|
|
 |
|
#1
06-30-2008, 07:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Do we need something like this here?
|
|
#2
06-30-2008, 07:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I fail to see the point of this
|
|
#3
06-30-2008, 08:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This could be applied to me most mornings, although I'm not sure when I cross from one to the other below..
Is this for real? Slow 8 Genuine Slow 3.9–4.2 Slow 9 Rainaffected, worse side of Genuine Slow 4.3–4.5
__________________
"but there's just no point in trying to predict when the narcissits finally figure out they aren't living in the most important time ever." hi im god quote
|
|
#4
06-30-2008, 08:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
06-30-2008, 08:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This is something we definitely need here in the States given the current popularity of the racing industry. A rating system that features the word "Dead" prominently...
|
|
#6
06-30-2008, 08:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think it's a good idea, but of course I would because it's something we're doing here.
Rain-affected tracks can differ so much, two tracks can both fall under the category of 'slow' or whatever but still be completely different. One can be loose and the other sticky, and there will be a lot of horses who will go in one of those but not the other. So yeah I think it's good to have a bit more information. Although in our case it's an attempt to simplify it - what we used to do is drop a thing called a penetrometer (sounds a bit dodgy) into the track and measure how far it sinks in, and that measurement is the reading.
|
|
#7
06-30-2008, 09:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't know how the ratings would be incorporated with the current hard-firm-good-yielding-soft system that we use here, but anything that would more accurately reflect turf condition, especially after a day in which it rained would be a big help to the wagering public. I use the Preakness card this year as an example. They listed the course as "good" but the very slow times from the Gallorette and Dixie suggested that the course, in reality, was a bog. Labeling that course as "good" was a disservice to those betting that card.
|
|
#8
06-30-2008, 09:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
 Quote:
They can't get it right now, complicating the system would just make matters worse.
__________________
Felix Unger talking to Oscar Madison: "Your horse could finish third by 20 lengths and they still pay you? And you have been losing money for all these years?!"
|
|
#9
06-30-2008, 10:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
06-30-2008, 10:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Pimlico on Preakness day in NO WAY was "good" turf, for example.
__________________
please use generalizations and non-truths when arguing your side, thank you
|
Linear Mode
