chances mike smith off in the belmont

[RollerDoc]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

How the heck was he getting inside today? Is there like a magic word that tells everyone from the 3/8ths to get out of the way?

I thought Mike Smith did a great job on Mine That Bird. I know it is hypothetical but had Calvin Borel Rode MTB, could he have beaten RA? No disrespect meant to Mike Smith (because he rode my pick in the Derby, Chocolate Candy well).

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by RollerDoc

I thought Mike Smith did a great job on Mine That Bird. I know it is hypothetical but had Calvin Borel Rode MTB, could he have beaten RA? No disrespect meant to Mike Smith (because he rode my pick in the Derby, Chocolate Candy well).

No, cause he probably would have stayed on the inside and waited for a hole on the rail that never opened yesterday.
Mike Smith put the horse in a position to win, but he was just beaten by a better horse.

[SilentScreen]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

I can't imagine he'd pick Chocolate Candy over Mine That Bird.

He may already be committed to CC? Also, Madeo is scheduled to run in the Wittingham the same day.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Mike Smith gave a better ride today than Borel could have.

Today's race proved, once again, that horses win races and not riders.

To add to that I would say horses win races, whereas riders lose races.

[blackthroatedwind]

So would I.

The Beyer fig, I believe, is a 109.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Mike Smith gave a better ride today than Borel could have.

Today's race proved, once again, that horses win races and not riders.

How exactly is the 1st part true? You've never seen Borel come wide (or between) on a horse?

And, what exactly is the point of the 2nd part? You need to expand, please.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So would I.

The Beyer fig, I believe, is a 109.

For RA?

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by ELA

For RA?

yes,

MTB a 107

So yes he IMPROVED off that run in the Derby.

[peetsa]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i must be an idiot. cause if she's doing well off her two big efforts, i'd run her. either that, or if she seems to need a break, i'd head for 'toga and the travers with her.

I just don't think she has anything to prove, that's why I am against bringing her back in the Belmont against some new, fresh horses. I agree with your idea of bringing her back later on against the boys, but not in the Belmont.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by peetsa

I just don't think she has anything to prove, that's why I am against bringing her back in the Belmont against some new, fresh horses. I agree with your idea of bringing her back later on against the boys, but not in the Belmont.

i think that's an overrated part of the belmont. i also believe in running horses when they're ready to run. you're supposed to follow their schedule, not your own. if you're pointing to a race, and they show signs of not being ready, you don't run them. she's fit right now. if the oaks and preakness haven't taken anything out of her, there's no reason not to run her. as for nothing to prove, another thing you'll never hear from me about a racehorse. there's still plenty for her to do.

[VOL JACK]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Mike Smith gave a better ride today than Borel could have.

Today's race proved, once again, that horses win races and not riders.

If you are somehow trying to say that MTB would have still won the Derby without Borel.....you are WRONG.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by VOL JACK

If you are somehow trying to say that MTB would have still won the Derby without Borel.....you are WRONG.

I hope you are kidding as this kind of thinking is absolute crap and one of the best things about the Preakness is that this was proven. Mine That Bird won the Derby by seven lengths.

Now, if someone can prove that every other rider would have had him chasing the pace, and not last, then it's a different discussion. But, that's impossible to legitimately claim. Borel rode him well in the Derby.....but the horse won by seven lengths.

[richard burch]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

cuz gomez or someone who ran a rat may be available..mad props to jon white....potn..

...so sick of talking about gomez.

mike smith for president.

[VOL JACK]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I hope you are kidding as this kind of thinking is absolute crap and one of the best things about the Preakness is that this was proven. Mine That Bird won the Derby by seven lengths.

Now, if someone can prove that every other rider would have had him chasing the pace, and not last, then it's a different discussion. But, that's impossible to legitimately claim. Borel rode him well in the Derby.....but the horse won by seven lengths.

