|
JCapper Message Board General Discussion
|
| Home |
Register
Log In |
| By | Heads Up - DEL Surface Change | |||||
| jeff 5/11/2012 8:11:26 PM | Sand and silt savored at Delaware Park: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20120509/SPORTS09/305090043/Sand-silt-savored-Delaware-Park?odyssey=nav|head&nclick_check=1 --quote:
--end quote. I won't know for sure until I see a few races, but I think this might be code for "The rail is dead. No more speed bias." -jp .
| |||||
| Windoor 5/12/2012 5:38:54 PM | I am always happy to see a track do away with a speed bias as I tend to do better on the "slower" tracks. I fail to understand why they can't make the track competitive for all post positions and running positions. Rail and out. The rail should be a little slower as it's the shortest distance around, but it seems at most tracks it is death. I never want my horse to be on the rail coming down the stretch. Nine times out of ten he/she uses up too much energy trying to make it to the wire. On the other hand, if I see a strong move on the outside of the turn and then get to the middle of the track down the stretch, I am already out of my seat heading towards the windows. (figure of speech as I no longer attend) I can understand a bias after a rain as the track drains and dries out, but other than that? Windoor.
| |||||
| jeff 5/13/2012 3:45:50 PM | I posted this thread as a heads up because I know some of you guys will be playing DEL because you know from past data that the DEL surface has traditionally been kind to horses with early speed. Re-doing the surface means there's a reasonable chance that the new surface might produce race outcomes that are baffling to anyone caught unaware of the surface change. Windoor, I'm not arguing in favor of one type of surface over another. But as long as you mentioned your preference for track surface type... I'll mention mine. I have always done better on "historically normal" surfaces... those that aren't so deep and tiring enough that horses with "speed" are penalized for being fast. My way of doing things stems from modeling the big picture. By that I mean analyzing the influence of track surface in general going back to day 1 when I first began collecting racing data back in 1981. All through the 1980's, 1990's and the 2000's - up until about the time of the Eight Belles incident - the majority (not all but a higher percentage than what we see today) of dirt track surfaces were maintained in a similar way. They were simply different varieties of "dirt" watered and packed down enough that horses could run on it and produce reasonably fast times. This gave bettors the chance to see the occasional new track record be set. This type of surface meant that the fastest horses in the race - those with early speed - had a tactical advantage because they could accelerate from the gate - race on or near the lead in relatively fast half mile times - and in so doing bottom out the slower horses that they faced - and still have enough left in the stretch that the slower horses (the closers) couldn't make up the required ground to catch them before the wire was reached. After the Eight Belles incident - which incidentally was about the same time frame synthetic surfaces were pushed on the industry - a lot of tracks began purposely maintaining their dirt surfaces in such a way that the surface was deeper and more tiring - especially the rail from mid turn to the wire - in hopes of slowing the horses down - and in so doing -reduce the frequency of breakdowns. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But as someone who has spent countless hours studying large data samples - I will say absolutely and without question that track surfaces on the whole did change - and that this change brought about a change in race outcomes. The winning profile was shifted to a different type of horse. Early speed was penalized. You might think that late speed was given a leg up. But that's not necessarily the case. In many races, the 2007 Bluegrass at Keeneland for example, the riders were so aware of the speed tiring nature of the surface that they literally strangled their mounts back when the gate opened - producing pace times not much faster than a gallop - followed by a short sprint home. Under circumstances such as these, race winners were (and this is my opinion) far from being the best horse. I realize some of you may want to crucify me for saying this... If Secretariat's Triple Crown races had each been run on a polytrack surface maintained in the same manner that Turfway Park was handling theirs in 2008... I submit to you the possibility that the speed tiring nature of the surface itself exerts enough influence on the outcome that Secretariat tires in the stretch in each leg - and another 3 year old from that same crop (Forego) rises to the occasion to earn an even greater place in racing history than he did (at the expense of Secretariat.) That's how much of an influence I think track surface has in determining race outcomes. Shifting gears back to Delaware Park... My data shows that up until 2008, Delaware Park was maintained in such a way that on most days both the rail and the front end were the place to be. During the DEL 2008 meet the outside and off the pace was the place to be. Then, coinciding with the start of the 2009 meet, the DEL dirt surface began producing front end winners again - and the pattern held for most of the 2009, 2010, and 2011 meets. If you are playing DEL this season, be aware that the track surface was changed prior to the start of the 2012 meet. -jp . ~Edited by: jeff on: 5/13/2012 at: 3:45:50 PM~
| |||||
| Charlie James 5/13/2012 9:51:18 PM | Jeff, I'll echo agreement with you as relates to polytrack. Imo one of the all time worst ideas in the history of racing. When it first showed up at WO? Speed stopped winning. When it later turned up at TP, Kee, and AP? Speed stopped winning everywhere they installed it. The worst though was seeing that same anti-speed bias rear its ugly head when the stuff was installed here in California. Imo polytrack = ugly racing. Damned ugly. But Forego? -- Seriously? Imo Forego didn't mature into the monster he would become until later on in his 3YO season. Forego: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forego
Imo, if Secretariat runs the same 6f pace call -- 1:09 -- that he did in the Belmont, but does it on polytrack? I hate to even think about that. Ughh! But if they had raced on polytrack back then and if that ugly surface had made the unthinkable happen? SHAM my good sir -- winner of the Santa Anita Derby -- is the only horse that year who catches Big Red. Sham: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sham_%28horse%29
Post Script -- I'd all but forgotten about the bolded part. Imo, race riding has become a lost art. Different sport back then. ~Edited by: Charlie James on: 5/13/2012 at: 9:48:29 PM~ ~Edited by: Charlie James on: 5/13/2012 at: 9:49:01 PM~ ~Edited by: Charlie James on: 5/13/2012 at: 9:51:18 PM~
| |||||
| jeff 5/13/2012 10:20:31 PM | Hey Chuck, I think you just made my case about the way speed tiring surfaces shape race outcomes! In the Belmont, Sham tried to keep pace with Secretariat. Unable to dispose of a superior foe he tired and faded to finish last. IF that same set of circumstances had played itself out, but IF they had run the 1973 Belmont on polytrack, and IF the speed tiring nature of the surface had taken its toll on Secretariat ( with Sham already exhausted) the race winner has to be one of the rank outsiders. I'm not saying it never happens on natural dirt. Obviously it does. Giacomo's Derby comes to mind. So does Birdsong's Belmont win over Smarty Jones. What I am saying though is that it happens more often on rubber and carpet fibers than it does on real dirt. Did you tell the wife Happy Mother's Day?  -jp .
| |||||
| Charlie James 5/13/2012 10:25:57 PM | I took her out to Hollywood Park this afternoon. I'm pretty sure I heard Vic say Happy Mother's Day once or twice over the public address system. So yes, mission accomplished.
|
| Reply |
|
Copyright © 2018 JCapper Software back to the JCapper Message Board www.JCapper.com |