good team of American horses for Dubai World Cup card

[honest & balanced terry]

How many American victories do people expect out of this bunch, and how do we think horses like Game on Dude and The Factor will do over the synthetic surface? Looks like a good bunch of horses, anyway.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/68255/american-horses-land-safely-in-dubai

[Bob B]

I think the Americans will get 1 win, just not sure if it will be in the Sprint or World Cup.  If the races were on dirt, I'd give the Americans a lot more credit, but the Tapeta seems to make it a level playing field with the turfers from around the globe.  I can't wait for the grass races at the true World Championships.

[tapetea]

How many American victories do people expect out of this bunch, and how do we think horses like Game on Dude and The Factor will do over the synthetic surface?

It's hard to tell, Terry.

"I feel synthetics take a lot of the excitement out of racing. It makes good horses average and average horses good." Bob Baffert.

[honest & balanced terry]

It's hard to tell, Terry.

"I feel synthetics take a lot of the excitement out of racing. It makes good horses average and average horses good." Bob Baffert.

That's Bob Baffert's personal opinion only, of course.

One could also make just as good an argument that dirt and its natural bias in favor of frontrunners makes a lot of of average speed horses (as trained in the Bob Baffert manner) better than they really are, while synthetics even the playing field.

[pamwaggy]

That's Bob Baffert's personal opinion only, of course.

One could also make just as good an argument that dirt and its natural bias in favor of frontrunners makes a lot of of average speed horses (as trained in the Bob Baffert manner) better than they really are, while synthetics even the playing field.

But but but . . . Bob Baffert's personal opinion has got to be taken very seriously on this subject, no?

[APCD Dan]

But but but . . . Bob Baffert's personal opinion has got to be taken very seriously on this subject, no?

No, Bob's personal opinion is what surface can horses trained by him run the best on.  Baffert is a good trainer but he ain't God, except he may think he is.

[pamwaggy]

Well OK then.  I'm listening to you.

[honest & balanced terry]

But but but . . . Bob Baffert's personal opinion has got to be taken very seriously on this subject, no?

Bob Baffert's personal opinion has to be taken very seriously as regards what's best for Bob Baffert, personally. Nothing else. He made quite a career out of buying horses bred for early speed, and training horses to win with early speed, because that is the bias of traditional dirt tracks and he's smart enough to realize it. A surface that doesn't play quite so kindly to blasting speed threatens Bob Baffert's business. That's all. There's no written rule from God anywhere that says what horses are good and what are ordinary based on what surface they win on ... this is only Bob Baffert's self-interested opinion.  

  

[honest & balanced terry]

Yikes! APCD Dan and I both just invoked God!

[thoroughbred]

No, Bob's personal opinion is what surface can horses trained by him run the best on.  Baffert is a good trainer but he ain't God, except he may think he is.

With all due respect I disagree. By any measure Bob Baffert is a preeminent trainer. I'm not saying you have to agree, but his opinion carries big time stroke. I wouldn't be so quick to pass his opinion off on track surfaces. He has trained many more runners than "we" have. Again, with no disrespect, when you have trained as many winning top caliber horses as he has, I'll consider your opinion with the same level of respect as his. Until then, sorry, he's catching my ear.

[APCD Dan]

With all due respect I disagree. By any measure Bob Baffert is a preeminent trainer. I'm not saying you have to agree, but his opinion carries big time stroke. I wouldn't be so quick to pass his opinion off on track surfaces. He has trained many more runners than "we" have. Again, with no disrespect, when you have trained as many winning top caliber horses as he has, I'll consider your opinion with the same level of respect as his. Until then, sorry, he's catching my ear.

Wow, I touched a nerve here.  Of course, he is better than most trainers because he has an advantage in California.  That advantage was not that good when SA changed surfaces and he was a big factor in getting the track back to dirt.  It is "silly" to use the "we" comparison here.  None of us have ever been President either but that should not keep us from commenting on them.

I expressed my opinion of Baffert as a poster on this forum and not as an editor for DRF or some training expert.  Sorry, but I did feel some disrespect not due me.  My opinion of Baffert is also colored by him as a person.  I guess I do not have much respect either.

[honest & balanced terry]

When Bob Baffert explains just exactly "why" synthetic surfaces make ordinary horses good and good horses ordinary, his opinion might impress me more. But all he has said so far is that synthetic surfaces don't allow horses to "use their natural speed to open up some separation". In other words, they aren't as speed biased as dirt tracks, because you can't blast out and hang on. Where's it written that horses with early speed should win more than their share of races? Shouldn't a surface that's fair to all runners regardless of run style be the goal ?

