Why don't horses and greyhounds run on synthetic tracks?

A horse track is like running on a plowed field that has been harrowed and tightened up with a firm base underneath.

A Polytrack is still basically treated sand etc.

It's more for consistency in all conditions than a totally different "feel" that they were going for.

Neither are surfaces that anything but a serious CC specialist is going to relish.

In people races, we now expect perfect conditions of track and weather and expect near world records in every race. The horse model is much more sustainable. It is a pure race. If running were marketed as pure races, it would be much more healthy as a spectator sport.

Case: 1964 Olympics in Tokyo. Billy Mills won the 10k on a wet clay track. Same for Bob Schul. Anybody know the times? Mills set an Olympic record that today would not get you into the Olympic Trials. These are still some of the greatest races ever run and a real pleasure to watch. By contrast, watch K. Bekele set the 5000m WR. BORING! Just a guy running by himself in "perfect" conditions.

WhyDontPeople wrote:

In people races, we now expect perfect conditions of track and weather and expect near world records in every race. The horse model is much more sustainable. It is a pure race. If running were marketed as pure races, it would be much more healthy as a spectator sport.

Case: 1964 Olympics in Tokyo. Billy Mills won the 10k on a wet clay track. Same for Bob Schul. Anybody know the times? Mills set an Olympic record that today would not get you into the Olympic Trials. These are still some of the greatest races ever run and a real pleasure to watch. By contrast, watch K. Bekele set the 5000m WR. BORING! Just a guy running by himself in "perfect" conditions.

People don't remember Mills because he won. They remember because he set a huge PR and made up a huge deficit on the final lap. Has nothing to do with winning.

Many reasons

1. COST:

Redoing a horse track would be at least 20 times more expensive than a human one, probably more. Note a horse track is about 2000m long! It is at least 20 human lanes wide as well.

2. DAMAGE to the TRACK:

Horses weigh so over 1000 lbs. I know the damage a car does to a road is on the order of weight^4. If we applied the argument here, assuming the average runner weighs 150lbs, a horse does 2000 times more damage to the track than a human does. The synthetic track simply wouldn't last.

3. DAMAGE to the HORSES:

This has already been mentioned but race horses are artifically selected for speed, not durability, a hard track would hurt the horses.

WhyDontPeople wrote:

In people races, we now expect perfect conditions of track and weather and expect near world records in every race. The horse model is much more sustainable. It is a pure race. If running were marketed as pure races, it would be much more healthy as a spectator sport.

Case: 1964 Olympics in Tokyo. Billy Mills won the 10k on a wet clay track. Same for Bob Schul. Anybody know the times? Mills set an Olympic record that today would not get you into the Olympic Trials. These are still some of the greatest races ever run and a real pleasure to watch. By contrast, watch K. Bekele set the 5000m WR. BORING! Just a guy running by himself in "perfect" conditions.

Bekele's record runs are awesome. I disagree with you that they're boring, because he was going for it all the way. However, the many slow jogfests and waiting for kicks are more boring than watching a rock lay an egg.

They remember because he won. in other words. Most people would be unaware that he set a PR and making up a deficit is really only memorable if you win.

Zatopek made up a huge deficit in the '48 Olympics to get silver but nobody remembers him for that.

Gary Oldman wrote:

just chiming in wrote:

People don't remember Mills because he won. They remember because he set a huge PR and made up a huge deficit on the final lap. Has nothing to do with winning.

They remember because he won. in other words. Most people would be unaware that he set a PR and making up a deficit is really only memorable if you win.

Zatopek made up a huge deficit in the '48 Olympics to get silver but nobody remembers him for that.

No, not in other words. Those are different statements and ideas. You have terrible reading comprehension.

Gary Oldman wrote:

Zatopek made up a huge deficit in the '48 Olympics to get silver but nobody remembers him for that.

That is exactly why people remember him.

What if K. Bekele had crossed the line in 12:40.92? Just a fast solo effort that came up short (not even a National Record) that no one would really remember. But when El Guerrouj had to fight off Noah Ngeny and they both broke the old WR, that was a race for the ages. If EG and Ngeny had run 3:44.45, it would still have been a spectacular race. Much like the London 10000m where it was anybody's race until 300m to go, but still very fast.

wtf?.......................... wrote:

Gary Oldman wrote:

Zatopek made up a huge deficit in the '48 Olympics to get silver but nobody remembers him for that.

That is exactly why people remember him.

I'm pretty sure people remember him for his three gold medals four years later.

Gary Oldman wrote:

The breeding is important to maintain the highest level. Very important.

I can only speak for American style racing but look how long Zenyatta raced.

It actually doesn't change much unless a horse like that races much more often.

You would need to see a horse campaign like an iron horse to really draw interest.

People lose interest if even the greatest champion only races twice a year or so.

The last two geldings that won the Derby here had high expectations for lengthy careers and they both fizzled despite the best intentions of turning them into the next John Henry.

But what is the point if they retire before their peak, especially for the best horses. A four year old horse is superior to a 3 year old which is why they give them a weight allowance. They could at least go to 4 then retire and the few that broke a a leg would not make much difference to the gene pool.

One reason they retire early is that the biggest races - eg the triple crown ones-are all restricted to 3 year olds. Same over here with the Derby. You just realise a horse is good the its retired

Does someone know hy do American horses race on dirt rather than turf?

just chiming in wrote:

Gary Oldman wrote:

They remember because he won. in other words. Most people would be unaware that he set a PR and making up a deficit is really only memorable if you win.

Zatopek made up a huge deficit in the '48 Olympics to get silver but nobody remembers him for that.

No, not in other words. Those are different statements and ideas. You have terrible reading comprehension.

I do when I'm trying to decipher your terrible point. Especially the "has nothing to do with winning" clincher.

But not too many horses coming back at 4 really do justify that decision.

The Breeders cup Classic is a bigger race than the Derby.

American horse race on dirt because they have a much higher number of races per year over the track and they have to train on it too.

Think of what Ascot would look like if it was used for 8 races a day for months on end and training in the morning.

Plus the European climate is more favorable to lush grass growth with less maintenance.

Another point for fast races, the faster the better.

Polly Track wrote:

Curious about tracks wrote:

What are those surfaces like to run on?

I am not a horse.

Nor am I.

Dog racing is vile, evil, cruel, and immoral. Learn more about it and rescue a greyhound. If you live in one of the few states where it isn't yet illegal, write your representatives to ban it.

Because no-one gives a sh*t about records.