I believe this one.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

A horse stride doesnt change that much from surface to surface.

The physical mechanics are similar, but from a visual standpoint, you don't think there's a difference between how a horse moves on an undulating, uneven, straightaway versus a banked, manicured, left-handed oval?

Does anyone really buy into that turf stride/wide foot stuff anymore anyways? Barbaro couldn't run on dirt, either, because he had high-knee action more suitable for turf racing.

European turf speed is not even remotely close to what he would face in a BC race.

I agree, but me and Mo think he has more "American type" speed than a typical Euro frontrunner.

Galileo's dont dirt. Danehill's dont dirt. Danehill was a spectacular success as a stalion and I dont believe ever even have a minor stakes winner on the dirt anywhere. The ones that have tried here have failed miserably. George Washington and Oratorio.

Again, they have had limited opportunities (because they are European-based stallions). Galileos excel at 12f in Europe. Frankel's half-brother, who also shows front-running speed, won a group race at 11f. It's conceivable Frankel can stay 10f in the US. Oratorio was a 2nd stringer. George Washington ran well in the '06 Classic considering he had never raced further than a mile and was in tight quarters when making his move around the far turn. He buried several good US runners in that race. Dianehill was a multiple winner on dirt, including a stakes, placed in several graded dirt stakes in CA.

Zenyatta wasnt a question mark at the distance or surface. If you say that she should have tried a turf mile at Ascot you might have a better analogy.

I knew it was a risk mentioning Zenyatta. It wasn't supposed to be perfectly analogous. Point was that you have a "once-in-a-lifetime" horse. They are supposed to (or at least should be given the opportunity to) do once-in-a-lifetime things.