Why is it harder to win gate-to-wire on turf?

[Redboard]

One of the characters ask this question to Johnny V on the last show of Horseplayers, I believe. His answer didn’t make sense to me, I don’t remember exactly what he said (maybe someone here does) , but I remember his answer didn’t satisfy me.

So why do you think that it’s harder to wire the field on turf? I had always thought that you had to be more careful when running on grass. An analogy I can think of is that suppose one is running on a sandy beach. If you try as hard as you can right off the bat, you will dig up sand , it will be more tiring, and you will waste energy(i.e., “spinning your wheels”) , and therefore be more tired at the end. So you have to more careful when running your horse on grass, for the same reason – don’t burn him out trying get to the lead. No? Ok, so what is it? Or is this just an old wives tale(and maybe it's not harder).

[Stillriledup]

Kickback. Closers don't have as much kickback so they can sustain a late move.

[Overlay]

One of the characters ask this question to Johnny V on the last show of Horseplayers, I believe. His answer didn’t make sense to me, I don’t remember exactly what he said (maybe someone here does) , but I remember his answer didn’t satisfy me.

So why do you think that it’s harder to wire the field on turf? I had always thought that you had to be more careful when running on grass. An analogy I can think of is that suppose one is running on a sandy beach. If you try as hard as you can right off the bat, you will dig up sand , it will be more tiring, and you will waste energy(i.e., “spinning your wheels”) , and therefore be more tired at the end. So you have to more careful when running your horse on grass, for the same reason – don’t burn him out trying get to the lead. No? Ok, so what is it? Or is this just an old wives tale(and maybe it's not harder).
I'd say that you're basically correct. The footing is more tiring, and places more of a premium on conserving energy in order to last the distance. Horses that exert themselves too much too soon (especially if they have to compete for the lead) are less often able to maintain an early lead to the wire. (Just my opinion.)

[cj]

I'd say that you're basically correct. The footing is more tiring, and places more of a premium on conserving energy in order to last the distance. Horses that exert themselves too much too soon (especially if they have to compete for the lead) are less often able to maintain an early lead to the wire. (Just my opinion.)

I'm not sure I'd say the footing on turf is more tiring. Times on firm turf are generally faster than times on fast dirt for the same classes. And seems to me if times are faster, that is less tiring.

As someone mentioned, kickback is a bigger issue. I think it makes it tougher to draft. On turf, with no kickback, horses tuck in behind and conserve energy.

[horses4courses]

I would say that on soft turf, although times are obviously slower, front running types are not at a disadvantage.
A horse with a liking for give in the ground left loose on the lead can, very often, be hard to catch -
provided the early pace was not too taxing.

Closers can have a tough time on soft turf.

[mountainman]

To me, front-running on dirt is most successful with an even, well-rationed distribution of energy, whereas grass racing is more about accelerating on cue at critical junctures. That might seem counterintuitive since turf fractions generally unfold in the more evenly-distributed manner, but it's the bursts facilitated by and WITHIN those softer fractions that really decide grass races. There's a reason the term "quicken" originated overseas and denotes an invaluable ability unique to turf horses.

In other words, pent-up energy is a more potent weapon than speed.

[raybo]

Turf is not harder to run on than dirt, if both are dry, it's easier. As has been mentioned, kickback is not as bad on turf as dirt so jockeys don't have to worry so much about laying off the lead a bit, and then maybe the horse not wanting to close into kickback as on the dirt.

There is also the factor of turn radius being generally tighter on the turf courses, in the US, because they are inside the dirt course. It's harder to carry speed into and around tighter turns.

[nijinski]

I remember when the great Ouija Board got beat by Intercontinental who
seemed got the lead early to prevail over many great turf horses .
Ouija Board didn't get there on time .
This is the danger when betting turf races the best of them can run out of
real estate .
With those narrowed courses there seems to be may ways those closers
can get into trouble . Frankel seemed to have Intercontinental ready to
outrun her rivals if need be . But this horse was versatile enough to close
from the back of the pack when needed also .