Thats exactly my point....Borel is the only one that rides like that.
I agree that it is Horseracing...not jockeyracing. However, I agree that MTB would have run a good race in the Derby whomever rode... But its a joke to think he would have won by 7 lengths if you take away the Borel tatics.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Mike Smith gave a better ride today than Borel could have.

Today's race proved, once again, that horses win races and not riders.

Originally Posted by CSC

add to that I would say horses win races, whereas riders lose races.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So would I.

Do you agree that some riders are more likely to "lose races" than others?

If you do agree that some riders are more likely to lose races than others, then whether you say riders win races or riders lose races is only a matter of whether you prefer insulting riders or praising them. Either way, you'd rather have one rider than another on your horse and either way, you will be adding some rider factor into your capping, right?

I guess I don't get the amount of disparagement heaped on the jockey's contribution to the race outcome.

--Dunbar

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SilentScreen

He may already be committed to CC? Also, Madeo is scheduled to run in the Wittingham the same day.

the commitment being called on madeo is keeping him from worrying about the other commitment to choc. candy. the mosses did him a huge favor i think.

[slotdirt]

I don't get it. Riding for the Mosses is great and all, but if you're a jock wouldn't you rather ride in the myriad of great races being run at Belmont that weekend than the Whittingham and a couple of minor affairs at Hollywood Park?

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Do you agree that some riders are more likely to "lose races" than others?

If you do agree that some riders are more likely to lose races than others, then whether you say riders win races or riders lose races is only a matter of whether you prefer insulting riders or praising them. Either way, you'd rather have one rider than another on your horse and either way, you will be adding some rider factor into your capping, right?

I guess I don't get the amount of disparagement heaped on the jockey's contribution to the race outcome.

--Dunbar

Obcourse a jockey influences your decision making process, however there's a difference in blinding picking a horse just because 'Jerry Bailey' is riding.

It's no secret I am not one of Mike Smith's biggest fans, however I can see through the bias to still bet a horse I like the price is right. Ie. alot of my plays in the preak were keyed on Mine That Bird, so in essence I did practice what I said.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Do you agree that some riders are more likely to "lose races" than others?

If you do agree that some riders are more likely to lose races than others, then whether you say riders win races or riders lose races is only a matter of whether you prefer insulting riders or praising them. Either way, you'd rather have one rider than another on your horse and either way, you will be adding some rider factor into your capping, right?

I guess I don't get the amount of disparagement heaped on the jockey's contribution to the race outcome.

--Dunbar

Fair enough, but I guess that sometimes I take for granted that people fully understand what is going through my head, so let me try to explain it. For the most part, the riders at the higher level tracks are extremely competent. Sure, some are better than others, but mostly their results are a function of the horses they ride, and thus since the better riders tend to get better mounts, they may appear better than they are due to the abilities of their mounts. When I look over a race for the first time, I take note of who is riding which horses and if this is a change from the previous rider(s). In most cases, at least in NY, the riders are good, so I don't worry about it and move on. In the few cases where the riders are weak, or there is a significant change one way or another, I make note of it and will refer back to it if the horse becomes one I am considering in my play. At the right odds, I don't care who rides a horse, as I am getting paid and am thus willing to take my chances.

So, what I am trying to say is that while clearly a rider can, and sometimes does, have an affect on an outcome, as horseplayers we can't control this, and have to hope for the best. Most of the time, we only notice riders when we perceive them to have screwed up. Much of this time, we are wrong, and are laying the blame in the wrong place. I feel similarly about when people praise riders, as most of the time they rode the best horse, or perhaps were in a position to take advantage of a given situation, and the simple fact is that most of the riders ( at least in NY ) would have given the same good ride. I mean this as a compliment to the group, not an insult to the individual, and this is perhaps what I have failed to get across.

Simply put, I feel riders get too much credit for winning, and WAY too much blame for losing. That is why I say they are in an ultimately unenviable position, as even the best ones lose over 75% of the time.

[the_fat_man]

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.