Just in case anyone still thinks Prado can ride - Page 3

Linny · #41 06-26-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

well big guy any jockey that has conrolling speed..has an advantage but mile smith is terrible the last 3 years on anything..id give his mounts to c hill before him....

Was that a typo or you referring to his taking the overland route?

philcski · #42 06-26-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

That's silly. Coa had been aboard the horse for 3 of his previous 5 wins, including 2 paceless, alone on the lead wire to wire wins.

I love how much people think the jockey matters... there's two types of jocks to me, competent and incompetent. Coa and Dominguez are obviously both "competent."

blackthroatedwind · #43 06-26-2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linny

Was that a typo or you referring to his taking the overland route?

Hooves's middle name is typo.

hoovesupsideyourhead · #44 06-26-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Hooves's middle name is typo.

yes it is... arrrrrrrr the biggest hanger in ny..lol

#45 06-26-2008, 12:53 PM

If I may be so bold to ask...

In the board's opinion, what jockey is best a bringing
home horses that really should not be winning?

ateamstupid · #46 06-26-2008, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

well big guy any jockey that has conrolling speed..has an advantage but mile smith is terrible the last 3 years on anything..id give his mounts to c hill before him....

I never saw anything wrong with Channing. He just doesn't seem to get the mounts. If you give him a decent horse, he does fine.

hockey2315 · #47 06-26-2008, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgardn

If I may be so bold to ask...

In the board's opinion, what jockey is best a bringing
home horses that really should not be winning?

there's no such thing. . .

#48 06-26-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey2315

there's no such thing. . .

So if a longer shot horse wins, the jockey can never have
a role in the win. Jockeys can only cause horses to lose?

Therefore the best jocks are the ones who screw up the least.

hockey2315 · #49 06-26-2008, 01:25 PM

Pretty much. . . there's a difference between having a role in the win and being the reason for it, but no - a jockey can't make a horse - or at least his horse win.

#50 06-26-2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Pretty much. . . there's a difference between having a role in the win and being the reason for it, but no - a jockey can't make a horse - or at least his horse win.

So if a jock has to make a decision... ahhh lets say a turf race turning for home. And the best decision for winning consists of two options:
1. to stay closer to the rail and get trapped or wait for a hole to open up as horses tire and move
versus

2. swinging wide and having a clear run but possibly sacrificing the horses chances to win by running further and using more energy

So there is no way for a jock to make the right decision because the right decision is always a known at that very point in time when the decision is made. Or there is no such thing at a particular point in time for two possible decisons to both have equivalent values. It is always clear that one is better than the other at that point in time (ie not after the race is over)

So that in watching any race, if a jock has to make a decision, a good handicapper knows what that decision should be at that very point in time?

hockey2315 · #51 06-26-2008, 01:45 PM

A jockey can make the right decision but he still needs the HORSE to pull it off. . . He doesn't make the horse win, he just gives the horse the opportunity to win.

#52 06-26-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey2315

A jockey can make the right decision but he still needs the HORSE to pull it off. . . He doesn't make the horse win, he just gives the horse the opportunity to win.

So jockeys can make correct decisions or wrong decisions?

hockey2315 · #53 06-26-2008, 01:52 PM

But they can't be the reason for the horse winning. . . They can be the reason for the horse not losing.

#54 06-26-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey2315

But they can't be the reason for the horse winning. . . They can be the reason for the horse not losing.

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.

hockey2315 · #55 06-26-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

#56 06-26-2008, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey2315

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.