I think Del Mar should be on the list. JMHO
***Snozberry Float And Billie Bound Would Love Your Shed Vote***
Well, ya know, Santa Anita always ranks high and does get the Breeder's Cup races as a result. I've been there, but have been to Del Mar too. Considering everything, including the good looking women, I had more fun at Del Mar.
Arlington Park and Del Mar are the top of my list.
Arlington Park has a beautiful facility and superb paddock and Del Mar has the scenery and lots of eye candy ;)
Without a doubt ... it is Keeneland. I think the fact that the experts even consider it number one tells me that this site just lost credibility or they are playing to the casual base.
Yes, I think Keeneland should have been added to the list of choices, and probably Del Mar as well.
<<< Ending a longtime tradition of no public-address system, Keeneland race track uses an announcer to call the races for the first time during the spring meeting. >>>
I think this was around 1997. I wonder why they didn't use a track announcer before then? This is a beautful track that I'd like to visit someday. I understand that the seating capacity is under 4000. This after a remodel job in 1953. To get the recognition of a track such as "Santa Anita ( "example only ") you need much more seating, so that you could request that the Breeder's Cup races are held there. This in no way is a knock on Keenland.
I understand that most of the racetrack scenes from the Seabiscuit movie were filmed here. Since there have been little noticable changes since opening day in 1936.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Quoting a new member :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
<<< Without a doubt ... it is Keeneland. I think the fact that the experts even consider it number one tells me that this site just lost credibility or they are playing to the casual base. >>>
I don't understand. Can you explain? On the surface, I don't agree with your statements.
I am biased for sure having grown up going to Keeneland but its the fact that it has the smaller crowd capacity and the southern charm that makes it my favorite! Voted for Churchill because it is the home of the Ky Derby and has the same southern beauty. Plenty of two-legged eye candy as well, as going to the track is considered a highly social outing and ladies tend to dress to the 9's. Home of the Kentucky dimes!! So all you gentleman take note!
I think for the most part most of these votes will be biased ones because not everyone has visited all of these tracks, that being said since im a west coast guy i voted for Santa Anita but i agree with the others who say Del Mar should be considered in here as well....
Have only been to Hollywood Park, Churchill Downs, Santa Anita and Saratoga and I have to say that Saratoga was outstanding and in a really great setting too...As for the best course in the world well its a toss up between Mooney Valley in Victoria Australia, Ellerslie in Auckland NZ (my home track) and Saratoga. In a blanket finish give it to.........Mooney Valley home of the WFA Championship of the world, The WS Cox Plate 2040 meters, A$3,500.000.
If you are considering beauty i'd say it's a toss up between Keeneland Racecourse and Saratoga. For History and pagentry it has to be Churchill Downs, not just simply because of the Derby. I would have you consider the fact that {now I love Keeneland, worked the sales there for 20 years, but they had to change the track to syn.}Churchill Downs is still good old Ky dirt. I'll admit that i have never been to SA{but it is also , or was some kinda syn.} Every track mentioned has its good qualities......Happy Racing!
Several years ago, The California Horse Racing Board forced synthetic tracks on California, saying they were safer than dirt, with hardly any data to go along with their claims. Today, they realise they made a mistake and are allowing these same tracks to go back to dirt at their discretion. Santa Anita is now back to dirt. I hope HRF realises this and has dirt in their game for Santa Anita. Instead of synthetic. I mentioned this to them, with no response.
You say, Keenland had to change to synthetic. Why???? I bet it was the same folks promoting their synthetic surfaces. Not just here in California. Santa Anita had lots of serrious drainage problems with synthetic. Golden Gate Fields (across the Bay from San Fancisco ) has their own version of synthetic and I haven't ever heard of any problems there.
The place is just absolutely beautiful.
Bill
An Ceilteach Múchadh Cobhsaí
The Fighting Celt stable
But with that said I know CA was forced to go syn. but that now SA has changed back to the good old dirt surface . I think the people who instituted this rule did not do the proper research before hand. After several years of studies , it was found that the syn surfaces DO NOT really keep horses from breaking down. It actually is not the track surface that is the problem , it is the inbreeding of the Thoroughbred racehorse. The more that they inbreed the less bone and that is the factor more than the track surface. ( I may no longer live in Kentucky, but i still subscribe to the Bloodhorse). It was not Ca 's fault as much as the powers that be who wanted the track surfaces to change.
To answer your ? about why Keeneland changed the surface, I really did not hear a actual reason. But I can agree with Tigereye that they should return the surface to dirt and turn off the PA system, it was more fun before.... Happy Racing!
I am sorry i guess i did not word that right .. I mean that Keeneland changed from dirt to some type of syn.(I guess i was being sarcastic) Sorry! The only problem that i heard about with the surface at Keeneland(before they went syn) was it was a deep track. Horses with long pasterns had a tendency to run down an burn their ankles.
Again so sorry. Happy Racing!
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Quoting another member :::::::::::::::::::::::::::
<<< I did not say they had to just that they did.... >>>
Not trying to start an arguement, but If you go back and re-read yoru original post, you'll see that you did say that they had too. The reason for my inquiry. Not really thta big of a deal. Just curious.
California had to switch to synthetic because of the California Horse Racing Board's mandate. Either change, or you don't have a license to race. Our county Fair tracks were exempt because they raced less than 14 days a year. All tracks that raced longer had to comply.
The studies were and always have been necessary. But, to put our misleading information (lack 0f data)was wrong. The tracks shouldn't have been forced to switch to synthetics. Period.
When you say it wasn't California's fault, it was the powers that be's fault. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Now, at their option, they can go back to dirt. Who's saying this??? The powers that be? Or, the California Horse Racing Board. Aren't they one and the same. This board is appointed by the governor of California. Bo Derick is one of their newest members. That would take some explaining.
The powers that be .....{in my opinion} Were and are people like Frank Stronach, and the other that have control of the racetracks. Thank God Kentucky has been fighting the casino's. Hopefully what happened he won't happen there or god forbid Calif. This is what has happened in Pennsylvania,,,, there is a Racetrack 30 miles from where i live in western pa,{it just happens to be a Standardbred track} they have an off track betting parlor there, on Derby day they used to have a big promo and activities , bands and such .... then came the Casino. The racetrack has been there for years yet they did not even promote the Derby last year. I went there every year , but never again ,, they are to worried about their Table games and Slots.. I Am sure there are alot of others that will never go back... this year i am going to try ,eeeeeeeeeeeeeekkkk Mountaineer { not the best track but the closest thoroughbred track}
Ah yes the SPA. I went there this past summer. A trip back in time. It made me feel like I was in a time machine going back in the old days, before all the new and modern shopping mall racetracks of today. I am from Ontario Canada. Woodbine and Fort Erie. I love the Fort. Woodbine is the mall. All our big races are at Woodbine ,were Fort Erie is the 'B' meet, and really struggling to survive. But the Spa, well it's a place were even a non-horseracing person would end up cheering and getting into it. Gonna try to go back next year.
may all your horses be winners
Bob 'King Tut' Tutton
A great place to watch the top races. Huge track, huge plant. Binocs a must but no track can handle a big crowd like Belmont park.
Saratoga, Belmont, Churchill, Santa Anita all nice tracks for horses but for people Del Mar the whole way!
SA & DMR are great places with good racing, but SAR & BEL have better horses and SAR is like go to the Louvre of horse racing.
I race real horses and anyone who is anyone wants to run and win at Saratoga that in itself is enough.
Comments Legend
The headings of our comments provide additional information about the user that made the comment. The legend below explains the different colored headings you will find while reading the comments.
You can join the conversation by creating your free account. It only takes a few seconds.