Coa was originally scheduled and only switched off because of injury. Do you think Coa wins that race?

I think Coa loses.

You're making sense Hossy...stop it.

well big guy any jockey that has conrolling speed..has an advantage but mile smith is terrible the last 3 years on anything..id give his mounts to c hill before him....

Just a case of seeing something totally different. I saw a masterful ride, exhibiting the wire to wire skills on a turf route that I believe very few posses. There is no one in new york at the moment that can even execute top class efforts wire-to-wire on a turf route, and so often the opportunity arises. To me it was one of the better rides of the year, although it was definetly a niche ride, and not say a classic race on dirt. Rahy's Attorney was clearly the best in the race from my perspective. I couldn't see Coa, Gomez, Velasquez, or Prado win that race 2 times out of five with Mission Approved. I would expect them to fade out of the exacta at least.

I do respect your opinions and agree to disagree.

Was that a typo or you referring to his taking the overland route?

I love how much people think the jockey matters... there's two types of jocks to me, competent and incompetent. Coa and Dominguez are obviously both "competent."

Hooves's middle name is typo.

yes it is... arrrrrrrr the biggest hanger in ny..lol

If I may be so bold to ask...

In the board's opinion, what jockey is best a bringing
home horses that really should not be winning?

I never saw anything wrong with Channing. He just doesn't seem to get the mounts. If you give him a decent horse, he does fine.

there's no such thing. . .

So if a longer shot horse wins, the jockey can never have
a role in the win. Jockeys can only cause horses to lose?

Therefore the best jocks are the ones who screw up the least.

Pretty much. . . there's a difference between having a role in the win and being the reason for it, but no - a jockey can't make a horse - or at least his horse win.

So if a jock has to make a decision... ahhh lets say a turf race turning for home. And the best decision for winning consists of two options:
1. to stay closer to the rail and get trapped or wait for a hole to open up as horses tire and move
versus

2. swinging wide and having a clear run but possibly sacrificing the horses chances to win by running further and using more energy

So there is no way for a jock to make the right decision because the right decision is always a known at that very point in time when the decision is made. Or there is no such thing at a particular point in time for two possible decisons to both have equivalent values. It is always clear that one is better than the other at that point in time (ie not after the race is over)

So that in watching any race, if a jock has to make a decision, a good handicapper knows what that decision should be at that very point in time?

A jockey can make the right decision but he still needs the HORSE to pull it off. . . He doesn't make the horse win, he just gives the horse the opportunity to win.

So jockeys can make correct decisions or wrong decisions?

But they can't be the reason for the horse winning. . . They can be the reason for the horse not losing.