I believe this one.

[Indian Charlie]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...r-breeders-cup

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...r-breeders-cup

If he comes over for the BC, he should be in the Classic. I know I'm going against the opinion of the great Tom Amoss, but I think he'll handle dirt fine.

But back to reality, he's quickly become the UK answer to Zenyatta. Despite talk of the Derby, the Juddmonte International, etc., he still hasn't run further than a mile. I expect more of the same next year. 4 or 5 starts at a flat mile and done.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

If he comes over for the BC, he should be in the Classic. I know I'm going against the opinion of the great Tom Amoss, but I think he'll handle dirt fine.

But back to reality, he's quickly become the UK answer to Zenyatta. Despite talk of the Derby, the Juddmonte International, etc., he still hasn't run further than a mile. I expect more of the same next year. 4 or 5 starts at a flat mile and done.

I expect him to be mated to 100 mares next year.

I could easily be wrong on that though.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

If he comes over for the BC, he should be in the Classic. I know I'm going against the opinion of the great Tom Amoss, but I think he'll handle dirt fine.

But back to reality, he's quickly become the UK answer to Zenyatta. Despite talk of the Derby, the Juddmonte International, etc., he still hasn't run further than a mile. I expect more of the same next year. 4 or 5 starts at a flat mile and done.

What makes you think he will handle dirt or 1 1/4?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What makes you think he will handle dirt or 1 1/4?

Tom Amoss thinks he can't.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Tom Amoss thinks he can't.

You may not like him for whatever reason but there is zero evidence that Amoss is wrong. The horse is by a 100% turf sire out of a Danehill mare. Danehills runners were amazingly bad on the dirt considering how great of a sire he was. Not to mention Frankel's dam was a sprinter and that Cecil doesn't even try to stretch him out on turf let alone dirt.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

If he comes over for the BC, he should be in the Classic. I know I'm going against the opinion of the great Tom Amoss, but I think he'll handle dirt fine.

You couldn't muck Tom Amoss's stalls

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You may not like him for whatever reason but there is zero evidence that Amoss is wrong. The horse is by a 100% turf sire out of a Danehill mare. Danehills runners were amazingly bad on the dirt considering how great of a sire he was. Not to mention Frankel's dam was a sprinter and that Cecil doesn't even try to stretch him out on turf let alone dirt.

Tom Amoss's opinion was based on the horse's stride (I think in his 3yo debut), which seems shaky ground to stand on, as the surfaces in UK are not consistent, even, etc. and certainly not comparable to anything in the USA. Had he been watching the horse galloping on the main track in preparation for the Kentucky Derby or something, then his opinion would hold more water.

As for reasons why he could handle dirt:

As far as the pedigree, I don't think we've seen any Galileo's on dirt. Galileo himself ran on dirt in the '01 BC Classic, splitting the field while beaten about 7 lengths. Include, Aptitude, and Orientate finished behind him. He certainly didn't move up on it (which is not what I was suggesting with Frankel), but it's not like he eased the way horses like Steinlen, Dylan Thomas, etc. were. Danehill stood in Ireland and Australia. Why would he have a bunch of dirt runners? I presume that most of his offspring that tried were Euros in a one-off dirt attempt in the BC or similar.

Frankel has speed. His run-off type style in Europe may prevent his connections from stretching him out there, but the popular generalization in this country is that you need to have speed to be competitive. Might not be necessarily so for the Churchill surface, but his frontrunning speed would be an asset for the transition to dirt.

Frankel is better than everyone else (at least in the UK) if you buy into his reputation. Nothing about the BC Classic would be ideal for him (shipping, surface switch, different style of racing, longer distance, no time to adapt, etc.), but he could be the type of horse that overcomes those things because of the talent level. A similar argument as to why Zenyatta should have come out of her comfort zone more often in '09 and '10.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Tom Amoss's opinion was based on the horse's stride (I think in his 3yo debut), which seems shaky ground to stand on, as the surfaces in UK are not consistent, even, etc. and certainly not comparable to anything in the USA. Had he been watching the horse galloping on the main track in preparation for the Kentucky Derby or something, then his opinion would hold more water.

As for reasons why he could handle dirt:

As far as the pedigree, I don't think we've seen any Galileo's on dirt. Galileo himself ran on dirt in the '01 BC Classic, splitting the field while beaten about 7 lengths. Include, Aptitude, and Orientate finished behind him. He certainly didn't move up on it (which is not what I was suggesting with Frankel), but it's not like he eased the way horses like Steinlen, Dylan Thomas, etc. were. Danehill stood in Ireland and Australia. Why would he have a bunch of dirt runners? I presume that most of his offspring that tried were Euros in a one-off dirt attempt in the BC or similar.

Frankel has speed. His run-off type style in Europe may prevent his connections from stretching him out there, but the popular generalization in this country is that you need to have speed to be competitive. Might not be necessarily so for the Churchill surface, but his frontrunning speed would be an asset for the transition to dirt.

Frankel is better than everyone else (at least in the UK) if you buy into his reputation. Nothing about the BC Classic would be ideal for him (shipping, surface switch, different style of racing, longer distance, no time to adapt, etc.), but he could be the type of horse that overcomes those things because of the talent level. A similar argument as to why Zenyatta should have come out of her comfort zone more often in '09 and '10.

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

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

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.

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.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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

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

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.

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.

But to be fair as much as it pains me to side with Flippo.. If 90% to 95% of Galileo's and Danehills were trained and raced in NZ and Europe why would their few failures be relative? If Stormy Atlantic was a stallion in Europe we would never had considered that a Stormy could be OK on dirt.

Frankels speed is beyond 24 second loose on the lead euro stuff that horse is friggin fast, That colt can run a 22 sec quarter on dirt tomorrow for fun

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

But to be fair as much as it pains me to side with Flippo.. If 90% to 95% of Galileo's and Danehills were trained and raced in NZ and Europe why would their few failures be relative? If Stormy Atlantic was a stallion in Europe we would never had considered that a Stormy could be OK on dirt.

Frankels speed is beyond 24 second loose on the lead euro stuff that horse is friggin fact, That colt can run a 22 sec quarter on dirt tomorrow for fun

There is a reason why they are sucessful stallions in those locations. It isnt because they would throw dirt types. Stormy Atlantic raced exclusively on dirt so it isnt that big of a stretch would it?

[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.

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...r-breeders-cup

... meaning you believe he will actually come over?

I'm not being rude Charles just asking if that's what you mean.

I don't think he'll come for a second but what do I know?!

[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.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

... meaning you believe he will actually come over?

I'm not being rude Charles just asking if that's what you mean.

I don't think he'll come for a second but what do I know?!

The likelihood of Frankel running in the BC this year are about the same as GP making it into the HOF.