second best horse in Europe ? )
> Mine that Bird and Summer Bird both hate Poly and
> Summer Bird had to regress after his last 2
> efforts. He will be next years Curlin as a 4 yr.
> old.
> Gio Ponti is a great turf horse but only runs
> moderate dirt numbers compared to Grade 1 Dirt
> horses.
> Richards Kid whom I bet had another clunker, not
> his first of the year for sure.
>
> So let\'s not get crazy about the quality of the
> field !!!
>
> The overriding theme of the weekend was that dirt
> horses that press the pace or run on a near it had
> no shot at all.
>
> Only Informed Decision, Midshipman & Cost of
> Freedom ran on or stalked the pace in any of the
> Pro-Ride races and were in the picture at the end
> ?
>
> Everything I\'ve learned about numbers & trips in
> the last 20 years can be thrown out the window on
> the plastic ! Speed horses are at tremendous
> disadvantage on the plastic.
>
>  American Breeding for the last 30 years has been
> pointed for speed at a mile ?
> So why have we installed all these plastic
> surfaces ?
> There not any safer than dirt.
> Many trainers won\'t let there horses run on them
> at all which kind of defeats the purpose of the
> Breeders Cup ?
>
> First and foremost is the angle that no one thinks
> about at all. Big bettors cannot wager with any
> confidence at all on the plastic and they don\'t !
> Look at the handle figures at Keeneland & the
> California tracks since plastic has been installed
> ? They speak for themselves.
>
> Can you really picture Mike Smith fanning out 8
> wide in the Saratoga stretch trying to run down
> Rachel Alexander on the lead after spotting her 10
> lengths ?
> Let\'s be serious folks !!!
>
> Frank D.

[RICH]

Frank

Are you kidding? You resurrect a 3 month post and ask to \"Put it to bed\" You just got it going again.