- This topic has 48 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Thank you, David. Perfect explanation.<br>Empty, Japanese horses often race against Europeans. Didn’t you follow the Dubai World Cup? Or recent Japan Cups? Or even last year’s Arc?<br>You can compare their form with European turf form. You can’t do the same with dirt and turf – anywhere. That’s why I’m looking forward to the adoption by America of artificial surfaces. Then we’re almost certain to get form crossovers which will make quality comparisons meaningful.<br>Meanwhile all I’m saying is that I’m unconvinced by the assumption of dirt supremacy. In fact I suspect turf racing is of higher quality. It’s my guess, as the official handicappers’ presentation of higher ratings to the dirt horses is theirs – and, it seems, yours. It can be nothing more.<br>Do you think Invasor could win the Arc? I don’t. We’ll never know though, will we?<br>Sorry if I seemed sarcastic. I thought you were trying to condescend. If not, let’s shake hands, virtually.<br>This is an interesting subject.<br>
(Edited by Zorro at 10:40 am on May 4, 2007)
Unless the horse runs in handicaps, then any sort of rating is much pretty irrelevant anyway, irrespective of whoever decides on the final figure.
Sorry if I seemed sarcastic.
Zorro, you haven’t. But, you, Empty and David have hightlighted what an impossible subject this is…nevertheless, still very interesting and fair play to you all for posting.
Quote: from Zorro on 11:16 pm on May 3, 2007[br]Thank you, David. Perfect explanation.<br>Empty, Japanese horses often race against Europeans. Didn’t you follow the Dubai World Cup? Or recent Japan Cups? Or even last year’s Arc?
think we’ll have to agree to disagree, before i say something i may regret
How you can conclude or assume turf racing is of higher quality, when as you say there’s been no crossovers to dirt to confirm the Dirt rating is lower is a bit of mystery,
Your logic does not compute
(Edited by empty wallet at 2:50 am on May 4, 2007)
Just as a trivial aside to this debate I’d like to bring your attention to the Chris Wall trained Cimyla.
So far in his career he has run 22 times of which only 13 have been on turf. He has raced on the Polytrack 8 times (3 at Wolverhampton, 4 at Lingfield and once at Kempton). He has also raced on Cagnes Sur Mer’s artificial surface.
He did run in Dubai this Spring but all three runs were on turf so he’s not run on dirt as such.
Tomorrow he contests the Mervyn le Roi Handicap (Gr.2) at Hollywood Park on their new Cushion Track surface.
It will be interesting to see how he gets on.
Empty, you use the word ‘conclude’. I used the word ‘suspect’. Not intellectual dishonesty I’m sure. I expect you just made a mistake.
(Edited by Zorro at 11:19 pm on May 4, 2007)
Quote: from Zorro on 11:18 pm on May 4, 2007[br]Empty, you use the word ‘conclude’. I used the word ‘suspect’. Not intellectual dishonesty I’m sure. I expect you just made a mistake.
(Edited by Zorro at 11:19 pm on May 4, 2007)
<br>
<br>I used the words "conclude or assume"
assume = a synonym for suspect as you probably know
Not intellectual dishonesty I’m sure, I expect you just made a mistake
(Edited by empty wallet at 2:42 am on May 5, 2007)
You have been misinformed, Empty. I’d chuck away that dictionary, whichever one it is. ‘Assume’ is not a synonym for ‘suspect’.<br>Why bother with a "synonym" – particularly an incorrect one – anyway? :)
Quote: from Zorro on 9:46 am on May 5, 2007[br]You have been misinformed, Empty. I’d chuck away that dictionary, whichever one it is. ‘Assume’ is not a synonym for ‘suspect’.<br>Why bother with a "synonym" – particularly an incorrect one – anyway? :)
Yes, Thesaurus must be wrong Zorro
<br>assume= without proof
suspect =with little or no proof
<br> maybe Online dictionary definitions are wrong too
<br>Bye now
<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 12:15 pm on May 5, 2007)
Well, Empty. Would you like to tell us which Thesaurus you are using because neither of your examples represents a definition or anything like it?<br>You do seem to demonstrate that there is a difference in meaning, which was the point I was making.
Bit childish this innit Zorro
As i stated earlier, we’ll have to agree to disagree
<br>Move on mate, i am, but if you want to check anyway it’s dictionary.com
<br>All the best
<br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.