Can all-weather stats predict ability on dirt?

[Gasser57]

When assessing a horse that’s only run on AW, aside from pedigree can you make any assumptions on how it’ll do on dirt?

[CheckMark]

Maybe you could compare speed figures or pace figures and figure out “is this all weather horse capable of running vs dirt horses today?” I have tried doing this at other tracks where shippers from either Presque isle or woodbine etc others come to race. Idk if this will help but good luck man!

[coachv30]

Originally Posted by Gasser57

When assessing a horse that’s only run on AW, aside from pedigree can you make any assumptions on how it’ll do on dirt?

In this situation, I will pass on the horse with the exception of the following two reasons:

1) The horse should be on the lead today.

2) The horse is making a drop in class. In this case, I'll ignore the surface history and look at him with unbiased eyes.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Gasser57

When assessing a horse that’s only run on AW, aside from pedigree can you make any assumptions on how it’ll do on dirt?

No. When an AW-track horse moves to the dirt track...I treat it as a first-time starter.

[Tom]

If the AW horse has dirt breeding, I look for not only good from but improved form/speed from it. Some time big improvement.

If it has grass breeding, I throw it out.

Dirt to AW, I throw out.
AW to turf, I throw out.

Turf to AW I use as is.

[Robert Fischer]

Generalization that isn't all-inclusive = AW-->DIRT = you want horses coming from blazing hot pace figures at a big price.

AW can be friendly to closers, so you are trying to find a horse who is both quick enough to contend on dirt, and that has been running not only against an extreme pace, but perhaps a track bias as well.

unfortunately this is a small sample size.

beyond that angle, you just want a good horse at a very generous price.

3rd Race today in NY; the is a former AW-->Turf and has made a big jump, finally breaking maiden and climbing the class ladder - but this is more a function of his statebred status and with the opportunity to go to Abreu, it was common sense.

[bobphilo]

AW, grass and dirt are 3 different surfaces with different properties With AW and grass having slightly more similar ones with regard to cushioning, traction and energy return. Safety studies tend to bear this out with a recent study showing that AW surfaces have a lower rate of injury and fatality with grass running a close second and dirt further back in 3rd. The question is just how much this translates to in differences in performance.
The main differences between AW and dirt in traction, and energy return seems to be that AW tracks give better traction and energy return due to their rubberized component - similar to running shoes compared to dress shoes, though to a lesser degree. Because of these differences AW, as well as grass, tends to favor long powerful strides while dirt favors shorter quicker strides.
As horses have different neuro-muscular running patterns their abilities on the different surfaces will vary. Horses that are able to transfer their abilities AW to dirt are those that can switch their stride pattern from long and powerful to shorter and quicker. Horses can due this in varying degrees and unfortunately this is hard to predict, though pedigree and workouts can be of some help, just like with 1st time starters or horses trying a new distance.
What is also important is that there are also similarities in the properties required for good performances so that one can consider a horse's AW form in predicting how it will fare on dirt. However, one must proceed with caution and I would like to see a horse with clearly superior AW figures to his dirt competitors.

[JohnGalt1]

Bill or Scott Finley wrote a book about synthetic surfaces where he concluded that synthetic was more similar to dirt than turf.


I have success treating them equally after track to track par conversion.

From Cynthia par book--

A $10k open claimer at Belmont runs the same final 6 furlong 1:11.0 speed as a $10k claimer at Woodbine. But the Belmont sprinter is 22.3 and 45.4 compared to 23.0 and 46.0 at Woodbine.

I don't use turf lines for dirt races and vice versa.

Belmont 6f turf for $10k claimers is 22.1, 44.1, and 1:08.2. Which is not comparable at all to dirt or synthetic, so I don't.

[Tom]

Poly tracks make great horses average.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by JohnGalt1

Bill or Scott Finley wrote a book about synthetic surfaces where he concluded that synthetic was more similar to dirt than turf.


I have success treating them equally after track to track par conversion.

From Cynthia par book--

A $10k open claimer at Belmont runs the same final 6 furlong 1:11.0 speed as a $10k claimer at Woodbine. But the Belmont sprinter is 22.3 and 45.4 compared to 23.0 and 46.0 at Woodbine.

I don't use turf lines for dirt races and vice versa.

Belmont 6f turf for $10k claimers is 22.1, 44.1, and 1:08.2. Which is not comparable at all to dirt or synthetic, so I don't.

Actually, it has been shown $10K claimers at one track are not necessarily of the same value as $10K at all other tracks. However, this is irrelevant since you are using the same final time to compare and see which track /surface has the higher pace with the same final time. This shows that dirt tracks are ridden with a faster pace than AWs for the same final time.
The time for the pace times and final times are faster for turf races.

In the Belmont dirt race the 1st quarter is .4 see faster than even pace while the half is run at 1.9 sec faster than even pace.
In the Woodbine race the 1st quarter is run.7 sec slower than even pace and the half .3 sec slower at the half than even pace.
In the Belmont turf race the was run .6 faster than even pace and the half was run 1.4 sec faster than even pace.

