>if turf #'s were so meaningless, then it would be rather impossible to play turf races (w/any success) based solely on the #'s. it is not.<

I certainly didn't say they were meaningless. :-)

Where we will have to agree to disagree is on the primary reason so many turf races have very close competitive finishes. You appear to view them as competitive because there are lots of evenly matched horses. I am saying they look much more evenly matched than they actually are because pace often dictates closer finishes (and thus closer figures).

Here's a very extreme example of what I am saying.

Let's suppose I run a 1 mile race with the best miler in the world and we both run at a pace that is comfortable for us. He's obviously going to blow me away.

Now let's suppose I try to stay with his pace for the first 1/4 of a mile. He's going to crush me under that scenario because his normal pace for the first 1/4 mile is WAAAY too fast for me. I will be exhausted and probably not even be able to finish the race.

Now let's say we agree to walk at a fast clip the first 7/8s of a mile with me in the lead by a few yards. Then we run home for the last 1/8. He's still going to beat me, but it's going to be much closer. I can run quite well for 1/8 of mile after using only minimal energy for th3 first 7/8s. Under that scenario, a top sprinter would probably beat the best miler at a mile.

I know this is an extreme example. But if you watch a lot of races closely, I believe the finish and time is impacted more often on turf than on dirt.

I can't prove it conclusively and I definitely can't provide you with a formula that measures all the impacts of pace on figures. It's too hard to isolate from other factors and IMO the impact it is different for every horse.



Post Edited (08-22-04 11:34)