Chop Chop moves tack to SoCal

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You could write a similar article about practically ever jockey out there with the exception of the few who have been on top the whole time. You could write similar articles about Gryder, Douglas, Solis, Smith, Pincay, Stevens, etc.

You could use the same drama in every story: Laffit Pincay was the leading rider in the country but he fell on hard times. He lost all his business. Nobody could figure out what the problem was. He was finally forced to take his tack up north to the Bay area. But then Pincay came back to Southern California with a new outlook and he got hot again.

Aaron Gryder was riding high in Southern California but he lost his bug and his business was hurting. He was forced to move to the mid-west where he found new life. He had a whole new outlook. Then he went to New York where he found incredible success and was one of the leading riders for several years. Maybe he got complacent, nobody knows but he was slowly losing most of his business and it finally got to the point where he was lucky to crack the top 5 at the inner-dirt meet. The once-successful rider was on a downward spiral. But now he has new life. he decided to move his tack back to Southern California and top trainers such as Jeff Mullins have welcomed him with open arms. He has new life now. The up and down career of Aaron Gryder is on the way up again.

Gary Stevens was the leading rider in the country. He won 3 Ky Derbies and even won the Eclipse Award. But he fell on hard times. People questioned whether he still had the fire in his belly. They questioned whether he could still ride with his bad knees. They questioned whether he was more interested in his movie career than his riding career. He was once the toast of the town on the So Cal circuit and now his business was so bad that he was forced to move to Kentucky. In Kentucky, he found new life. He was riding for top stables such as Patrick Biancone and was near the top of the standings. He had a whole new outlook. He was going out in the mornings again. The up and down career of Gary Stevens was looking up again.

I could write the same thing about another 20 jockeys. That is the life of most jockeys. They're hot for a while then they fall out of favor and nobody wants to ride them. Then they are forced to start working harder and have to start going out every morning. Then they get hot again and things pick up again. Welcome to the life of a jockey.

Sure you could say the same things about twenty jockeys. But those twenty jockeys wouldnt be the fastest to 4500 wins. The same jockeys wouldnt have the awards or the stature. Very few do. Stevens is one of them. Pval is one of them. Lafit was one of them. Aaron Gryder certainly isnt.

But why are you trying to twist and turn? Why dont you just admit that you were wrong and get on down the road?

My contention was that Kent's problems were more political than ability. Obviously, some people in print agree with me. What do you have to back up your position besides bull****?

My contention was that the riding colonies in So Cal and New York are not comparable. I have backed up my position with facts. What have you done? The same BS style.

Is it possible for you to back up anything that you say? Why continue?

Anyone that has an informed opinion knows what happened with Kent in So cal. Anyone with an informed opinion knows that the jockey colony in So Cal is a far cry from what it use to be and that it isnt even close to NY anymore. Why kill your crediblity over something so inane?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Sure you could say the same things about twenty jockeys. But those twenty jockeys wouldnt be the fastest to 4500 wins. The same jockeys wouldnt have the awards or the stature. Very few do. Stevens is one of them. Pval is one of them. Lafit was one of them. Aaron Gryder certainly isnt.

But why are you trying to twist and turn? Why dont you just admit that you were wrong and get on down the road?

My contention was that Kent's problems were more political than ability. Obviously, some people in print agree with me. What do you have to back up your position besides bull****?

My contention was that the riding colonies in So Cal and New York are not comparable. I have backed up my position with facts. What have you done? The same BS style.

Is it possible for you to back up anything that you say? Why continue?

Anyone that has an informed opinion knows what happened with Kent in So cal. Anyone with an informed opinion knows that the jockey colony in So Cal is a far cry from what it use to be and that it isnt even close to NY anymore. Why kill your crediblity over something so inane?

I told you I would be honest with you when I started getting some opinions from horsemen. I just got off the phone with a big racing manager/bloodstock agent out here who is at the track every morning. Here is his opinion: He agreed with you about Kent's ability. He thought that Kent was good as anyone at one time. He thought that Kent had a ton of natural ability. He thinks the problem was that Kent started to overanalyze every race and was always trying to get too cute and ride the other horses in the race. He said his attitude has rubbed some people the wrong way. He says that Kent has a pretty big ego.

So he did agree with some of the things you have said. However, he also agreed with what I have said. He doesn't think it's so much a matter of politics. He thinks that Kent doesn't ride that well any more. He thinks that instead of using his natural ability like he used to, that he overanalyzes races and tries to get cute and ends up giving sub-par rides. My opinion differs from this guy in that he thinks that Kent was a great rider at one time. I don't think he was ever great. Me and him both agree that Kent does not ride great any more. He thinks its' more mental. I think it's physical and mental. I don't think he ever had the physical ability of guys like Stevens, McCarron, Bailey, etc.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I told you I would be honest with you when I started getting some opinions from horsemen. I just got off the phone with a big racing manager/bloodstock agent out here who is at the track every morning. Here is his opinion: He agreed with you about Kent's ability. He thought that Kent was good as anyone at one time. He thought that Kent had a ton of natural ability. He thinks the problem was that Kent started to overanalyze every race and was always trying to get too cute and ride the other horses in the race. He said his attitude has rubbed some people the wrong way. He says that Kent has a pretty big ego.

So he did agree with some of the things you have said. However, he also agreed with what I have said. He doesn't think it's so much a matter of politics. He thinks that Kent doesn't ride that well any more. He thinks that instead of using his natural ability like he used to, that he overanalyzes races and tries to get cute and ends up giving sub-par rides. My opinion differs from this guy in that he thinks that Kent was a great rider at one time. I don't think he was ever great. Me and him both agree that Kent does not ride great any more. He thinks its' more mental. I think it's physical and mental. I don't think he ever had the physical ability of guys like Stevens, McCarron, Bailey, etc.

Fair enough! And what he said I would agree with hands down. As far as riding well, he is just much more inconsistent now. He does try to ride other horses too much at times. At times it works incredibly well (see ticker tape in the american derby) and at times it fails miserably when it is unnecessary.

He is riding better than he has since 2001 right now. He just isnt getting the top mounts again yet. His ROI right now is off the charts at Saratoga. As for physical ability, you mention bailey and he has much more natural ability than Biailey did. Bailey would be the first to tell you that he wasnt that gifted naturally and that most of his success came through hard work. Kent is about as natural and instinctive as they come.

Either way, its been fun. Thanks for the feedback.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Fair enough! And what he said I would agree with hands down. As far as riding well, he is just much more inconsistent now. He does try to ride other horses too much at times. At times it works incredibly well (see ticker tape in the american derby) and at times it fails miserably when it is unnecessary.

He is riding better than he has since 2001 right now. He just isnt getting the top mounts again yet. His ROI right now is off the charts at Saratoga. As for physical ability, you mention bailey and he has much more natural ability than Biailey did. Bailey would be the first to tell you that he wasnt that gifted naturally and that most of his success came through hard work. Kent is about as natural and instinctive as they come.

Either way, its been fun. Thanks for the feedback.

I'll talk to the other guys in the next couple of days and tell you what they say. They've been in NY for the last few days for the yearling sale. I'll talk to them when they get back.