View Full Version : Synthetic to Dirt
SoCalCircuit
05-16-2010, 06:55 PM
Does anyone know the physiological reasons for why horses who develop on synthetics and then go to dirt are much more successful than those who do the opposite? I'm sure everyone has noticed that from LAL to Zenyatta in graded stakes and even down to Doug O'Niel's shippers to Phila Park, the California horses seem to even have an advantage and seem extra sharp coming off the synthetic, but then when a dirt horse is shipped over to CA for the Breeders Cup or something they always bomb. Anyone know specifically why this may be, relating to the differences is young development?
Stillriledup
05-16-2010, 07:01 PM
Maybe its similar to a baseball player warming up in the on deck circle with a doughnut on his bat. When the doughnut comes off, the bat feels lighter. Also, if you trained for a sprint race on the deep sands of the beach and ran on pavement, you would feel 'faster'.
xfile
05-17-2010, 11:44 AM
It is a trend to follow close. The fact that synthetic dirt and real turf are similar to likeness for many horses hence the old but still valuable "turf to dirt" angle..:cool:
PaceAdvantage
05-18-2010, 04:49 AM
Does anyone know the physiological reasons for why horses who develop on synthetics and then go to dirt are much more successful than those who do the opposite? I'm sure everyone has noticed that from LAL to Zenyatta in graded stakes and even down to Doug O'Niel's shippers to Phila Park, the California horses seem to even have an advantage and seem extra sharp coming off the synthetic, but then when a dirt horse is shipped over to CA for the Breeders Cup or something they always bomb. Anyone know specifically why this may be, relating to the differences is young development?Why limit it to horses shipping to CA for the BC? There are more than a few synth tracks in use in the USA. I'm sure there are PLENTY of examples of dirt horses shipping to these tracks (Arlington, Keeneland, Turfway)
46zilzal
05-18-2010, 03:55 PM
Does anyone know the physiological reasons for why horses who develop on synthetics and then go to dirt are much more successful than those who do the opposite?
It is mechanical not physiological.....Ever out there at a synthocrap track? Do you hear the hoof beats like on a dirt course?
One is much more energy absorbing than the other.....energy wasted for forward propulsion.
SoCalCircuit
05-18-2010, 06:20 PM
Why limit it to horses shipping to CA for the BC? There are more than a few synth tracks in use in the USA. I'm sure there are PLENTY of examples of dirt horses shipping to these tracks (Arlington, Keeneland, Turfway)
You're right I've seen this trend at keeneland and turfway over the past couple of months, I don't follow arlington so I can't speak for that. I just picked the BC for an example because I follow the CA tracks the most and it was just the first one that came to mind. Sorry if that was a big deal...
Does anyone know the physiological reasons for why horses who develop on synthetics and then go to dirt are much more successful than those who do the opposite? I'm sure everyone has noticed that from LAL to Zenyatta in graded stakes and even down to Doug O'Niel's shippers to Phila Park, the California horses seem to even have an advantage and seem extra sharp coming off the synthetic, but then when a dirt horse is shipped over to CA for the Breeders Cup or something they always bomb. Anyone know specifically why this may be, relating to the differences is young development?
I agree and my arguments are as follows
a) Soundness. Synthetic surfaces are kinder to the horses who stay in better health as a consequence (although a few hundred people will post straight away that there are more hind leg injuries on the synthetic - as if that cancels out the 40% reduction in fatalities).
b) Synthetic racing requires more versatility from the race horse. Despite the image, a horse actually needs to have tactical speed to win races on the synthetic. Some people think that because Zenyatta wins from so far off the pace, synthetic races are always won by dead late closers. This isn't the case, the average horse needs tactical speed and good late energy to win on the synthetic. These are assets on any surface, of course.
At the opposite side of the spectrum, dirt races puts a clear emphasis on early speed. It is the dominant factor, which is necessary and sufficient to win races on the dirt. It is necessary but not sufficient to win races on the synthetic.
JustRalph
05-19-2010, 03:18 PM
I am not sold on the original hypothesis of the thread
I'm not sure the original premise is true, but if it is the most logical answer seems obvious. Horses are bred to run on dirt. When moved from non-dirt to dirt, they run better. When moved from dirt to non-dirt, they run worse. Isn't that pretty logical?
I'm not sure the original premise is true, but if it is the most logical answer seems obvious. Horses are bred to run on dirt. When moved from non-dirt to dirt, they run better. When moved from dirt to non-dirt, they run worse. Isn't that pretty logical?
Why do you say that they run 'better'? That may be your belief but I haven't seen any evidence for that, and it wasn't part of the original premise as far as I can see.
Why do you say that they run 'better'? That may be your belief but I haven't seen any evidence for that, and it wasn't part of the original premise as far as I can see.
