|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
01-19-2008, 02:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Castro no good?
That's a joke. A couple bad weeks to start Gulf. He can ride.
Name someone, anyone, who is either 23 years old or off the bug just 18 months who has done what he has. Pretty short list. Thanks for the laugh. 
|
|
#2
01-19-2008, 02:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I had no idea how many winners he was lucky enough to have been given the mount on. He could have won fifty races so far for all I know. Hell, Norberto Arroyo won three races the other day. There were probably people that thought that makes him a good rider. Forget about the fact that he got DQ'd on another easy winner because of his ineptitude and blew the 8th race by a head on a horse three lengths the best. He was lucky enough to have been put on five winners. He won with three of them. He sucks. Just like Eddie Castro. He sucks. He has absolutely no savy. He sends into needless speed duels. He doesn't know the definition of saving ground or waiting patiently. He's a minor league rider. Period. Laugh all you want. He's a B or C level rider that happens to ride in a place that gets some A horses ( and A riders ) during the winter because of the weather. He's a complete amateur.
|
|
#3
01-19-2008, 02:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm laughing a bit harder now.
I think he's good. And getting better. Is he top 5-Saratoga quality (or however else an "A" rider is so defined)? No, not yet. I don't know many 23 year old riders who are especially savvy or who do not go through a period of having their inexperience exposed vs a very good group of riders. He's better than Talamo, better than Rose, better than Mike Baze, better than Garcia. He is no Norberto Arroyo.
|
|
#4
01-19-2008, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You're a loyal person to your surroundings. I respect that. I think it's an admirable quality.
He's an amateur. Maybe he'll get better. It's possible. He will have to begin riding completely differently than he rides now. He might. Right now he's a hinderance to the chances of any horse he rides. I'm sure he gets many very live mounts at Calder. He probably wins with many less than he should. He's bad.
|
|
#5
01-22-2008, 02:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
He hasn't ridden Calder full-time for two years. Just late Nov/Dec like a lot of the better ones. Don't be fooled by a few weeks of this meet. Check his numbers for '07 including Monmouth, Belmont fall and how he finished '07 in $$ won. Very good young rider on his way up.
|
|
#6
01-22-2008, 02:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But, like you said, he's young. So even in disagreeing with you about his riding I can certainly agree that he has time to improve. I also admit that I'm hypercritical of riders.
|
|
#7
01-22-2008, 02:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I don't think this is true. Anyone who watches races closely over a period of time, be it someone who has ridden, trained or otherwise, realizes what works and what doesn't work. Not only in terms of winning races and strategy but also in terms of abuse to the horse, and, flat out common sense. And, as the subtleties of the race riding part of the game reveal themselves, the small margin between winning and losing becomes apparent. And it gets annoying, to say the least, when jockeys not only screw up repeatedly on the 'little' things but continually make glaring errors. The game itself is incredibly behind the times. Other sports have coaches and support staffs that spend countless hours watching tape and planning strategy. Racing has a (more often than not clueless ---I write this confidently as these guys continue riding back jocks that blow races, costing them money) trainer giving instructions to an even more clueless jockey, while the jockey agent does everything BUT watch tape and offer advice as to how to improve. How can this model ever be successful or anything but frustrating? I'm at the point these days where I just pass races in which I like a horse being ridden by a screwup jock, and, sure enough, the jock screws up. It's that obvious.
|
Hybrid Mode
