So if a jock gets lucky and makes 3 good decisions during a difficult race (crowded or some other scenario) and the horse wins... handicappers should say he allowed the horse to win. One would never conclude (if a jock made multiple correct decisions in a number of tough spots) that a horse could not have won if it were not for those correct decisions.

You're looking at it backwards, though. It's not about the jockeys. . . the jockey may have given his horse the best chance to win - but he didn't/can't win it. On the contrary, superior horses can overcome an inept ride. A jockey can't make a bad horse win (unless the rest of the horses are worse or their jockeys make mistakes). Jockeys are like refs/umpires - they can only make mistakes - they're supposed to make the right calls.

Ok that analogy fits.

basically a jock or a ref cant win. They just should not screw up. Not screwing up does not equal winning, making good decisions is not winning, its just allowing the game to be played as it should.

So basically it is an impossible job to please people who have some stake in the outcome. Just go unnoticed (dont screw up) and you have done your job.

Yup. . . it's not jockey racing.

They do have jockey racing at Saratoga if you are into that sort of thing though.

I prefer that bikini racing thing at Hollywood. . .

That chick smoked them this year. Last year was much better though, when the leader went down after opening up a huge lead.

Thats the way I always looked at it. But I really thought that the jock had much less impact than I would read on this board.

So Jerry Bailey would be considered a top ex-jock because he gave many of his horses a chance to win. And giving a horse a chance to win involves more than just making the correct decisions. It also involves knowing the horse and the competition in each race... or each big race for Bailey. And also knowing if your employers are crazy in what they expect. Or knowing that many of the fans who had money on your horse and are screaming at you dont necessarily know what they are talking about.

Unless they were 2-5 at the SPA, then they were screwed.

Or the jock should consider the jeering crowd idiots for betting on an animal at 2-5.

Unless it was a two horse race and the other horse had 3 legs.

Reverse her trip with Trouble Maker and TM buries Jazzy. Do you have an comprehension of how much an ADVANTAGE drafting INSIDE on the turf is? Jazzy got a FREE RIDE till midstretch. Story West is 'dueling' outside; Trouble Maker is wide, WITHOUT COVER, chasing, the entire race; and Waquoit's Love circles the field. Jazzy sucks along; gets clear at the ideal instance, and can't get up against horses that ran A LOT MORE than she did.

This is an EASY RACE to trip.

If you can't see this clearly, then I'm particularly pleased that you're part of the 'competition'. :rolleyes:

Post of the year for me!!

I defy you to name this happening just once, ever, anywhere!

Kent D. Kentucky Derby.

1.Got the horse out of the gate quickly as told.
2.Moved the horse across a majority of the field going into the 1st turn.
3.Kept the horse wide the whole race so he would not run into
any trouble until clear in the stretch.

1. Credit the horse.
2. OK.
3. So, basically do nothing. I'll give you half a credit on that one.

1. He could have run the horse inside much sooner. The horse was allowed to maintain a pretty straight run.
3. The horse was asked to run at the appropriate time also.

And how the heck do you give me half credit if you only accept 1 out of 3 premises? Give me 1/3 of a credit. Or 1 out of a possible 3 credits...

Since the half of a credit I was giving you was clearly on point three, it only pertained to point three. Hence, half credit on point three, not on the total.

Your standards are pretty low if you are saying that asking a horse to run a pretty straight run counts as a 'good' ride. To me, that's more an instance of not messing things up.

If you have the best horse, and don't need to take unecessary risks to win, isn't that the objective of a good ride?

I suppose that is one way you could define it.

To me though, that attitude is one of very low expectations (which I have, strangely enough!) from jockeys.

I'd like to think that a good ride is one in which the jock has to react to something, or out think his opposition. Getting a speed horse to the lead or keeping a closer out of a traffic jam is more of a common sense ride in my book.

I mean, really, would you call it a good ride anytime a need the lead sprinter gets sent so he gets two?

In the situation where the jockey is NOT on the best horse, and would need a few things to go right for them to win, I would agree with you (such as hustling a horse with a pace advantage in a field devoid of speed). In the situation where the jockey has the favorite and doesn't need that racing luck/advantage, just let the horse do the work of winning if he's good enough or losing if he isnt.