You haven't seen the evidence because I believe you are blinded by your love or rubber tracks.
lamboguy
05-19-2010, 05:13 PM
with all these surface changes you guys are making me dizzy. the same must be happening to the horses
JohnGalt1
05-19-2010, 08:37 PM
A conditioning angle I've read in more than one handiapping book is a dirt race within two weeks of a competitive turf race.
Maybe there's a correlation to all weather surfaces to dirt, especially within 2 weeks.
I'm not sure the original premise is true, but if it is the most logical answer seems obvious. Horses are bred to run on dirt. When moved from non-dirt to dirt, they run better. When moved from dirt to non-dirt, they run worse. Isn't that pretty logical?
Unless they're bred for non-dirt>turf
Do you mean bred for dirt because they're bred for early speed?
Unless they're bred for non-dirt>turf
Do you mean bred for dirt because they're bred for early speed?
No, I mean most are bred for dirt, which is related to speed. Very, very few horses in the US are actually bred to be turf horses. Overseas, sure, but not here. Horses with pure turf pedigrees don't run all that great on rubber either in my opinion.
Light
05-19-2010, 10:31 PM
shippers to Phila Park, the California horses seem to even have an advantage
Duh! A SoCal horse is taking a class drop at Philly don't you think?
All this syn/dirt switching so far has no factual proof. A horse may excel or falter on a syn/dirt switch because of a coincidence in form cycles or a coincidence in changes to the horse's class/distance/jock/trainer/medication/equipment etc. There's been no acurate study on this subject.It's all speculation.
Before syn tracks ,when a trainer shipped a horse in for a big race and lost,he would be interviewed and proclaim his horse didn't like the surface because the track was 'cuppy". Rememer that? They all said that when they lost. Now they scapegoat it to "my horse doesn't like running on rubber". Every trainer is going to say this crap. Doesn't mean they are not just diverting blame from themselves so the horses owners won't change barns. Come on,you got wealthy clients,you dont say "I sucked at training the horse". You blame something or someone to save your ass.
IMO,Jess Jackson really feared RA getting beat by Zen on pure ability not on surface, so he used the Synthetic track copout to get out of the showdown a couple of times. You didn't see Zen's connections copping out even when they accomodated RA's connections and accepted the showdown at OP on dirt. When Jackson pulled RA out of the Apple Blossom to be run on dirt, that proved JJ was always afraid of Zen and surface was just a copout, not the real issue.
My point is not the controversy of RA/Zen, but that you have to take into consideration that the syn/dirt track debate is tainted by alot of trainer/owner hype as well as form cycles.
Dahoss9698
05-19-2010, 10:52 PM
Duh! A SoCal horse is taking a class drop at Philly don't you think?
All this syn/dirt switching so far has no factual proof. A horse may excel or falter on a syn/dirt switch because of a coincidence in form cycles or a coincidence in changes to the horse's class/distance/jock/trainer/medication/equipment etc. There's been no acurate study on this subject.It's all speculation.
Before syn tracks ,when a trainer shipped a horse in for a big race and lost,he would be interviewed and proclaim his horse didn't like the surface because the track was 'cuppy". Rememer that? They all said that when they lost. Now they scapegoat it to "my horse doesn't like running on rubber". Every trainer is going to say this crap. Doesn't mean they are not just diverting blame from themselves so the horses owners won't change barns. Come on,you got wealthy clients,you dont say "I sucked at training the horse". You blame something or someone to save your ass.
IMO,Jess Jackson really feared RA getting beat by Zen on pure ability not on surface, so he used the Synthetic track copout to get out of the showdown a couple of times. You didn't see Zen's connections copping out even when they accomodated RA's connections and accepted the showdown at OP on dirt. When Jackson pulled RA out of the Apple Blossom to be run on dirt, that proved JJ was always afraid of Zen and surface was just a copout, not the real issue.
My point is not the controversy of RA/Zen, but that you have to take into consideration that the syn/dirt track debate is tainted by alot of trainer/owner hype as well as form cycles.
0MRmxfLuNto
You haven't seen the evidence because I believe you are blinded by your love or rubber tracks.
Show me the evidence then. Show me why they run 'better' when they go from synthetic to dirt.
No, I mean most are bred for dirt, which is related to speed. Very, very few horses in the US are actually bred to be turf horses. Overseas, sure, but not here. Horses with pure turf pedigrees don't run all that great on rubber either in my opinion.
I have never seen any data but I would expect the same. On the turf you can get away with not having any tactical speed. If a horse with that profile runs on the synthetic it's late kick might often come too late.
I've done a small analysis on this before the BC last year, and horses switching from turf > synthetic did OK but not as good as some were saying. It would be interesting to see a similar analysis on the basis of pedigree.
Duh! A SoCal horse is taking a class drop at Philly don't you think?
