Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cj
I did some research today that was pretty enlightening. I've always known turf finishes are tighter than dirt finishes in general, but I didn't know to what extent. The value of a beaten length in a turf race is much greater than a dirt race. It actually breaks out really clearly by distance, less than a mile and a mile and over:
< 1m Value of a beaten length in turf races is 1.6 times that of a similar dirt race
> 1m Value of a beaten length in turf races is 2.0 times that of a similar dirt race
I use different values for the two, but not to that extent. Beyer made and adjustment to use his 6.5 furlong chart for turf routes, but that is about the 1.3 to 1.4 range, not 2.0. I don't believe Rags or Thorograph or BRIS or Equibase differentiate between the surfaces.
This is definitely something I'll be digging into a lot deeper the next few weeks. It sure looks like also rans in turf races are being given more credit than they deserve by speed figure guys, myself included.
|
This was basically the rationale Beyer used when using the 6f dirt beaten length scale for turf races. Since turf sprints were (evidently by comments I've read) much rarer and probably not well considered, this lines up well with the turf route observation you make.
