Coa was originally scheduled and only switched off because of injury. Do you think Coa wins that race?

I think Coa loses.

You're making sense Hossy...stop it.

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....

Just a case of seeing something totally different. I saw a masterful ride, exhibiting the wire to wire skills on a turf route that I believe very few posses. There is no one in new york at the moment that can even execute top class efforts wire-to-wire on a turf route, and so often the opportunity arises. To me it was one of the better rides of the year, although it was definetly a niche ride, and not say a classic race on dirt. Rahy's Attorney was clearly the best in the race from my perspective. I couldn't see Coa, Gomez, Velasquez, or Prado win that race 2 times out of five with Mission Approved. I would expect them to fade out of the exacta at least.

I do respect your opinions and agree to disagree.

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

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."

Hooves's middle name is typo.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Yup. . . it's not jockey racing.

They do have jockey racing at Saratoga if you are into that sort of thing though.

I prefer that bikini racing thing at Hollywood. . .

That chick smoked them this year. Last year was much better though, when the leader went down after opening up a huge lead.

Thats the way I always looked at it. But I really thought that the jock had much less impact than I would read on this board.

So Jerry Bailey would be considered a top ex-jock because he gave many of his horses a chance to win. And giving a horse a chance to win involves more than just making the correct decisions. It also involves knowing the horse and the competition in each race... or each big race for Bailey. And also knowing if your employers are crazy in what they expect. Or knowing that many of the fans who had money on your horse and are screaming at you dont necessarily know what they are talking about.

Unless they were 2-5 at the SPA, then they were screwed.

Or the jock should consider the jeering crowd idiots for betting on an animal at 2-5.

Unless it was a two horse race and the other horse had 3 legs.

Reverse her trip with Trouble Maker and TM buries Jazzy. Do you have an comprehension of how much an ADVANTAGE drafting INSIDE on the turf is? Jazzy got a FREE RIDE till midstretch. Story West is 'dueling' outside; Trouble Maker is wide, WITHOUT COVER, chasing, the entire race; and Waquoit's Love circles the field. Jazzy sucks along; gets clear at the ideal instance, and can't get up against horses that ran A LOT MORE than she did.

This is an EASY RACE to trip.

If you can't see this clearly, then I'm particularly pleased that you're part of the 'competition'. :rolleyes:

Post of the year for me!!

I defy you to name this happening just once, ever, anywhere!

Kent D. Kentucky Derby.

1.Got the horse out of the gate quickly as told.
2.Moved the horse across a majority of the field going into the 1st turn.
3.Kept the horse wide the whole race so he would not run into
any trouble until clear in the stretch.

1. Credit the horse.
2. OK.
3. So, basically do nothing. I'll give you half a credit on that one.

1. He could have run the horse inside much sooner. The horse was allowed to maintain a pretty straight run.
3. The horse was asked to run at the appropriate time also.

And how the heck do you give me half credit if you only accept 1 out of 3 premises? Give me 1/3 of a credit. Or 1 out of a possible 3 credits...

Since the half of a credit I was giving you was clearly on point three, it only pertained to point three. Hence, half credit on point three, not on the total.

Your standards are pretty low if you are saying that asking a horse to run a pretty straight run counts as a 'good' ride. To me, that's more an instance of not messing things up.

If you have the best horse, and don't need to take unecessary risks to win, isn't that the objective of a good ride?

I suppose that is one way you could define it.

To me though, that attitude is one of very low expectations (which I have, strangely enough!) from jockeys.

I'd like to think that a good ride is one in which the jock has to react to something, or out think his opposition. Getting a speed horse to the lead or keeping a closer out of a traffic jam is more of a common sense ride in my book.

I mean, really, would you call it a good ride anytime a need the lead sprinter gets sent so he gets two?

In the situation where the jockey is NOT on the best horse, and would need a few things to go right for them to win, I would agree with you (such as hustling a horse with a pace advantage in a field devoid of speed). In the situation where the jockey has the favorite and doesn't need that racing luck/advantage, just let the horse do the work of winning if he's good enough or losing if he isnt.