Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb
my question would be..... WHY do you think turf and dirt are different as regards pace?
pretty sure the riders don't go out there and think...."we are on turf today.....we have to go slower early than if we were on dirt."
|
Here I am in agreement with you, though we are in the minority view. It seems that many feel that the laws of physics cease to exist when the surfaces change. Deviation from even pace is just as inefficient on grass, dirt or moon dust. The fact that more grass races than dirt races are won from off the pace has more to do with the self fulfilling prophecy that closers have the advantage on the grass. Actually riders, at least in the U.S. do go out their thinking, "This is turf, I have to go out slow early". The better horses are ridden inefficiently slow early and win due to their superiority despite their disadvantages sectionals.
The advantage of even pace running not only applies to different surfaces but also to different species of animals as proven by studies. It even applies to cars where maintaining a steady pace yields the most efficient MPG.
A similar situation used to exist in boxing (another sport tied down by tradition). It used to be believed that abstaining from sex would make a fighter stronger so since all boxers did this all the champions were abstainers and it was believed that abstinence was the way to train. It was also believed that boxers should not drink any water between rounds so, of course all the champions fought in a dehydrated state. This disadvantage was considered an advantage because, like in racing, convention trumped science. Why study the science when you can remain comfortable with the "good old fashioned traditions". Just like the old champs did.
I now suggest we retire to the nearest bomb shelter for daring to use science to debunk one of the sports sacred cows.
