Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
What evidence is there that Lammtarra would be able to be a grade 1 type horse on the dirt? Far more europeans have failed miserably than have succeeded on the dirt. It is a pointless argument because you are basing your opinion on total speculation. I for one am not willing to concede that Lammatarra's turf talent would translate to dirt and as i have pointed out i am not so sure that he was more than a really good turf horse either. How you can determine that Lammtarra was a more talented horse than Bernardini was based upon what we know is beyond me. I also never said anything about "terrible". It WAS a weak crop, since when is weak=terrible?
|
Weak, terrible its all semantics. Same implication. You call the horses he beat "good" and then say it was a weak crop. Okay...I dont get it but maybe that is tainer speak.
What evidence was there that Sakhee would do so well? How about Dubai Millenium or Giants Causeway? Before they raced on dirt, how would you have known? To the really good ones, it often times doesnt make a difference.
Some people have this opinion that horse racing is divided up and the sports are completely different. Im not of this opinion. To me, horse racing is horse racing. They are all bred in the same place regardless of where they race.
Lamtarra showed me more talent on the track than Bernardini did. Whether it was on dirt or turf is immaterial in my opnion. But accomplishments? Those three wins (epsom, king george, arc) in starts 2,3,4 are things that Bernardini coudlnt have matched.