Turf vs Dirt question

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

One other thing to toss around (related to what I said previously about large margins and loose front runners in slow paced races) is that closers tend to have their moves timed to the horses in front of them rather that blowing fields away. So if a surface is tilted towards closers, you might get smaller average winning margins for that reason.

CJ's data is suggesting that rather than pace being the dominant factor in smaller margins on turf, it might be running style. And if I am correct, the wider margins in slow paced dirt races might be the more frequent loose leaders blowing fields away. That happens less often on turf.

I'll try it tomorrow and eliminate races where the margin is >5. I doubt it is going to have much different though to be honest. These are huge samples and the outliers even out for the most part.

[steveb]

the dominant factor is going to be because dirt is more tiring than turf, thus everything will logically be magnified on dirt.

a long time ago when i was figuring japan for some people, it was blatantly obvious that the difference between male and female horse was different depending on surface

about 5 metres per 1000 metres average on dirt but only 3 on turf.

that will apply across the board no matter what tests you run, if you know how to run them.

it will apply to the class relationships, in that whatever the difference on average between class 'a' and class 'b' on turf it will be more on dirt.

it will be the main reason why margins are magniifed on dirt by comparison turf.

etc
etc
etc

it is also the main reason why raybo is correct doing what he does(if i read it right).

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by steveb

the dominant factor is going to be because dirt is more tiring than turf, thus everything will logically be magnified on dirt.

Then why don't we see more closers or horses with stamina win on the dirt?

[steveb]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Then why don't we see more closers or horses with stamina win on the dirt?

if you get to the front when you are not working too hard and when you plenty left in the tank, then it becomes harder for others to run you down at the business end.

dirt by its very nature has to favour front runners more than turf does.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

One other thing to toss around (related to what I said previously about large margins and loose front runners in slow paced races) is that closers tend to have their moves timed to the horses in front of them rather that blowing fields away. So if a surface is tilted towards closers, you might get smaller average winning margins for that reason.

CJ's data is suggesting that rather than pace being the dominant factor in smaller margins on turf, it might be running style. And if I am correct, the wider margins in slow paced dirt races might be the more frequent loose leaders blowing fields away. That happens less often on turf.

This is true coupled with race distance because a horse can only expend so much energy.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Then why don't we see more closers or horses with stamina win on the dirt?

The majority of NA dirt races compared to NA turf races are sprints which are good for the front-running style horse.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Cratos

The majority of NA dirt races compared to NA turf races are sprints which are good for the front-running style horse.

Yeah, but races at the same distance favor speed more on dirt than on turf, and the margins are also greater between the horses.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by cj

This is exactly what I was talking about in the beginning, overrating horses that weren't really competitive in turf races.

I find this all very interesting, especially this point.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by cj

Yeah, but races at the same distance favor speed more on dirt than on turf, and the margins are also greater between the horses.

I might not have interpreted Classhandicapper's post correctly, but I believe his comment within his post of "it might be running style" answers the question about the margin difference on dirt versus turf.

[cj]

In the end, I learned a lot from reading Beyer, Quirin, Quinn, etc. But they all sort of do things the same way. Quinn broke turf races out and rated them completely differently realizing the differences on turf, but I didn't find his method worked very well. It was much too crude in my opinion.

I've hypothesizing after this past week of studying things that it is the speed charts used that cause problems with turf. A horse that runs a time of 1:36 at a mile while losing by 5 lengths (his time, not the winner) should be rated the same as a horse that wins a race in 1:36. That is how most people do it, but it doesn't work on turf.

I think it is the speed charts that are to blame. They were just adapted by most of the pioneers of figure making from dirt to be used on turf, and I think they clearly underestimate the value of time on turf. If a beaten length in a turf route should have double the value of a beaten length in a dirt route, it only makes sense that the amount of time that beaten length represents should also have double the value of the corresponding amount of time on whatever speed charts or formulas are used to assign ratings to final times.

I have some pretty strong ideas on how to do this, going to test them out the next several weeks while racing is in the slowest part of the year for the sport.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I might not have interpreted Classhandicapper's post correctly, but I believe his comment within his post of "it might be running style" answers the question about the margin difference on dirt versus turf.

I guess I'm misreading, but I don't see how more sprints being carded on dirt has much to do with the question posed by AndyC.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by cj

In the end, I learned a lot from reading Beyer, Quirin, Quinn, etc. But they all sort of do things the same way. Quinn broke turf races out and rated them completely differently realizing the differences on turf, but I didn't find his method to word very well. It was much too crude in my opinion.

I've hypothesizing after this past week of studying things that it is the speed charts used that cause problems with turf. A horse that runs a time of 1:36 at a mile while losing by 5 lengths (his time, not the winner) should be rated the same as a horse that wins a race in 1:36. That is how most people do it, but it doesn't work on turf.

I think it is the speed charts that are to blame. They were just adapted by most of the pioneers of figure making from dirt to be used on turf, and I think they clearly underestimate the value of time on turf. If a beaten length in a turf route should have double the value of a beaten length in a dirt route, it only makes sense that the amount of time that beaten length represents should also have double the value of the corresponding amount of time on whatever speed charts or formulas are used to assign ratings to final times.

I have some pretty strong ideas on how to do this, going to test them out the next several weeks while racing is in the slowest part of the year for the sport.

I believe you are stating that the speed charts for dirt and turf should be distinctive, but historically they have not been and the turf figures has been based on the dirt charts.

If your findings are true and you go forth and develop a turf speed chart you might in the short-run caught “lighting in a bottle.”

[cj]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I believe you are stating that the speed charts for dirt and turf should be distinctive, but historically they have not been and the turf figures has been based on the dirt charts.

If your findings are true and you go forth and develop a turf speed chart you might in the short-run caught “lighting in a bottle.”

Yes, this is what I'm saying. You said it better than I did in a lot less words, well done!

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I believe you are stating that the speed charts for dirt and turf should be distinctive, but historically they have not been and the turf figures has been based on the dirt charts.

If your findings are true and you go forth and develop a turf speed chart you might in the short-run caught “lighting in a bottle.”

I think what he is saying, and I believe he mentioned something like this in one of the earlier posts, is that, historically, the turf charts were based off of dirt charts, and they were not based on "hard data", but rather just approximations via experience, and possibly rudimentary comparisons and calculations.

One has to consider the energy expended, regardless of why, on both types of surfaces, and compensate for that energy expenditure differently regarding the two surfaces. One way of doing that is through surface resistance multipliers (variant), and the other is by including the pace (speed) of the individual race segments, in some way. Or, both, which is what I try to do in my method.

[cj]

Originally Posted by raybo

I think what he is saying, and I believe he mentioned something like this in one of the earlier posts, is that, historically, the turf charts were based off of dirt charts, and they were not based on "hard data", but rather just approximations via experience, and possibly rudimentary comparisons and calculations.

This is also what I'm saying!

I'll also add this might have implications when comparing different distances on the same surface, but I'll save that for the next thread and stick to turf/dirt for now.