All this syn/dirt switching so far has no factual proof. A horse may excel or falter on a syn/dirt switch because of a coincidence in form cycles or a coincidence in changes to the horse's class/distance/jock/trainer/medication/equipment etc. There's been no acurate study on this subject.It's all speculation.
Before syn tracks ,when a trainer shipped a horse in for a big race and lost,he would be interviewed and proclaim his horse didn't like the surface because the track was 'cuppy". Rememer that? They all said that when they lost. Now they scapegoat it to "my horse doesn't like running on rubber". Every trainer is going to say this crap. Doesn't mean they are not just diverting blame from themselves so the horses owners won't change barns. Come on,you got wealthy clients,you dont say "I sucked at training the horse". You blame something or someone to save your ass.
IMO,Jess Jackson really feared RA getting beat by Zen on pure ability not on surface, so he used the Synthetic track copout to get out of the showdown a couple of times. You didn't see Zen's connections copping out even when they accomodated RA's connections and accepted the showdown at OP on dirt. When Jackson pulled RA out of the Apple Blossom to be run on dirt, that proved JJ was always afraid of Zen and surface was just a copout, not the real issue.
My point is not the controversy of RA/Zen, but that you have to take into consideration that the syn/dirt track debate is tainted by alot of trainer/owner hype as well as form cycles.
That's something I've been saying all along. If some trainers are blaming the rubber, it must be because other trainers are winning on it - trainers who must be doing something right.
Trainers aren't just horsemen. They are also businessmen who don't want to lose clients. Simple as that.
a) Soundness. Synthetic surfaces are kinder to the horses who stay in better health as a consequence (although a few hundred people will post straight away that there are more hind leg injuries on the synthetic - as if that cancels out the 40% reduction in fatalities).
What evidence supports this?
What evidence supports this?
I refer you to the ground article that was posted here many times.
Fatality rates down 40%. Does that give you any clues?
ClassTrumpsSpeed
05-20-2010, 09:18 AM
Does anyone know the physiological reasons for why horses who develop on synthetics and then go to dirt are much more successful than those who do the opposite? I'm sure everyone has noticed that from LAL to Zenyatta in graded stakes and even down to Doug O'Niel's shippers to Phila Park, the California horses seem to even have an advantage and seem extra sharp coming off the synthetic, but then when a dirt horse is shipped over to CA for the Breeders Cup or something they always bomb. Anyone know specifically why this may be, relating to the differences is young development?
Either you're presuming facts not in evidence, or I missed the memo on how this move is so profitable.
Generally, horses who prep on Poly are going to have less wear and tear on their legs, much like with turf-to-dirt types, only poly is like "turf-lite."
What I've found is that there are no true "turf" ro "poly" horses per se, just fast horses who can't handle dirt, whose natural speed emerges on the softer surfaces. When a "dirt" horse performs poorly on turf, it's not that the horse can't handle the grass, but that its rivals can, so it appears slower by comparison.
What Poly can also do is preserve the dirt form of a fragile animal longer.
I refer you to the ground article that was posted here many times.
Fatality rates down 40%. Does that give you any clues?
Lack of fatality doesn't translate into better health. How many horses have been retired or put on the shelf due to non-fatal injuries caused by synths?
Lack of catastrophic injury doesn't mean better health.
The Pamplmoose, POTN, I Want Revenge, all poly prepped as 3 yos and all tend to not support good health.
Lack of fatality doesn't translate into better health. How many horses have been retired or put on the shelf due to non-fatal injuries caused by synths?
Lack of catastrophic injury doesn't mean better health.
The Pamplmoose, POTN, I Want Revenge, all poly prepped as 3 yos and all tend to not support good health.
Do you honestly believe that 40% less fatalities doesn't equal kinder surface?
Do you honestly believe that 40% less fatalities doesn't equal kinder surface? Don't change the subject in the middle - YOU said healthier horses. I said what evidence back this up and I am still waiting for it. You have suddenly abandoned that idea and ignored my examples that go against that.
We should have a good laboratory at Monmouth to check out this angle - looks like a good number from California will be racing there.
xfile
05-21-2010, 09:28 AM
We should have a good laboratory at Monmouth to check out this angle - looks like a good number from California will be racing there.
With it notoriously favoring speed it will be interesting to see what happens the first week and on from there.
xfile
05-21-2010, 10:22 AM
This from NJ.com
"HOW WILL THE TRACK’S NEW CUSHION PLAY?
Not only was a new cushion put down on the main track in early spring, a new track superintendent, Gary Wolff, takes over for the retiring Bob Juliano. How will that affect the racing? No one knows for sure yet."
ClassTrumpsSpeed
05-21-2010, 11:04 AM
Duh! A SoCal horse is taking a class drop at Philly don't you think?
No. The Beyer figures are universal. An 80 at Belmont equals an 80 at Pimlico or Boondock Downs. Beyer said so himself!
classhandicapper
05-21-2010, 11:26 AM
I think there are several thing involved.
