Is "Liking the Surface" At Churchill Overrated?
 

One of the reasons that I like Street Sense, Circular Quay and Any Given Saturday so much in the Derby is that all are proven over the Churchill strip. But as I look back at past Derby winners, it seems that you have to go back to Lil E Tee to find a Derby winner that had won a race prior to the Derby at Churchill. Am I putting too much stock into the fact that a horse is proven to "like the surface" at Churchill?

I think it's somewhat overrated in that just because a horse won a race over the track as 2-year-old doesn't mean he's going to run well over it in the Derby. It becomes almost a totally different track on Derby day. However, if you have a horse like Street Sense, who trains at Churchill, whose trainer is based at Churchill, whose rider knows the track inside and out and will be riding there all week before the Derby, then I think that certainly counts for something.

No you're not. One problem has been however that taking to it or not taking to it has been random with those that make their first start at the Downs. It is frequently 'breakaway' cuppy and certain feet/action grab it and certain ones don't. But having experience over it, or at least having worked over it, is still a big plus to me in the Derby picture. The claim that the strip horses work on leading up to the Derby isn't the same as Derby Day is nonsensical.

When Mike Smith told me beore '05 that he expected a big try from Giacomo after his strong Santa Anita workout the Monday of Derby Week, one of the points he stressed was "all he needs to do is take to the surface"..

I agree. It's certainly an angle that shouldn't be dismissed.
2 years ago, Don't Get Mad LOVED Churchill. He ended up winning the Derby trial, then wheeled back 1 week later and finished 4th (I believe) in the Derby.
I think you have to get SS credit for his BC win there, and you have to give CQ credit for his races there, as well as the long stretch to help him weave through traffic.

What you want to watch out for is the horse who has trained and/or raced badly at CD. Horses who make heavy work of it getting over the surface, instead of moving smoothly. Skip Away never did run his race at CD, but could trounce the same horses elsewhere. It's like off tracks - it's not that some move up, it's that some absolutely can't run in it.

A better way to look at it is probably to focus on the years where the BC was at Churchill:

1988 BC Juvy
Is It True - DNR
Easy Goer - 2nd in Derby
Tagel - DNR

1991 BC Juvy
Arazi - 8th in Derby
Bertrando - DNR
Snappy Landing - 17th in Derby

1994 BC Juvy
Timber County - 3rd in Derby
Eltish - 6th in Derby
Tejano Run - 2nd in Derby

1998 BC Juvy
Answer Lively - 10th in Derby
Aly's Alley - DNR
Cat Thief - 3rd in Derby

2000 BC Juvy
Macho Uno - DNR
Point Given - 5th in Derby
Street Cry - DNR

Tough call, 1992 was obviously a disaster but otherwise the horses hitting the board in the BC Juvy have done fairly well when running in the Derby although they have produced zero Derby winners.

I think the claim that the track isn't messed with a ton on Oaks and Derby day is nonsensical.

I think the fact that some horses love and have run well there plays alot into who I like. It is a fact in the past that some very, very nice horses run like crap there. Holy Bull being one of the biggest. Mike said he hated the track and I think he proved it Derby day. But the fact that SS trains there and won the BC there is just one small reason I love him for the Derby. And if CQ had run anytime in this century, I would have played him also. But the time off is just alittle to much for me.

nope.
as usual, kasept is right.

And hope that Bellamy Road gets injured and Afleet Alex has a bad trip. What I don't understand is why a trainer would not want to have at least one workout on the track before the Derby if his horse has never been on it just to familiarize the horse with the surface and see if the horse takes to it. What is your take on that Steve?

A very thorough and convincing argument.

I think those questions have to be presented to Gene Stevens first.

Wait, is the crux of Steve's argument based on something Mike Smith told him?

IMO the " he hated the track ", unless there is moiture involved, is at best the most ridiculous and overused argument in racing. It's phucking dirt.

But what if the dirt is "cuppy"?

That's an entirely different story.

If a trainer says the track was cuppy that's a euphamism for " my horse sucked ".

You've never been so lucky.

[quote=Kasept]The claim that the strip horses work on leading up to the Derby isn't the same as Derby Day is nonsensical.

QUOTE]

I have to disagree. Yes, they are still working/running on the Churchill Downs main track. However, to suggest that the "souped-up" race track that typically rears its ugly head on Oaks/Derby Day is the same grade, etc., as the track that horses train over in the weeks prior to the Derby is ignoring the obvious. And the fact that Street Sense and few others are currently on the grounds suggests that the trainers (especially Barclay Tagg) give an awful lot of credence to this "claim."