Every year people on this forum complain about the "unfairness" of Hawthorne's dirt track because it often favors early speed so much. But all of a sudden we're on the side of speed bias because Bob Baffert says so? I mean, make up your minds. 

[thoroughbred]

Wow, I touched a nerve here.  Of course, he is better than most trainers because he has an advantage in California.  That advantage was not that good when SA changed surfaces and he was a big factor in getting the track back to dirt.  It is "silly" to use the "we" comparison here.  None of us have ever been President either but that should not keep us from commenting on them.

I expressed my opinion of Baffert as a poster on this forum and not as an editor for DRF or some training expert.  Sorry, but I did feel some disrespect not due me.  My opinion of Baffert is also colored by him as a person.  I guess I do not have much respect either.

I meant no disrespect Dan, in fact I always enjoy your insights in the posts here. I just personally think Bob Baffert is one hell of a trainer. And if he has an opinion on track surface, well I'm gonna listen. Nothing personal.

[HorseVoice]

Where's it written that horses with early speed should win more than their share of races?

Well, they DO. Ever hear the expression "Speed is the universal bias"?

Dr. William Quirin concluded as much in his 1979 book, Winning at the Races -- Computer Discoveries in Thoroughbred Handicapping, where, amongst other things, he introduced Quirin Speed Points, a methodology that is still widely used. most notably in BRIS' Ultimate Past Performances. That's pretty strong. 

Ever see a winning front-runner wait for room, get blocked, go 5-wide on a turn to get around horses, etc.? Me neither.

Shouldn't a surface that's fair to all runners regardless of run style be the goal ?

Who wrote THAT, Garrison Keillor? Was there horse racing at Lake Woebegon?

Hey, you're entitled to your own opinions, but to say "where is it written that speed wins" is tantamount to admitting that you simply don't understand American racing at all.

[honest & balanced terry]

Well, they DO. Ever hear the expression "Speed is the universal bias"?

Well, yes, that's certainly true ... on dirt.

Dr. William Quirin concluded as much in his 1979 book

He did indeed. That's where I get my "speed bias" info about dirt tracks from, in fact.

Hey, you're entitled to your own opinions, but to say "where is it written that speed wins" is tantamount to admitting that you simply don't understand American racing at all.

Actually, what I wrote was, "Where's it written that horses with early speed should win more than their share of races?"

See that word "should" there? Maybe you simply don't understand English?

There's no reason in the world at all there should be a dirt speed bias, other than so many races have been run on dirt over the years. It's not a natural condition written by God to apply to all surfaces at all times, and there's nothing at all that says anything different is "wrong".

[HorseVoice]

Actually, what I wrote was, "Where's it written that horses with early speed should win more than their share of races?"

See that word "should" there? Maybe you simply don't understand English?

I saw the word "should", and I understand English just fine. Did you see my question about whether you've ever seen a front-runner get impeded or have other traffic trouble? Maybe you are too interested in taking jabs at me to slow down and READ.

There's no reason in the world at all there should be a dirt speed bias, other than so many races have been run on dirt over the years. It's not a natural condition written by God to apply to all surfaces at all times, and there's nothing at all that says anything different is "wrong".

Of course there is a reason. It's simple physics, if you think about it:

Part 1: The horses in front -- especially those who obtained an easy lead -- are less likely to have exchanged a whole lot of energy for their position, and if they are equal in conditioning and ability to the rest of the field, they already have a TREMENDOUS advantage over the rest of the field...who will have to give up precious energy just to get on even terms with the front-runners. (And that's before we discuss things like maneuvering around tiring horses and such.)

Part 2: Dirt -- if not too deep, and of sufficient moisture content and maintenance, will offer little in the way of unnatural resistance to most runners, and will in fact aid certain runners who have an efficient and "light" stride (if you will...not a "digger" with a huge backside engine).

Honestly, Terry? This is one of those elementary handicapping discussions I haven't had in years -- I didn't expect to be spelling this out to you. I was just dicking around with you before about you not handicapping or gambling anymore -- just trying to goad you into making a vitriolic response. But now I'm wondering: did I stumble onto to something, quite by accident?

Because...if you don't understand THIS most basic concept of horse racing (or you're just fighting it), then you didn't "cut back" on your gambling because of small fields, or because whales are getting rebates, or because some guys are wired directly into the tote system: you were getting killed by your own stubbornness. Front runners win on dirt, Terry, more than any other type. It's been that way as long as I can remember. You don't have to ask God or look in the Bible -- just watch with your own eyes.

