The Surrey Spring Racing Week c. 1970

This is a pretty mundane racing week, but used to be quite different week altogether for many decades. I think it started to change in the late '80s. This is not a whinge by a boring old fart but just an indicator of just how things have changed.

The Spring Epsom meeting used to be 3 days, starting on the Tuesday. The meeting was held up by the dual pillars of two good quality handicaps. The first is still run, and that is the City and Suburban Handicap over 10f. In those days it was a prestige race and in fact in 1969 Karabas won it (Group 1 winner: look him up). The other handicap was the delightfully peculiar 18f Great Metropolitan Handicap, which started at the finishing post with the horses then running back up the straight before turning right across the Downs after about 300m, before rejoining the course near the Derby start. In its earlier days it was won by plenty of great horses, but by my youth was mainly contested by horses who were on the edge of races like the Chester Cup plus a few hurdler/flat horses. Both these races attracted Ante-Post betting and were seen as a sort of 'flat Spring double'.

Alongside them were two Classic Trials over 8.5f. For colts there was the Blue Riband Trial Stakes and horses such as Blue Peter, Premonition, Vienna, Pretendre, Caliban and Roland Gardens won it before going on to greater things. It was seen as both a Guineas trail and a Derby Trial. In 1971 it was a Group 3 race, but demoted to Listed in 1986. The fillies equivalent was the Princess Elizabeth Stakes run over the same distance for fillies. Although reasonable 3yo fillies ran in it and won it (it was also a Group 3 race), it did not quite have the success of the colt's equivalent. Today a race has the same name and is run for 3yos and older fillies at the Derby meeting.

This race was augmented in the '70s by a further 12f Derby Trial called The Warren Stakes. This had decent horses run in it and often a horse if successful in this would next take on one of the bigger Derby Trials. Either this race or a 'morphing' of it with the Blue Riband is run today over 10f as the Investec Derby Trial Stakes.

The Epsom cards were then filled with plenty of handicaps, 2yo races (the Rules of Racing then were that each card had to have a 2yo race) and some other maidens. A perfectly delightful meeting if it was a good Spring.

On Friday, racing moved to Esher and on that day it was an all-jumps card at Sandown, called Grand Military Day. On Saturday, it was a flat card, with the exception of the Whitbread Gold Cup.

And the whole week was televised (well 4 of the 6 races) on ITV.

 

Agreed. Apart from having to possess the ability to win a G1 12f race, a horse must have the balance to run well at Epsom. A lot of horses have a conformation more suitable to flat tracks and could never run to their full potential at Epsom. One would hope that conformation is one of the key factors a trainer looks at when considering a horse for an Epsom Derby. So basically, if a horse is well balanced and doesn't have a preference to go right handed, if it's good enough it will win. Otherwise, being good enough may not be good enough for an Epsom Derby. Nothing can beat making sure though by running at the track or a similar track before hand. Lingfield is the closest in terms of characteristics but Brighton is fairly similar if I recall correctly.

 

Is it more important to give a horse a sighter of a track, than have it compete in a much more competitive and better race as a prep? I would go for the latter, and hope the horse handles the course.

 

Actually, I wouldn't even run a horse in the Derby unless I was totally confident that it had the right conformation. Being able to assess movement on undulations would be of paramount* importance to me, whether it be on or off the track; it wouldn't need to be in a race.


* PS. As would the ground conditions.

 

I agree Ron, the race is overrated in my opinion and the racing calendar offers other opportunities to showcase ability. I would much prefer the race run at a different track as I do not believe breeders breed for Epsom and so the idea that to handle the track shows a true champion is a fallacy. In my view the Derby should be run at Royal Ascot on the Saturday along with an older horse mile and half race on the same card, with the idea that the winners of each would meet in the King George in July.

If you watch tomorrows card at Epsom you will plainly see a number of horses will not act upon the course and I do not feel that this is then a course that we should use to crown our best middle distance 3 year old.

I used to live close to Epsom some years back and often walked the course when there was no racing, the uphill climb is quite an effort even at a brisk walking pace I can tell you.

