Sprint/Route vs. 1Turn/2Turn

[FortuneHunter]

Sprint/Route vs. 1Turn/2Turn

I would like to hear some opinions on this subject.

This generally pertains to dirt racing because there are so few sprint (1 turn) Turf races in our neck of the woods (NYRA).

I think traditionally that we talk about in terms of sprint races and routes races. Some consider a 1-mile race a Sprint. Some consider it a Route. Brisnet considers a 1-mile race a Route, I believe.

IMO, a better classification method is 1 Turn Race and 2 Turn Race. I think the number of turns is more important than the distance. Race riding strategy is different. Jocks may have to use the horse to get position going into the 1st turn, causing the horse to have and early burst and a late burst of energy to be competitive. When horse has to negotiate 2 turns, there are more lead changes, more tight traffic on the turns.

For example, the time for a 1-mile race from the Aqueduct Main chute (a 1 turn race) should not directly be compared to a 1-mile race on the Aqueduct Inner track (a 2 turn race) or to Fairgrounds.

I think the PP’s should be updated to include a “chute” or “1Turn” mark for races over 7 furlongs. I think it is important to know how many turns a horse had to go.

The 1-turn Dirt Miles I know of are:

Aqueduct Main
Belmont Main (up to 11/8 miles)
Arlington
Churchill
Colonial

How important do you think 1 turn vs. 2 turn is?

Thanks, FH

[ranchwest]

I think you are right about running turns being more taxing. You are also right about how well a horse can change leads being important. This is just a gut feeling, but I think that some horses cannot physically handle the high number of lead changes for multiple turns. I think this is why some horses cannot negotiate the 6 1/2 f turf course at SA, as it goes both ways.

However, I still think that there are physical differences in the way horses handle increasingly longer distances beyond just the turns factor. When I was a regular at Delta Downs, I saw many, many horses come through who could run 4 1/2 furlongs but could not make it 5. As a general rule, I think each increase of a furlong presents a different physical requirement, though some horses are versatile.

In summary, I think the factors are both turns and distance.

[Observer]

fortunehunter,

You're right about that one mile comment .. how some consider it a sprint, and others consider it a route. I see it a little of both .. a horse needs speed, but has to have exceptional stamina.

But I see one turn-one mile races as more of a sprint, and two turn-one mile races as more of a route.

Having a horse that is not fluid with lead changes to begin with would only seem to be more detriminental when sent two turns .. as it provides increased inefficiency.

I do believe a sprinter would be more capable of handling a stretch out if still sent one turn, say going from seven furlongs to the one-turn nine furlong route at Belmont. However, that's not to say this sprinter couldn't handle spinning through two turns on Aqueduct's Inner track if he could get clear to a comfortable lead.

Never say never in this game!

[Rick]

There are even 3 turn races, Fairplex being the best example!

[ranchwest]

If I'm not mistaken, Jefferson Downs used to have 6 turn races.

[Tom]

An angle I like at Belmont is horse that ran good at Belmont's one-turn routes, went to Saratoga, looked bad on two-turn routes, and then come back to Belmont with 2-3 poor races.
I go back to the Belmont pacelines for these guts and catch a few every year. Same idea applies to Aqu-Aqi at a mile.

Tom

[Observer]

Tom,

Great point!! I absolutely agree with you. Anytime a horse shows good form doing something, or racing somewhere, then goes off form trying something or someplace new .. watch out when they return to what or where they were racing at their best!! The worse they do when they go off form trying those new things, the better the price when they make the switch back.