Crist on the Farcical World Cup
 

As DougS noted elsewhere talking about yesterday, the World Cup did a great job making itself as marginal as the Lanes' End. Steve Crist succinctly sums it up:

Dubai World Crapshoot
CruistBlog

• The richest horse race in history was staged in Dubai earlier today, and it was a $10 million advertisement for how synthetic surfaces can make a complete mess of so-called world-class championship racing. For all that it proved about the quality of the contestants either individually or as a group, the results of the Dubai World Cup might as well have been drawn out of a hat.
  
  
• Tapeta may well be a lovely training surface, and it has gotten high marks among synthetic tracks, but no one can really explain why anyone needs a third type of horse racing to go along with the dirt and turf racing that has defined the sport and its great horses for centuries. The Maktoums' decision to replace dirt with Tapeta at their gaudy new racing palace was a premature guess that these new surfaces might somehow magically combine dirt and turf racing into one globally-accepted footing. That hasn't happened and isn't going to anytime soon, or probably ever.
  
  
• Instead, it remains entirely unclear what this World Cup proved other than Bob Baffert's adage that synthetic tracks make good horses look ordinary and ordinary horses look good.

why should it be any different than the last two breeders cups? crapshoots, bunching of horses and results that mean nothing. baffert has been right all along. i'm glad because many times he ships his best stock east. the only so called dirt horse that was hittable was the sprint race because we win it almost every year and that horse was a synthetic lover.

Every dirt track is different also. Do we cry when they come up sloppy, muddy, cuppy, good. A fast rack in Belmont is different then Saratoga, and so on. I remember Todd and other trainers complaining when Monmouth put in new dirt a couple of years ago, to hard, not deep enough, etc etc. Then we ran the BC on a sloppy sealed track. Conditions are not fair on many playing fields. Plain and simple, Americans don't train on the Tapita, and don't know how to.

you just made his point. which is its a third type of game or track. for 10 mil. it was a garbage race.

You would think that someone that has spent hundreds of millions buying Stallion Prospects that were successful DIRT horses, would not be in such a rush to eliminate dirt racing.

Street Sense
Any Given Saturday
Henny Hughes
Hard Spun (could be a great poly/turf sire)
Medaglia D'Oro
Bernardini
Discreet Cat
Offlee Wild
Rockport Harbor

:confused: :zz:

So is a sloppy track, we don't need them either. But we send them out on it knowing they can't run a lick on it. Maybe Ramsey sent the wrong horse. We don't train on a sloppy track, so why run on them? We have to.

I agree with most of what Crist is saying. I don't care about the DWC nearly as much as the Breeders Cup, but it's a shame that the game's highest levels are often contests decided on who is comfortable running on a given surface instead of who is the fastest animal.

I have great respect for Mr. Christ but I think he is way off base here. I am no fan of synthetic surfaces and if I had my way they would all be gone. But, I made good money on the world cup races without throwing darts at a board. Anyone reading Pat Cummings excellent work all week would have had to taken a hard look at the World Cup winner. Pat all week long wrote about how Gloria was a stand out in his works and on apprerance. Then factor in that he figured to be lone speed in the race and the fact that he has run well in this race before and it is hard to say he is impossible. The winner of the prior race ran third in the Breeder's Cup turf last November (in fact I used her that day) and has beaten the boys before in group races in Europe. Again, it hardly took a dart to land on her.

A $5 double on these two races returned $1557.

The 99-1 upset that came in the race prior was a turf race. I agree that one was tough to come up with but it wasn't a synthetic surface which produced that crazy result.

Again, I agree with the main argument that it would be better to go back to dirt and turf only. However, I think using the world cup results to make that case is a real reach.

Paul

Not to mention that last year's World Cup was run on dirt and won by the monster named Well Armed by about the length of the stretch. As pathetic as the handicap division has been in the U.S. for the last few years, Well Armed would have never even entered the discussion for the best older horse in this country. Yet he travels to Dubai and blows away a good international field on dirt.

Hard to say the surface caused the result.

Paul

I don't think you really read what he wrote too carefully Paul. You say how you agree with Crist, but really just seemed to go out of your way to tout the Dar Re Mi-Gloria De Campeao double you hit. Coming up with Gloria de Campeao wasn't the point. Certainly the venerable 7yo is a trouper and had already established his form and viability on the surface, as had Allybar, earlier during the circus. Would you be here crowing about the savvy that tabbed the winner if the completely ordinary Lizard's Desire had won the photo?