 

This is all interesting stuff. Each year when the Derby rolls around, the characteristics of the Epsom course again gets an airing. There can be no doubt that it can be the undoing of some horses. The twists and turns, dips and rises and that run to the finish can sure sort the wheat from the chaff. I've heard it said that winning the Derby can take so much out of some horses, that they never again reach their optimum. That maybe so, but that only runs a line through what for me makes a champion. And the "champion" tag is something we've wrestled with as well. The colt who wins the Derby might go on to be awarded the Champion 3 Year Old Title. At a guess, I suppose a heap of them do, but for me, it's more of a lighter weight, breeding accolade.

I don't think champions come along all that often. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Sea The Stars, Frankel and Kauto Star who in the last half dozen years, deserve the true champion status. So I think to blame the Epsom course and the Derby for not throwing up regular champs is a bit stiff. Obviously you good folk would know better than I if those that fight out the Derby finish are the best of their generation. I think that they probably are. I find it a bit hard to believe that the horse that wins the Derby would have finished down the track if the race was held at Ascot. Horses that can't handle the multi-dimensional facets of racing, have chinks in their armour. No horse is bullet proof, but true champions can take more hits than the average animal. Will we see another Sea The Stars or Shergar emerge this year, probably not, but I think the winner will take a serious swing at the best 3 year old if the year. It's also true that Ascot would give a larger percentage of the field a better chance because it's more forgiving, but what's wrong with a course that asks a horse to cover more bases and still give them a beating? Epsom is the home of the Derby. For me, it's one of the strengths of this Blue Riband event. Aintree helps give the Grand National that extra something special, and Epsom does the same for the Derby.

 

I wouldn't argue with that Cyc. The course is a true test of a horse's ability to handle just about everything and only a well balanced horse can handle everything. A horse that isn't balanced has to compensate somewhere and obviously that affects performance; at worst it could cause injury. A good Derby winner that can also win at Ascot/Longchamp against top opposition is almost certainly a well balanced horse and therefore is beneficial to a breeding program. I've never studied the conformation of a horse but I have studied dog conformation and the principals are the same. A well balanced horse will also stay further with less effort and be a more comfortable ride. The sprinter needs instant acceleration but doesn't need to maintain speed for so long and therefore a different conformation is required. Sorry if it's getting boring.

 

If you owned a horse good enough to run in the Derby, you would run it in the Derby. The value of that race, for breeding let alone prizemoney, means it is the pinnacle of a 3YO colts career.

 

Agreed Nass; if it was good enough and I was sure it would act on the track. But if it hasn't the conformation to handle the course I wouldn't risk the horse (or its stud value); I'd go for the French and/or the Irish equivalent (time gap permitting), the King George and the Arc. That would do me nicely.

 

I agree with all of that, but I'd also add Harbinger to that list of recent Champions.

 

Harbinger was a one race wonder. STS, Frankel, New Approach were not.

 

He could have been a contender

 

I am not sure I could call Harbinger a champion either TC. He certainly looked as though he had the potential to be a champion but sadly never raced again after his impressive King George. In my opinion no horse could ever be called a champion on only one piece of form, no matter how good that one piece is. We all know that racing throws up freak results due to ground, tactics etc and so more than one piece will always be needed.

It's always hard to evaluate form over different years, for instance See the Stars I feel was not competing in a vintage year but nevertheless left enough form to be claimed a champion. Another with one or two exceptional pieces of form but little in depth is Dubai Millennium and I am never sure how I feel about him, whether he was a champion or just a good horse.

It's also of note that Dubai Millenium flopped on the Epsom course and yet shone wonderfully at Ascot, Is this a reason to say he is not a champion as he could not take to the course at Epsom also? or do we belive that when on a flatter and fair track such as Ascot he was brilliant. Would we suggest the champions league final be played on a bumpy pitch to assess the players ability to cope with the variation? or would we say if playing football lets ask the players to do it on a surface fit for it? We could argue the same with racing. As we are asking horses to race lets ensure the surface allows them to do this efficiently.

 

Dubai Millenium did't stay 12f Blue