[eurocapper]

My guess is dirt is the most tiring surface and hardest on closers. Deep sand would be hardest for a human athlete too. Aws has also kickback but still favors closers too. Dirt is the "abnormal" surface, where early lead can set the pace and win. If all have much left at the stretch having had the lead may not be an advantage.

[CincyHorseplayer]

It is a tiring surface for horses not bred for it.Horses bred for it tend to be stamina oriented which is not bent towards expending energy that way.But the ones that can do both IMO are the best bet,if not my favorite bet in this game.They nearly always pay high odds and will likely never get pressure as opposed to dirt.

[Robert Goren]

Turf is not harder to run on than dirt, if both are dry, it's easier. As has been mentioned, kickback is not as bad on turf as dirt so jockeys don't have to worry so much about laying off the lead a bit, and then maybe the horse not wanting to close into kickback as on the dirt.

There is also the factor of turn radius being generally tighter on the turf courses, in the US, because they are inside the dirt course. It's harder to carry speed into and around tighter turns.Based on my experience on betting at bullrings of 4, 5 and 6 furlong tracks, I do not think that is true.

[letswastemoney]

Based on my experience on betting at bullrings of 4, 5 and 6 furlong tracks, I do not think that is true. Yeah, I don't either. At Fairplex, just bet the inside horse with speed.

[raybo]

Based on my experience on betting at bullrings of 4, 5 and 6 furlong tracks, I do not think that is true.

It's simple physics Robert, centrifugal force causes horses to be pulled away from the inside, which means they have to work harder to stop that from happening, which means they have to expend more energy in the tighter turns than what they would on larger radius turns. I have no supporting evidence, but I doubt you do either, common sense tells me horses will drift away from the inside more, the tighter the turns are.

I didn't say that was the reason for fewer wire to wire winners, just that it is a factor the jockeys have to take into consideration on turf. Do they want to give up the rail in the turn and maybe not have enough energy left to finish strong? Why do horses in turf races group up more in the final turn causing a cavalry charge down the stretch? Is it that the jockeys just don't want the horse to run faster in the turn, or is it that they don't want to give up the ground on the inside?

As I said, I don't have hard facts just my thinking on the subject.

[sjk]

I have always thought it was because horses slide more when landing on dirt so it is easier for them to take a break in effort when they get clear without losing momentum.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

My two cents. I think that because most races are won off the pace on the turf these days, just like when it comes to artificial surfaces, many jockeys and trainers with the best horses in the race will use this as part of their game plan. Unless the horse is a need to lead in order to win type, they'll take back. Plus, it is one less thing to overcome if the horse's owner thinks after a loss: "What the heck, you went to the lead and horses don't usually go wire to wire anymore. Why did you do that?"

In other words, coming from behind on artificial surfaces and turf with the best horses have become more pronounced today than ever before.

[raybo]

My two cents. I think that because most races are won off the pace on the turf these days, just like when it comes to artificial surfaces, many jockeys and trainers with the best horses in the race will use this as part of their game plan. Unless the horse is a need to lead in order to win type, they'll take back. Plus, it is one less thing to overcome if the horse's owner thinks after a loss: "What the heck, you went to the lead and horses don't usually go wire to wire anymore. Why did you do that?"

In other words, coming from behind on artificial surfaces and turf with the best horses have become more pronounced today than ever before.

I tend to agree that it may be a jockey thing more than a horse/surface thing today. Call it history or tradition or whatever, but it appears that when a jockey gets on the turf they automatically think "stay in the pack" and "have a big finish left".

[pondman]

So why do you think that it’s harder to wire the field on turf? I had always thought that you had to be more careful when running on grass. An analogy I can think of is that suppose one is running on a sandy beach.

Grass is an equalizer. Horses that have injuries in the rear will find it much easier on grass than on dirt. A horse with reoccurring problems in the rear will suffer much more on dirt than on the grass. By the time they get to the half they are feeling it on dirt, and will not want to go after the leader. This is less true on firm well maintained grass courses. It's easier for a horse to propel themselves on grass than dirt when they are tired. Therefore more horses will be able to close late.

[elhelmete]

Every time this comes up, I think about that race replay video from a few years back about a 2+ mile race over the jumps where one horse goes to the lead and wins by like a 1/4 mile.

