Jimbo,

IMO, it's at least conceivable that the smaller population of turf horses relative to dirt horses in the U.S. is at least partially responsible for the best turf horses having slower figures "on average" than the best dirt horses. The very fact that Europeans come here and dominate so frequently strongly suggests that our best turfers really aren't all that great anyway. So having slower figures at the top is not totally shocking.

The other issue is one of pace. It's very obvious to me that slow paces tend to tighten the finishes between horses. The best horses can only seperate themselves from their inferior rivals by so much when the real running is limited to 2-3 furlongs instead of an entire race. Even this year's Bluegrass demonstrated that.

Personally, I think no one is measuring turf "performance" properly even if they are measuring "time" well. (though our host would probably disagree with me strongly ;-)

IMO, a length is more significant on turf than on dirt. It may not be more significant in terms of time, but it is more significant in the same way that a length is more siginificant at a sprint distance than at 12 furlongs. All beaten lengths charts reflect the latter.

If you think of most turf races as a combination of several furlong gallops and 2F-3F sprint races, it becomes clearer that beating your opponent by a couple of lengths in a turf race is very important.

If all beaten lengths scales for turf were adjusted to reflect the way turf races typically develop (giving more signficance to each beaten length), both the bottom and top of the figures would spread out and more closely match dirt racing. IMO, they would then measure performance better, but stop measuring final time.

Just to be clear, my suggestion would raise other problems. On the occasions a turf pace is faster than usual, many of the horses tire more perceptably. As a result, the margins tend to spread out a lot more like dirt races. So my technique would stop working and a more classic beaten lengths chart would work better.

The reality is that there is no real answer to measuring turf performance perfectly because "pace" impacts the margins and times in very complicated and different ways.

IMO measuring differences in time is different than measuring differences in ability. TG and other speed figures measure time. That difference and insight is not generally understood, but is a source of greater understanding of race results when it "clicks".

I hope that makes sense or at least gets your gears churning. :-)

This is obviously something I've given a great deal of thought to because I get more pleasure out of trying to understand the game than I do from betting on it. Some of the mysteries of turf racing are just starting to come together for me after years of less satisfactory results relative to dirt. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to translate greater understanding into greater profits. ;-)