1. Speed figures and winning margins on synthetic tracks tend to be depressed at the highest levels because of the different race development/pace requirements for success on most synthetic tracks relative to dirt. So where figure oriented people sometimes see huge improvement on the switch to dirt, there is actually sometimes no improvement at all from a class perspective.
2. Many of the horses running on synthetic are more suited to dirt racing but are being forced to run on synthetic tracks because the entire circuit is synthetic. So when they finally get on dirt, they can explode forward much as we sometimes see when horses switch from dirt/turf and vice versa.
3. Sharp early speed tends to be less of a useful commodity on synthetic. So when speed horses switch to dirt, it can sometimes be like moving from a track biased against them to a track biased in favor of them.
4. The training requirements for success are probably a little different. Those with a good background of training on it probably already have a better understanding of it than eastern trainers that mostly train on dirt.
5. There is at least some evidence of a conditioning benefit to training on synthetic.
PaceAdvantage
05-22-2010, 04:53 AM
No. The Beyer figures are universal. An 80 at Belmont equals an 80 at Pimlico or Boondock Downs. Beyer said so himself!Have I got the thread for you...walk with me, won't you?
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70623
SoCalCircuit
05-22-2010, 05:07 AM
5. There is at least some evidence of a conditioning benefit to training on synthetic.
This is what I'm really intrigued by. I know theres not enough data yet to really form a strong arguement but could it actually be very beneficial to train on the synthetic regardless of what surface a horse is planned to race on? If so, could it be due to the fact that some have argued that it allows the horses to grow on a softer surface, perhaps somehow leading to stronger bone or muscle development? Or is it like others have said prepping on a more difficult surface and then racing on the more conventional dirt surface will result in a sort of relief allowing for a more explosive performance?
This is what I'm really intrigued by. I know theres not enough data yet to really form a strong arguement but could it actually be very beneficial to train on the synthetic regardless of what surface a horse is planned to race on? If so, could it be due to the fact that some have argued that it allows the horses to grow on a softer surface, perhaps somehow leading to stronger bone or muscle development? Or is it like others have said prepping on a more difficult surface and then racing on the more conventional dirt surface will result in a sort of relief allowing for a more explosive performance?
I don't really believe in a "relief" concept - at all. Especially since synthetic is an easier surface imo.
But your original question is a very interesting one. I'm not a specialist at all, so pardon my layman's vocabulary. On the dirt, the hoof slides, which requires the balancing muscles to do some work before the horse propels itself forward again. On the synthetic, there is much less of that, the surface just breaks on impact.
So one interpretation could be that running on the synthetic is better for the development of the muscle group that is used for propelling the horse.
lamboguy
05-22-2010, 05:31 AM
Do you honestly believe that 40% less fatalities doesn't equal kinder surface?
you are nuts. there is no way in life that synthetic is healthier than dirt.these horses develop so many different types of injuries on synthetic that they have trouble making up the names of those injuries.
we had 5 breakdown in woodbine from 12 horses training on that stuff.
the whole problem is training on dirt and running on synthetic. baffert sure enough figured out how to beat them in california, he trains them right from the start on the synthetic and doesn't need a surface switch when he runs. he has been doing a top notch job with all his horses for years, he is one sharp guy.
We should have a good laboratory at Monmouth to check out this angle - looks like a good number from California will be racing there.
Here's an example today - Mth R2 Cape Town King.
Lifetime - 15-4-4-3
AWA Srf - 10-2-3-2
Off Track- 02-1-1-0
So, 7 of 8 exacta finishes are on Synth or wet.
He figures today, so let's see how he does on fast dirt (hopefully!)
My theory is, synth horses are good on wet dirt and not necessarily on
fast.
xfile
05-22-2010, 10:45 AM
Here's an example today - Mth R2 Cape Town King.
Lifetime - 15-4-4-3
AWA Srf - 10-2-3-2
Off Track- 02-1-1-0
So, 7 of 8 exacta finishes are on Synth or wet.
He figures today, so let's see how he does on fast dirt (hopefully!)
My theory is, synth horses are good on wet dirt and not necessarily on
fast.
There is also a factor that some horses can handle both. A 1 horse example is too small for a study but it's a start.
you are nuts. there is no way in life that synthetic is healthier than dirt.these horses develop so many different types of injuries on synthetic that they have trouble making up the names of those injuries.
we had 5 breakdown in woodbine from 12 horses training on that stuff.
the whole problem is training on dirt and running on synthetic. baffert sure enough figured out how to beat them in california, he trains them right from the start on the synthetic and doesn't need a surface switch when he runs. he has been doing a top notch job with all his horses for years, he is one sharp guy.
so what is it exactly that makes horse break down so much more on the dirt then? bad luck?
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.