I think that even someone as dominant in his sport as Lance Armstrong would admit that if his team, those 'working' for him, don't get him to the key point in a race in the right way, then he basically has little chance of winning. Put another way, if any number of competent cyclists, with a talent level below that of Armstrong, are gotten to a key point in the race in a 'better' way than Armstrong, chances are, they'll beat him. Now, obviously, much planning goes into getting the star the best possible setup. And Armstrong is thus able to win more than he loses. Not nearly as much goes into getting a horse a good setup, however. In the sense that a jockey has a major portion of the control over whether a horse gets the proper setup, then, a jockey can significantly affect the performance of a horse in a race; both positively and negatively. As such, I pay close attention to the strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies of the jockeys in the circuits I follow, and I definitely consider the jockey when I bet. There are jocks I just won't bet -- it's just not worth the aggravation. There are others I'll bet less than my normal amount on. And there are those I'll bet with confidence. In fact, I do more handicapping of jocks than I do of trainers. Bad trainers typically ride bad jocks, it seems. Of course, trainer stat handicappers would disagree.
|
05-19-2009, 04:15 PM
Threaded Mode