Grass Ranks Thinning Because of Synthetics

[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?

[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.

[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 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

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

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.

True but the factors that take away the top horses wont change. We still wont know who will turnout to be our best horses at the end of the year. On Jan 1st last year if I told you Curlin would be horse of the Year you would have told me that no horse had ever emerged in Feb of his 3 yo year and became horse of the year in that same season an that the crop had to have been really soft for that to happen. Of course that would not have been true on any accounts. The problem as I see it is that the turf division in this country has lacked depth for a few years and that trend is likely to contnue if the Euros keep invading the sales with 50 cent dollars to spend. That we are probably producing more turf runners in the shed may mitigate that somewhat. The fact is that too many of our top horses are going to stud too early which is what is the real reason that the top races are weakened.

[Bobby Fischer]

multiple personalities The gambler in me is spreading exactas and tris with legit longshot contenders like Air Commander and Johnny Eves in the San Fernando hand over fist, while the best animal (Tiago) clearly has no chance of winning at even money, but the sportsman in me is cringing at the low quality stakes racing on this phoney 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 blackthroatedwind

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.
.

The Pacific Classic was Student Council's first race at 10f and he won it. The Hawthorne Gold Cup was his second race at 10f and he won that, too (and on 'real' dirt). This is a case of a horse needing a longer distance than he was running at, not a radical improvement on Poly. Milwaukee Brew was the same sort of horse - adequate form at 9f, superior form at 10f, and he did all of his running on 'real dirt.'

[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).

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Nope.

She's just keeping her record of complete inaccuracy consistent. Think of her as a more experienced KYRIM.

[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.