Blind Luck

[ateamstupid]

A horse who's last behind a slow pace on synthetic is in much better shape than one who's last behind a slow pace on dirt. And a loose leader is far more dangerous on dirt than on synthetic. Synthetic has many of the same pace-neutralizing attributes that turf does. I'm not really sure how you can dispute that.

Most 'poly' horses who do well on dirt are types with tactical speed which is rendered useless on the 'level playing field' of synthetic. Hardly ever to we see deep closers run better on dirt than on synthetic.

[the_fat_man]

I think that there are some synthetic generalizations that just aren't supported anymore. Last year, I argued that WO was a very fair track, in the sense that closers weren't penalized by slow paces (or minimal move races) and it was very difficult for speed to wire. This hasn't been the case as much this year, where speed seems to have as good a chance as closers. And, certainly, HOL and SA aren't exactly more favorable to late runners than they are to speed.

I think where confusion comes into to play is when we group UNFAIR (speed favoring) dirt tracks in with dirt tracks in general. Clearly, CRC, TAM, FG, even CD, among others, are as, if not more, favorable to closers than they are to front runners. And, when these tracks get wet, while speed holds on the speed favoring dirt tracks, races are much more prone to collapse on fair ones. As a result, there are, as best as I can determine, significantly more wipeouts on dirt, in particular OFF dirt tracks, than there are on poly and turf, where, additionally, and certainly beyond argument, you have much smaller gaps between the fields at the finish.

Horses that run a high number of wipeouts in relation to their overall races, like Z, and BL, to a much smaller extent, do so more easily on dirt because horses are more prone to come back on dirt, fair dirt, that is, than they are on poly, where they're much more bunched during the running of the race, and at the finish.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

A horse who's last behind a slow pace on synthetic is in much better shape than one who's last behind a slow pace on dirt. And a loose leader is far more dangerous on dirt than on synthetic. Synthetic has many of the same pace-neutralizing attributes that turf does. I'm not really sure how you can dispute that.

Most 'poly' horses who do well on dirt are types with tactical speed which is rendered useless on the 'level playing field' of synthetic. Hardly ever to we see deep closers run better on dirt than on synthetic.

I think it all depends on the circumstances (who is in the race and the way the track is playing). There are plenty of times when a deep closer in a race with no pace is better off on dirt than synthetic or grass.

If you're a deep closer on synthetic or grass, there is no way you're going to be able to win one of those races where the front runners sprint home and run their final 1/8th of a mile in under 11 seconds. You see that sometimes on synthetic and grass. That's never going to happen on the dirt. You'll never see the final 1/8th of a mile run in :10 3/5 on the dirt, yet you see that sometimes on synthetic and grass. On the dirt, the front runners will almost never break 12 seconds for the final 1/8th.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think it all depends on the circumstances (who is in the race and the way the track is playing). There are plenty of times when a deep closer in a race with no pace is better off on dirt than synthetic or grass.

If you're a deep closer on synthetic or grass, there is no way you're going to be able to win one of those races where the front runners sprint home and run their final 1/8th of a mile in under 11 seconds. You see that sometimes on synthetic and grass. That's never going to happen on the dirt. You'll never see the final 1/8th of a mile run in :10 3/5 on the dirt, yet you see that sometimes on synthetic and grass. On the dirt, the front runners will almost never break 12 seconds for the final 1/8th.

This may be true, but by the same token, closers can run final 3/8 way quicker on synthetic than they can on dirt. The nature of synthetic racing rewards turn of foot rather than consistent tactical speed. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule, but that's generally the case.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

This may be true, but by the same token, closers can run final 3/8 way quicker on synthetic than they can on dirt. The nature of synthetic racing rewards turn of foot rather than consistent tactical speed. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule, but that's generally the case.

I agree that turn of foot is obviously much more important on grass and synthetic than dirt. They sometimes will sprint home that final quarter of a mile in both grass and synthetic racing. You don't see that on dirt.

There are days on synthetic tracks where having an easy lead in slow fractions isn't even an advantage. That first meet with syntetic at Del Mar, you would tehm run the half in :51 and a horse would win from dead-last. It didn't make any sense. All conventional wisdom was thrown out the window the way that track was playing that meet.

But I think it's tough to generalize because not all syntetic tracks play the same and not all dirt tracks play the same. Even one track will play different from day to day. I've seen days at Saratoga over the years when there is a fairly big speed-bias and I've seen other days there where there is an anti-speed bias.

When it comes to Zenyatta, I actually think she is much more vulnerable on synthetic than dirt when she's running against weak competiton. She's had a few races that she barely won where the horses in front of her were sprinting home and they were hard to catch. I don't think Z would have that problem against those types of horses on dirt.