The point Crist makes was that the synthetics as usual produced an undefined, jumble finish that any of three utter mediocrities could have decisioned. For $10,000,000, you'd think we would want to see a real race that produces a truly worthy horse as an International star. Like it did at Nad al Sheba.

(And as to your coda about Well Armed, Crist addresses that point acknowledging you get your Giacomos and Mine That Birds. Again, I don't get the impression based on your response that you went to CristBlog and read what he wrote...)

I did read the article. I just don't see how yesterday's result was any crazier than last year's was. Thus, to me, this same article could have been written about any race where long shots came in.

My main point was that the race Crist used was a poor example of why synthetics are bad for racing.

Paul

His first name isn't Jesus.

If the article had been written after 10 straight years of chaotic results, I would agree with him...but the sample isn't large enough. Who's to say that the favorites won't win the next couple of years....the sport in general produces chaotic results, as Crist says himself in the article.

So when you have a 4 horse photo in Saratoga on the turf, winner to 4th seperated by about 3 inches, this a bad race too?

I guess I just don't agree with the thought that because this particular result was somewhat inscrutable should make us say, "oh gosh, look what Sheikh Mo did, he ruined the World Cup."

This World Cup had no star appeal. At all. Gitano Hernando is far from an international superstar, so too Gio Ponti, Richard's Kid, and most others from the field. If in coming years we have a number of classic American handicap horses go there and fail then we can re-visit this discussion and say that the altered surface has changed what was once a place for greatness to be exemplified. Sure, Cigar, Silver Charm, Dubai Millennium, even horses like Roses in May and Pleasantly Perfect in their day, Invasor, and Curlin went to Dubai to take the ultimate international test.

It's understandable that Sheikh Mohammed saw an opportunity to turn his prized event into something that would be truly international. Did he do it at the expense of hurting American involvement in the race? Absolutely. Would it have been a more interesting race at Nad Al Sheba if Quality Road showed up? Probably, but the rest of the world would beg to differ.

NT

I don't think I can respond to this or your earlier comment about training on Tapeta without it coming off as insulting. I'll simply say, if you have turf racing, what do you need psuedo-turf for exactly? Crist's point is that there's no point to synthetic racing. And certainly not for $10,000,000 to get a bunch of 5-7yo ne'er do wells finishing a half length apart.

I guess the answer is simple, no need to scratch horses from 12 to 4. I'm insult proof. Seems fair if there is only 1/2 length seperating the winner. If people are betting on this surface, or off track conditions, I have no pity on them. One thing can be sure, toss the Favs.

More often than not, yes, if you are talking about the speed of the race. For drama, it is just fine.

I have been saying for years that the two turf races (the Duty Free and Sheema Classic) should get at least equal billing to the World Cup as they consistently come up as better quality races. Now, however, with the World Cup run on Tapeta you will dilute the quality of the 2 turf races and get owners trying their hand at the jackpot race on a turf like surface. It makes a mess of the whole thing IMO.

The one good thing you could say is that if they wanted to switch it to dirt, they would have the resources to do it quite easily, but I wouldnt be holding my breath for it to change any time soon.

Eh, you're from Ireland. You only like stuff that's colored green. :D

The real farce is what happens at tracks like the AQU Inner, MTH, and all the other bush dirt tracks in the country.

Maybe that's why WO saw an increase in handle and NYRA tracks lost money, for example. Hard to sway the dirt hardliners, however.

The issue at hand here which I don't think some of you are understanding is not about whether it's a close jumbled finish in the Dubai World Cup or any other race where longshots win or there's a jumbled finish. The issue at hand here is that save for the Breeders Cup Classic which is supposed to be the premier Classic Distance Championship race in the world, the Dubai World Cup with it's purse and history is simply put one of the top races in the world of it's stature, which in the past was on dirt and at the classic distance of 1 1/4. Now with the Breeders Cup having been run on synthetics for the last two years and the Dubai World Cup now being moved to run on Tapeta synthetic, it basically renders the results as being a total crapshoot, due to the fact that these races that are run over the synthetic surfaces will simply lack the top notch horses we want to see (although it's debatable how many top notch horses are left), it robs the sport of star power and popularity, as most outstanding dirt horses are rendered average on these stupid artificial surfaces, therefore enabling European and other synthetic specialist horses to be on par with an outstanding dirt horse on these synethic surfaces, whereas if these races were held on dirt, we would see the top dirt horses in the world facing off against each other instead of the top turf horses in the world facing off against the top synthetic horses in the world. These turf and synthetic runners wouldn't even be competitive on dirt against our top dirt horses. And because these big races get run on synthetics now, we lose the ability of our top dirt horses in some years to run in the former best dirt races in the world.