[pezz97]

I think the Factor is going to win for fun

[honest & balanced terry]

I saw the word "should", and I understand English just fine. Did you see my question about whether you've ever seen a front-runner get impeded or have other traffic trouble?

Utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not a track surface should be biased to a certain running style.

Of course there is a reason. It's simple physics, if you think about it:

Part 1: The horses in front -- especially those who obtained an easy lead -- are less likely to have exchanged a whole lot of energy for their position, and if they are equal in conditioning and ability to the rest of the field, they already have a TREMENDOUS advantage over the rest of the field...who will have to give up precious energy just to get on even terms with the front-runners. (And that's before we discuss things like maneuvering around tiring horses and such.)

Part 2: Dirt -- if not too deep, and of sufficient moisture content and maintenance, will offer little in the way of unnatural resistance to most runners, and will in fact aid certain runners who have an efficient and "light" stride (if you will...not a "digger" with a huge backside engine).

Yes, of course all that is true, on all surfaces, but you know damn well that's not the subject here. The track surface, and what part it plays in aiding or impeding a run style is the question here. Remember that, the track surface, synth versus dirt, like we were actually discussing and what Bob Baffert said?  Why is it that a racing surface "should" favor a front runner more than just the natural physics of item #1? Where is that written? What's you've written above is "how it has been", it does not address the central question here, "why should that be?"

And maybe you could explain to us just what constitutes "unnatural resistance" as regards racing surfaces, and what are the physics of that? The only time I have ever seen wild horses, at the Pryor Wild Horse Range, they were not running over a groomed dirt surface. 

Honestly, Terry? This is one of those elementary handicapping discussions I haven't had in years -- I didn't expect to be spelling this out to you. I was just dicking around with you before about you not handicapping or gambling anymore -- just trying to goad you into making a vitriolic response. But now I'm wondering: did I stumble onto to something, quite by accident?

Well, actually, what you stumbled on was your usual magic of changing the subject altogether.

The question is not "why do dirt tracks favor speed" or "why do speed horses get to the front", but more in the realm of "what makes dirt track front-runner bias 'right', and where is that written'". Please fill us in on what we don't know, rather than rehashing what we already do know. Address the question in the full context of the paragraph from which you lifted it:

"When Bob Baffert explains just exactly "why" synthetic surfaces make ordinary horses good and good horses ordinary, his opinion might impress me more. But all he has said so far is that synthetic surfaces don't allow horses to "use their natural speed to open up some separation". In other words, they aren't as speed biased as dirt tracks, because you can't blast out and hang on. Where's it written that horses with early speed should win more than their share of races? Shouldn't a surface that's fair to all runners regardless of run style be the goal ?"  

[HarnessFanDE]

I think the Factor is going to win for fun

HEY!!! Don't talk about the topic at hand.....

[honest & balanced terry]

HEY!!! Don't talk about the topic at hand.....

Hey man, I just don't know, front end dirt "speed" horse running against all that "unnatural" resistance of the synthetic track ?

But of the American horses, I do tend to agree The Factor is the best shot.

[HarnessFanDE]

Hey man, I just don't know, front end dirt "speed" horse running against all that "unnatural" resistance of the synthetic track ?

But of the American horses, I do tend to agree The Factor is the best shot.

The thing that amazes me most is how much power Bob Baffert has......I know that in certain occurances certain jockeys have a great rapport with a horse.......But if it was my horse for 10 million.......No chance in H**l he could convince me to use Chantal......For many reasons really......All that being said I would love to see her win.....really love to see her win.....Even if I wager against her I will root for her

[pezz97]

HEY!!! Don't talk about the topic at hand.....

[pamwaggy]

The thing that amazes me most is how much power Bob Baffert has......I know that in certain occurances certain jockeys have a great rapport with a horse.......But if it was my horse for 10 million.......No chance in H**l he could convince me to use Chantal......For many reasons really......All that being said I would love to see her win.....really love to see her win.....Even if I wager against her I will root for her

Just curious.  What are the reasons you wouldn't use Chantal?

[pezz97]

Just curious.  What are the reasons you wouldn't use Chantal?

I would like too know that to. She gets along with this horse so well.

Personally I think the surface will be his biggest obstacle, and not the rider

[HarnessFanDE]

For 10 million, I would use the best jockey available. I would rank Chantal maybe Top 25 or 30 in the US......So probably 50th Worldwide.......It might be that horse is quirky and responds to a softer touch (many do) but on the surface there are much better jockeys available, but fair enough maybe not for this horse, maybe he takes some getting used to.....I would also prefer someone with more experience over that track (though I know its very new)......I wouldnt want a 10 million dollar ride from my jockey to be her first tour of the surface