I didn't have the pleasure of knowing the guy. I can't tell you anything about his horsemanship. I have a friend who knew him very well and he introduced us once (at Saratoga). I went there for the NYSS. I ended up meeting Nick Zito who owned a piece of a trotter. He was a super nice guy, real, down to earth. Anyway, Chuck seemed like a very nice guy, well-spoken, articulate, expressive, and definitive. I didn't spend enough time with him to call him controversial or opinionated. As far as I am concerned, he was a nice guy. I enjoyed meeting him and spending some time with him. I do remember my friend saying that Simon was transitioning from being a racetrack trainer (with a stable) to more of a farm trainer who specialized in lay-ups, rehabs, training back, etc.
Regardless, when I hear the term "super" trainer, in today's day and age, I hear it in the context of these super-high percentage trainers who shoot unbelievable numbers, produce eye opening results, massive form reversals, improvements, and so on. Being a critic of these huge, massive stables is one thing, and being a critic of the "super" trainers may be two very different things. Can a trainer be both? Sure. But each can be mutually exclusive as well. I think the massive stables you probably see more in the thoroughbred game, but "super" trainers are in both. There have been some very interesting articles about "super" trainers in the thoroughbreds.