There may be something to this but the World Cup, unlike the Breeder's Cup, does actually attract horses from around the world.

I would also once again point out that the superstars weren't exactly out in full force last year when on dirt Well Armed won by a pole.

Paul

The Breeders' Cup doesn't attract horses from around the world? Really? All those milers and turf winners over the years and Sakhee and Giant's Causeway and Swain and Wilco, Arazi and Johannesburg, et al... What were they exactly?

Steve, I agree with you, but to his point, other than the Austrailian horse that showed up in the Classic in 2005, I can't seem to recall any non-European horses "from around the world" showing up for the Breeders' Cup...

I am very happy that Dubai Inc. went to plastic, because I don't want top American horses going there.

Now if we can go back to dirt for the BC, it will be perfect.

The Breeder's Cup does attract horses from Europe. However, the Dubai Carnival gets horses from everywhere. Just off the top of my head, South Africa, Austraila, Japan, Hong Kong and even Norway were represented on yesterday's card. Which Breeder's Cup does that line up resemble?

Paul

That's a function of the calendar. Breeders' Cup is run at an ideal time of the year for North American horses and as a coda to Euro season. The Austal-Asian horses have their own agenda at that time. World Cup comes at an OK time for North Americans if connections are specifically pointing for it seeing as it comes at the beginning of the season 'here'.

We should change the entire North American racing calendar to accomodate horses from the Southern Hemisphere? Interesting notion.

It's because of this kind of backwards thinking that Bambera never got a chance to shine in this country.

Shame on you.

I understand and I agree. The question did get me thinking about with Japan though? Don't they run on a similiar calendar as N/A racing? We've at least attempted to send some of our popular horses (Lava Man, Summer Bird, etc.) to run in the Japan Cup, but I can't remember a Japanese horse attempting to run in the Breeders' Cup.

Japanese horses have come to Hollywood for the American Oaks but that is the only time I can remember.

Paul

No one suggested changing anything of this sort. I think we have gotten far from the original point of this post at this point.

Paul

It should be pointed out that Gloria de Campeo (sp?), the winner of the so-called "best race in the world" came to Arlington last year and got buried by over 9 lengths against Gio Ponti.

What of Symboli Rudolf?

Jesus H. to you and me.



My betting strategy of zero brain power also yielded a profit. Come on man, betting has nothing to do with this. Thoses synthetic races are eyesores to watch.

That is a blanket statement that could be applied to turf racing and to a lesser degree perhaps to dirt racing (the lower percentage of close finishes.)
By whose measure is a horse great? Turf racing was here long before dirt racing. Quality Road tries turf and fails miserably making the surface of turf a farce because turf racing makes good horses look ordinary and ordinary horses look good.
Sea The Stars comes to Churchill Downs and never picks up his feet against (name any dirt specialist from last year other than Quality Road or Rachel) Summer Bird perhaps or Mine that Bird, making the surface of dirt a farce because dirt racing makes good horses look ordinary and ordinary horses look great.
Seriously, Bullsbay was maybe a length away from being voted top older male last year. Other than Quality Road or Rachel what American dirt superstar would have validated the world cup if it had been run on dirt?
We sent our champion older male from last year over there on a surface he supposedly likes and he failed. Maybe it's because he is not as good as we believe. Or maybe the surface is to blame.

What is Gloria De Campeao anyway? Like the 15th best horse in the last 10 years to come from Gavea racetrack in Brazil?

I almost feel like firing up google translator and checking in with that writer from there who wanted congress to get involved because everyone was buying up their good horses.

Gloria certainly can't compare to the last World Cup dirt champion Well Armed. That's for sure. I am not sure Well Armed was the 15th best horse to race at Santa Anita last year.

Knock the World Cup all you want but it can't all be the surface (which is how this thread got started...

Paul

I know - Well Armed beat him by 14 lengths last year when he was 2nd to him.

Well Armed never had a chance to run on dirt in America... his connections insisted on running him on synthetic tracks even though they hinder his speedy front running sytle.

It's going to happen every year ... the World Cup will always be a $10 million eyesore from now on ... the surface dictates it.