Apparently the Belmont dirt race was run in faster fractions then the Woodbine AW race relative to the final time at both the quarter and half mile points, and about as fast at the pace calls as the Belmont turf race
The Belmont grass race was run at about he same splits at both the quarter and half relative to its final time as the Belmont dirt race, but faster than the Woodbine race at both pace calls.
The Woodbine AW race was run slower at both pace calls relative to its final time than either the Belmont dirt or grass race.
This is mostly likely due to the riders' strategies concerning the different surfaces. Remember also that we are dealing with 2 different rider colonies.
This seems that both Belmont grass and dirt races are run to faster paces than Woodbine AW races relative to final time. A bit surprising that since dirt and grass seem more similar to each other than to the AW surface, it is more commonly believed that grass races would have the slower paces along with the AW races, so this bears further investigation. I would like to see the comparisons between the 3 surfaces at the same track with the same jockey colonies.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Tom

Poly tracks make great horses average.

Is that supposed to mean that AW tracks make great horses run slower? It can't mean that since running on a slower surface does not make a great horse average. Does it mean that some horses that dominate their competition on dirt tracks don't do the same on AW tracks? It can't mean that either because the same is true with some dirt champions running on grass and we don't say that grass grass tracks make great horses average. So what does it mean?

In any case I don't see any evidence for whatever AW supposedly does to great horses aside from the evidence for the fact that AW tracks do make both great and average horses less likely to suffer fatalities.

[cj]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Is that supposed to mean that AW tracks make great horses run slower? It can't mean that since running on a slower surface does not make a great horse average. Does it mean that some horses that dominate their competition on dirt tracks don't do the same on AW tracks? It can't mean that either because the same is true with some dirt champions running on grass and we don't say that grass grass tracks make great horses average. So what does it mean?

In any case I don't see any evidence for whatever AW supposedly does to great horses aside from the evidence for the fact that AW tracks do make both great and average horses less likely to suffer fatalities.

I think if you look at the list of G1 winners when synthetics were at the bigger tracks you will see what he is suggesting. There are a lot of horses that just weren't any good on any other surface that scored G1 wins against horses with much better credentials on other surfaces.

I personally think this is the main reason Keeneland switched back to dirt. It sure wasn't betting handle as that was doing great with polytrack. They were tired of the well bred, big money horses flopping on the rubber.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by cj

I think if you look at the list of G1 winners when synthetics were at the bigger tracks you will see what he is suggesting. There are a lot of horses that just weren't any good on any other surface that scored G1 wins against horses with much better credentials on other surfaces.

I personally think this is the main reason Keeneland switched back to dirt. It sure wasn't betting handle as that was doing great with polytrack. They were tired of the well bred, big money horses flopping on the rubber.

The late Jess Jackson felt exactly this way, HATED the synths(plastics, as he called them).....His powerful influence was one of the major factors leading to the abolishing of synths at major tracks.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by cj

I think if you look at the list of G1 winners when synthetics were at the bigger tracks you will see what he is suggesting. There are a lot of horses that just weren't any good on any other surface that scored G1 wins against horses with much better credentials on other surfaces.

I personally think this is the main reason Keeneland switched back to dirt. It sure wasn't betting handle as that was doing great with polytrack. They were tired of the well bred, big money horses flopping on the rubber.

I think I understand your explanation. That can also be said of grass but I guess that turf racing already had its own big established G1 races and was not seen as a competitor to dirt. AW tracks were a threat to the major dirt classics and many feared it would take these races over. Makes sense.
It's a shame since the attributes and limitations of the new surface were buried beneath the arguments and fears of the track replacing the established dirt classics. Perhaps, with time, it could have grown into its own type of racing with its own traditional races. Perhap it still can. Keeneland apparently wasn't ready for the backlash with different horses winning their traditional Gi races. I'm guessing the Bluegrass was losing its status as a major Derby prep. and I can see that was a an example of why Keeneland went back to dirt.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

The late Jess Jackson felt exactly this way, HATED the synths(plastics, as he called them).....His powerful influence was one of the major factors leading to the abolishing of synths at major tracks.

I'm sorry to hear that as I was an admirer of the man ran when he was running Rachel Alexandra. One trainer who I lost a lot of respect for for a number of reasons was Nick Zito who was a vocal opponent of the AW surfaces since he felt they were unnatural. I guess he was unaware that horses evolved over millions of years to run on grass and its the dirt surfaces, that bear no resemblance to the native Earth they replace that are unnatural. He actually said that AW tracks are unnatural because they are not mentioned in the Bible. I was not aware that Zito was Amish and couldn't drive a car or use electrical appliances since they are also are not not mentioned in the Bible. A hypocrite.
I heard that he was so superstitious that when topping off his car with gas the pump showed 13 gallons. His superstition caused him to dangerously pour out an extra gallon of gas on the ground so he wouldn't have the 13th gal in his tank. The worst story of all is that he got Jeremy Rose to take off of the horses trained by the trainer of Afleet Alex (the man who put him on the map) at the last minute to ride Zito's mounts as he and the kid thought it would help the young riders' career - leaving the trainer in the lurch.