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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

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.



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



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.



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.

I guess I buy into the stride thing because I see it everyday. Perhaps you dont want to believe it but it is rare when a turf horse that you dont think can run on the dirt actually can. And the high leg action is absolutely secondary to the hind end movement. Turf horses can have sloppy hind end movement because they hold the surface longer regardless of how soft or firm it is. On dirt that action leads them to struggle or slip and subsequently tire quicker.

I appreciate your bold stance but Freddy agreeing with you pretty much dooms your theory not to mention there is zero chance that Cecil runs him here.