Biancone, cold with 2 year olds, my theory why

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Scav

Again, you exhibit your comediness. One of the reasons turf racing is won from the back is because there are no kickup. Dirt racing is won from the front partially because of all the kickup that happens from the horse in front.

How would you feel if you had dirt flying in your face for two minutes straight?

I think it has to do more with the horses stride(high action) and the horses hoof, big hooves are better for turf racing...

Originally Posted by Pointg5

I think it has to do more with the horses stride(high action) and the horses hoof, big hooves are better for turf racing...

BINGO. The dirt in the face though was a cute story though.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by boldruler

BINGO. The dirt in the face though was a cute story though.

I said partially as in it could be a reason

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Hmmm. Trust the opinion of a salty handicapper or a guy who is into horses because of a horse he liked four months ago. Tough choice.

You might even be less intelligent than the other guy. Salty handicappers usually know nothing about horses, just gambling. Big difference.

A horse he like four months ago? My family has been involved longer than you have probably been alive.

Originally Posted by Scav

I said partially as in it could be a reason

It is not a reason. The dirt in the face excuse is an excuse for only a small amount of horses.

[Damascus '67]

Originally Posted by boldruler

You might even be less intelligent than the other guy. Salty handicappers usually know nothing about horses, just gambling. Big difference.

A horse he like four months ago? My family has been involved longer than you have probably been alive.

How is anyone supposed to believe anything you say? You've been BSing this board ever since its inception.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Damascus '67

[/b]
How is anyone supposed to believe anything you say? You've been BSing this board ever since its inception.

AMEN! You got that right...

[slotdirt]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this boldruler character admit at one point that he's only been interested in horse racing for a matter of months? I'll admit if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this boldruler character admit at one point that he's only been interested in horse racing for a matter of months? I'll admit if I'm wrong.

That is one of our newbies. Not Jonesy.

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by boldruler

That is one of our newbies. Not Jonesy.

Um, come again?

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Um, come again?

One of the guys is new to horse racing. Another has been in it a long time.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Rup,
different muscle groups are used to negotiate different surfaces.

I have heard that too. I think it's Michael Dickinson who will actually switches off every other day and gallops his horses on the turf one day and the dirt the next day. I think he believes that one surface strengthens the tendons and ligaments while the other surface strengthens the muscles or something like that.

Even assuming that is true, we know that turf horses don't need to train on the turf to run well on the turf. I don't know if the same would hold true the opposite way. This would never happen but I wonder if a horse who only trained on the grass would still run well his first time on the dirt.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I have heard that too. I think it's Michael Dickinson who will actually switches off every other day and gallops his horses on the turf one day and the dirt the next day. I think he believes that one surface strengthens the tendons and ligaments while the other surface strengthens the muscles or something like that.

Even assuming that is true, we know that turf horses don't need to train on the turf to run well on the turf. I don't know if the same would hold true the opposite way. This would never happen but I wonder if a horse who only trained on the grass would still run well his first time on the dirt.

Ask Giant's Causeway.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

I wouldnt advertise on this board that you can "ride" anything. People like Kev would be camping out in the stable.

Hey now....if ya'll gonna talk sh*t about me...just make sure I am around

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I have heard that too. I think it's Michael Dickinson who will actually switches off every other day and gallops his horses on the turf one day and the dirt the next day. I think he believes that one surface strengthens the tendons and ligaments while the other surface strengthens the muscles or something like that.

Even assuming that is true, we know that turf horses don't need to train on the turf to run well on the turf. I don't know if the same would hold true the opposite way. This would never happen but I wonder if a horse who only trained on the grass would still run well his first time on the dirt.

I once heard Dickinson say that instead of breaking down a horse by training it on dirt, he strengthens them, by training on Turf. If horse physiology is anything similar to human physiology, you have to break down muscle to make it stronger. That statement didn't make much sense to me...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by boldruler

Ask Giant's Causeway.

I'm sure he trained on the dirt all week before that race. I tend to agree with you though. Even though I think there is definitely some truth to building different muscles on different surfaces, I still think that if a horse likes a surface that he will run well on it even the first time. By the same token, if a horse doesn't like a surface, he probably won't run well on it even if he trains on it every day.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

I once heard Dickinson say that instead of breaking down a horse by training it on dirt, he strengthens them, by training on Turf. If horse physiology is anything similar to human physiology, you have to break down muscle to make it stronger. That statement didn't make much sense to me...

Didn't he mean breaking down a horse as in not having them "break down?"

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Didn't he mean breaking down a horse as in not having them "break down?"

No, he was talking about how he strengthens horses and does not breakdown there muscle. I don't know about horses, but you can't do one without the other if you are human. That's like saying I lift weights to get stronger, but I don't break down muscle to do so, you can't have one without the other.

Originally Posted by Pointg5

I once heard Dickinson say that instead of breaking down a horse by training it on dirt, he strengthens them, by training on Turf. If horse physiology is anything similar to human physiology, you have to break down muscle to make it stronger. That statement didn't make much sense to me...

Does this guy ever win anything?

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

No, he was talking about how he strengthens horses and does not breakdown there muscle. I don't know about horses, but you can't do one without the other if you are human. That's like saying I lift weights to get stronger, but I don't break down muscle to do so, you can't have one without the other.

Ok, sorry... I read it different as in he was saying that horses break down easier on dirt surfaces than turf. My bad...