Grass tracks or dirt?
May 1st 2008 07:10
The Beatles or The Monkees? (I know this question usually relates to the Beatles or Rolling Stones, but there was also a subgroup of individuals broadening the debate from English styles to States United. And this suits the purpose and point that I wish to make. So let’s continue).
Pink Floyd or Toto? (okay, maybe The Eagles instead). Gangsta rap or Brit Punk?
For me it is always easy to choose The Clash or Billy Bragg with their political angst and satirical comment against the likes of Fifty (though I think I have to write: 50) Cent (and no plural...it makes no cents...).
For me there is an affinity with the British in matters music. For me there is an affinity with the British in matters racing. This weekend, May the third, the Kentucky Derby will be run at Churchill Downs in Kentucky. Although one of the great races of the world, it does not have (in my opinion) the same allure and attraction as an Epsom Derby on the undulating and irregular grass track at Epsom. It is The Beatles versus Monkees debate all over again.
Dirt track racing is neat and packaged. A home straight, back straight and two turns. I love the twists and turns of the British racetracks. The undulations, rise and dip, as horse and rider require unison to find success.
I prefer grass track racing over that of dirt. As a spectacle it allows for closer racing and it appears a more natural environment for horses. When wet and heavy from rain the grass track becomes soft, but still allows for a better spectacle than the mud and slush of rain soaked dirt. We all know the recipe: add water to dirt and we get mud. Add water to grass and we get?: Wet grass (and some mud).
A tiring horse on a rain affected dirt track will weaken alarmingly, and there are often great spaces between the finishing positions. The tiring horse appears unable to ‘hang on’ when racing on dirt and once a spent force it will weaken to an obvious and dramatic degree.
Perhaps once again it is just a matter of aesthetics. The beauty of turf and the natural surrounds. The idiosyncrasies of European racing with horses racing in the shadows of Chantilly Castle, or racing over the natural undulations of Epsom Downs.
It is only a preference I suppose. But to prove my point I am providing a link to the 2007 Epsom Derby and the 2007 Kentucky Derby. You can judge:
Pink Floyd or Toto? (okay, maybe The Eagles instead). Gangsta rap or Brit Punk?
For me it is always easy to choose The Clash or Billy Bragg with their political angst and satirical comment against the likes of Fifty (though I think I have to write: 50) Cent (and no plural...it makes no cents...).
Dirt track racing is neat and packaged. A home straight, back straight and two turns. I love the twists and turns of the British racetracks. The undulations, rise and dip, as horse and rider require unison to find success.
I prefer grass track racing over that of dirt. As a spectacle it allows for closer racing and it appears a more natural environment for horses. When wet and heavy from rain the grass track becomes soft, but still allows for a better spectacle than the mud and slush of rain soaked dirt. We all know the recipe: add water to dirt and we get mud. Add water to grass and we get?: Wet grass (and some mud).
Street Sense winning 2007 Kentucky Derby
A tiring horse on a rain affected dirt track will weaken alarmingly, and there are often great spaces between the finishing positions. The tiring horse appears unable to ‘hang on’ when racing on dirt and once a spent force it will weaken to an obvious and dramatic degree.
Perhaps once again it is just a matter of aesthetics. The beauty of turf and the natural surrounds. The idiosyncrasies of European racing with horses racing in the shadows of Chantilly Castle, or racing over the natural undulations of Epsom Downs.
It is only a preference I suppose. But to prove my point I am providing a link to the 2007 Epsom Derby and the 2007 Kentucky Derby. You can judge:
| 41 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