In the comments there was a lot of chatter about this being a jockey phenomenon more than a surface issue. Kind of like that jocks believe it to be true so they ride that way.

[pondman]

Every time this comes up, I think about that race replay video from a few years back about a 2+ mile race over the jumps where one horse goes to the lead and wins by like a 1/4 mile.

In the comments there was a lot of chatter about this being a jockey phenomenon more than a surface issue. Kind of like that jocks believe it to be true so they ride that way.

This won't be true in the majority of U.S. thoroughbred flat races.

[sammy the sage]

somebody should interview "Little Mike"....

[mrhorseplayer]

somebody should interview "Little Mike"....


Thats the horse I was goign to bring up "LIttle Mike" did it on the front end several times in graded company

[cj]

Thats the horse I was goign to bring up "LIttle Mike" did it on the front end several times in graded company

Nobody said it can't be done, just that it is harder.

Haven't Little Mike's biggest wins been from a little off the pace anyway?

[Dark Horse]

Another factor may be pedigree. The difference between turf sprints and routes is rather interesting, suggesting that the surface itself is not the big difference maker; it's the surface plus the distance.

On kickback. Most speeds on dirt are speeds because they don't like the dirt in their face. On turf there's no need. Turf races have a more relaxed atmosphere early on. Less frantic. That may help explain why a rider like Nakatani is so much better on turf than on dirt.

[ultracapper]

Very seldom see a sub 23 final quarter in a dirt mile race, but you do every now and then in a turf mile race, and it's 90% of the time from a closer. I think the horses naturally are a little faster on turf, and if a horse is able to conserve it's energy in the early stages, it can really blast off as they straighten for home. It's not entirely out of the question in SoCal to see a horse make up 5 or 6 lengths in the lane in a mile race that clocks 1:10.4 1:35.0

[ultracapper]

somebody should interview "Little Mike"....

Love the Bastiat quote at the bottom of your posts. Read him years ago. Ever read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand? A little dramatized, but makes the point.

[FormalGold1]

The Tin Man was devastating on the front in graded stakes.

[classhandicapper]

IMO, "for whatever reason" it's harder to "sustain moves" on turf. It doesn't matter whether it's early (as in a speed horse running too fast early) or in the middle (as in a premature move to the lead by a closer or mid pack horse), it's tougher to do that and win on turf going long.

On turf, IMO, the idea is get into a decent position while rationing speed and not making any severe moves. Then you close with a shorter 2F-3F flourish that can be sustained to the wire.

On dirt, if a closer makes a premature move, the horse will hang and it will typically only cost it a couple of lengths/positions (unless of course the pace was savage). If you do the same thing on turf, half the field might pass you late.

IMO, it's not just about front runners. It's about the ability to sustain moves.

(and I agree that kickback and drafting is probably an issue)

[1st time lasix]

The Tin Man was devastating on the front in graded stakes. Tin Man got an easy lead in The Arlington Million and I turned to my partner at the half mile mark---"lets go to the windows"

[Redboard]

somebody should interview "Little Mike"....


Presious Passion was another speed turfer. Although I always thought that’s a terrible name for a male horse.

[arno]

A much lower percentage of turf races are Maiden races than dirt races.
You just don't see that many Maiden races on the grass at many tracks.

Maidens have higher percentage of wire to wire winners due to the fact
many a maiden race is either a first time starter who is just much better and the jockey just shoots him out of gate or a horse dropping to maiden claimer facing absolutely nothing and jockey knows it and goes to lead.

[Clocker]

Another factor is distance. On dirt and on turf, the percentage of wired winners is greater in sprints than in routes. But at a lot of tracks, a much greater percent of turf races are routes, while the sprint-route ratio is much more even on dirt. So both surface and distance contribute to the low percentage of wired turf races.

[cnollfan]

I think it's about acceleration. In almost all dirt races the last half of the race is run slower than the first half of the race. Even the closers are running slower in the second half, just not as much slower as the front-runners are. But on the grass the last half is often faster than the first half. It's not that the front-runners get tired, it's that the closers accelerate past them.

[EMD4ME]

Depends who you ask.... if you bet the 12 in the 12th at GP 2/22/14, you could also factor in the stewards......