Tennis, anyone?

American racing called Curlin its Horse of the Year in 2007, and it might do so again in 2008. North America's all-time money winner is a lock for the Racing Hall of Fame.

But what will we call future Curlins? Dirt track specialists?

In the very recent past, Grade 1 wins on dirt were the gold standard of American horse racing, and the Breeders’ Cup was viewed as the sport’s defining championship event.

Now racing has three distinct surfaces – dirt, turf, and synthetic – and the Breeders’ Cup will be held on Santa Anita’s synthetic Pro-Ride surface for the second consecutive year before a return to fabled Churchill Downs in 2010.

The situation reminds me a little bit of tennis, where grass, clay, and hard-court surfaces reward different skill sets and create different kinds of stars.

The great U.S. tennis player Pete Sampras won 14 Grand Slam events, but when he took to a clay court, the slower surface dulled his 140 mph serve and powerful forehand. Are synthetic tracks racing’s version of the clay court?

In general terms, grass racing rewards finishing ability. Dirt racing rewards early pace, the ability to carry speed, and the perseverance to run through kickback.

We don’t really know what the synthetic tracks reward because they are so new and until the current American experiment, have never been a venue for quality horses. It's still too early to draw conclusions, but it seems the synthetics require more stamina than a dirt track, while decreasing the importance of pure turn-of-foot.

Some of the synthetics have shown pronounced closer biases. On those surfaces, back in the pack and five-wide in the stretch is the place to be. Others, like Hollywood Park’s Cushion Track, at times resembles dirt racing in that early speed and tactical position is an advantage.

Despite grass racing’s popularity with gamblers and fans, turf horses have long been viewed as second class in America. “But he’s a turf horse,” is still a commonly used argument to shoot down the Eclipse chances of grass performers.

When Wait a While was voted champion three-year-old filly of 2006 largely on the strengths of a turf campaign, I hoped it was a breakthrough in how we view turf horses. If American racing could embrace synthetic tracks and all their quirks, I thought we might reconsider turf's second-class treatment.

Steve Asmussen, who trains Curlin, questioned the result of the first synthetic Breeders’ Cup Classic, where Curlin finished a disappointing fourth, by saying, “It was a turf race.” Some saw Asmussen’s comment as sour grapes, but many racing fans agreed with the underlying sentiment – that the result was something less than true.

With the Breeders’ Cup’s embrace of synthetics and all the major tracks in California going artificial thanks to a government mandate, some of our most important races are being run on synthetic tracks.

And so I ask you: Should synthetic results be held in the same regard as dirt results? Is having three surfaces a good thing, or will racing be better off if the top tracks all went dirt or synthetic? Which way would you go? And where do you rank turf racing in the hierarchy?