Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Bid
Rupert
Belmont, Saratoga, CHD, etc. Those are all good dirt tracks that hold up to pleanty of rain
When synthetics were installed they were supposed to
1) Require little upkeep
2) Be all weather
3) Have Fewer breakdowns
They have done none of the above. If I ordered a new TV and it was supposed to have a crystal clear picture, record things by voice, and have great audio, and they delivered an old floor model wooden Zenith, I would be pretty pissed off. Especially if that Zenith cost 15 million. I wouldnt call my buddies to come over on Sunday for football and tell them I had an incredible TV that was perfect. Why are people still saying these tracks are better, or as good as what was in before. I dont get it
|
Hollywood Park requires little upkeep, it holds up extremely well to rain, there are fewer breakdowns and the horses stay sounder. The field sizes have increased because the horses are staying sounder.
Of the 3 tracks that you mentioned, I would say that Belmont is the best. Churchill is not nearly as good as it usd to be. Saratoga was not good at all this past meet. There were a lot of injuries and alot of trainers were complaining that the track was too hard. All 3 of those tracks have to be sealed if it is going to rain and no track is safe after it sealed. I like Belmont but they seal it if there is even a hint that it might rain.