Overrated Jockeys

[blackthroatedwind]

Overrated riders? I think that's redundant.

It's the same answer as the corny joke my father used to ask me every time we drove by a cemetary when I was a kid. " How many people are dead in that cemetary? "


All of them.

[blackthroatedwind]

But, by the way, there is probably no more overrated rider in history than Bejarano.

[Scav]

disagree deepthroatgas....

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Scav

disagree deepthroatgas....

Before I never waste my time answering you again I just want to check...are you making some sort of bad joke involving my screen name?

[Scav]

playing around yo.....I don't think you should disrepect jocks like that because what they do is extremely dangerous. While I have hatred towards some jocks, I still respect what they do. You stated that they are all overrated is a lack of respect for them, IMO...

[blackthroatedwind]

Who ever said I don't respect what they do? In fact, one of the people on your list of riders you like is one of my close friends. However, I believe that jockeys as a group are extremely overrated. They get way to much credit when they win and way too much blame when they lose. Their job is to not screw it up when they are supposed to win. A jockey is not measured by the handful of races he ( or she ) might win in a year due to extraspecial guile but are, in fact, measured by the number of races they screw up where they should have won. The lower the latter number the better the rider.

I honestly doubt Jerry Bailey would disagree with the previous paragraph and he was the best, and smartest, rider I have ever seen.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Who ever said I don't respect what they do? In fact, one of the people on your list of riders you like is one of my close friends. However, I believe that jockeys as a group are extremely overrated. They get way to much credit when they win and way too much blame when they lose. Their job is to not screw it up when they are supposed to win. A jockey is not measured by the handful of races he ( or she ) might win in a year due to extraspecial guile but are, in fact, measured by the number of races they screw up where they should have won. The lower the latter number the better the rider.

I honestly doubt Jerry Bailey would disagree with the previous paragraph and he was the best, and smartest, rider I have ever seen.

When said this way, I can respect your opinion. I do disagree with you though. The key to the statement is "smartest" because it takes a brain to ride.

This being said, Bailey, or any of the jocks I mentioned above aren't getting mounts because they are nice to the trainers or giving out reacharounds, they are getting mounts because of their skill and instincts.

The riders I mentioned, I know that 9 times out of 10 I will get a good ride out of them, that is all I can ask for.

[Scav]

Close to putting Jara on this list also because his recent rides have just been awesome. Better stock comes more wins, and he will be rollin in his Benz soon enough.

[blackthroatedwind]

Well, the question was " overrated jockeys ". I think one of the biggest mistakes people make is overrating the importance of riders.

Honestly, more than half the time I have no idea who is riding a horse I bet on, and have to check my paper as the horses are going into the gate ( you know, so I know what name to scream in vain after I inevitably lose ). The only riders I will not bet in NY, unless the horses are huge prices in which case I will even bet that recent absurd addition the the NY jockey colony Joel Cruz, are Diane Nelson and her male counterpart Herb Castillo.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Overrated riders? I think that's redundant.

It's the same answer as the corny joke my father used to ask me every time we drove by a cemetary when I was a kid. " How many people are dead in that cemetary? "


All of them.

I agree...on most occasions the horses dictate the outcome of the race, not the riders...There are a few races out there were riders visually make a difference but it is a minor percentage IMO...If one horse is typically three lengths faster than another horse and they race together and the faster horse has Tammy Fox on him and the slower horse has Angel Cordero - I'll still bet on the faster horse everytime...

Jockeys have a tough job, don't get me wrong....they have to be in immacualte physicval condition and they lay their bodies on the line everytime they exit the paddock on to the race track, but our sport's real superstars are the horses and not the jockeys....

Now, I do think a rider can ruin the outcome of a race, obviously, and it happens WAY more than they actually positively assist the outcome of the race...This is just reality and not me on a jockey-hating tirade...I actually respect jockeys a lot, but I am alos an owner and I see who pays for everything in this sport and who makes the money in this sport, which is no secret....

It's funny because I actually disagree with the original poster a little bit...I believe that Rafael Bejarano is the most talented and best rider in the game...Leparoux is a very solid up-and-comer but I like Rafael's athleticism more, and he is not scared to try on cheap horses, which many prima donas out there won't do....I believe Ramon Dominguez is the most UNDERrated rider in the country if that helps your original question, but they all probably get too much credit for their actions when one of their horses win IMO - but that is how the racing world is set up...the media can't interview the horse so the next logical figure they can latch onto as a 'star' is the jockey because they are interviewable (well some of them are)..LOL

[Scav]

off topic here but Mig doesn't lose on Allen Jerken's runners, think he is a little less then 50% on his mounts, was 4 for 10 and now 5 for 11 today....

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Scav

off topic here but Mig doesn't lose on Allen Jerken's runners, think he is a little less then 50% on his mounts, was 4 for 10 and now 5 for 11 today....

I would say it is a mutual admiration society.

[blackthroatedwind]

Basically, bettors use jockeys in a transparant attempt to veil their handicapping inadequacies. They blame them for losses when in fact it was more than likely a mediocre handicapping job ( hey, even good horseplayers don't handicap all the races well ). The truth is it is rare that you are absolutely cost money by a poor ride. And, more importantly, nobody ever seems to notice those few times when you cash simply because another rider buried his mount. I guarantee this happens MUCH more than you are cost a win by a poor ride. It's simply numbers.

But, also, people spend way too much time worrying about riders when attempting to handicap. It is a distraction and a complete waste of time and energy. Handicap the horses and hope for the best.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Basically, bettors use jockeys in a transparant attempt to veil their handicapping inadequacies. They blame them for losses when in fact it was more than likely a mediocre handicapping job ( hey, even good horseplayers don't handicap all the races well ). The truth is it is rare that you are absolutely cost money by a poor ride. And, more importantly, nobody ever seems to notice those few times when you cash simply because another rider buried his mount. I guarantee this happens MUCH more than you are cost a win by a poor ride. It's simply numbers.

But, also, people spend way too much time worrying about riders when attempting to handicap. It is a distraction and a complete waste of time and energy. Handicap the horses and hope for the best.

Yeah you're right, but when you are cost a win, it sucks.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

And, more importantly, nobody ever seems to notice those few times when you cash simply because another rider buried his mount.

Another thing that is well said.....My Laviollete theory is specifically to this, he buries ALL his mounts....

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

truth is it is rare that you are absolutely cost money by a poor ride.

I don't know about that...I can say that I've seen several rides that I firmly believe cost a horse a win or better placing, and NO - most of the time I don't have money on the horse (LOL)....you see riders hurt horses FAR more than you see them help horses...

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

I don't know about that...I can say that I've seen several rides that I firmly believe cost a horse a win or better placing, and NO - most of the time I don't have money on the horse (LOL)....you see riders hurt horses FAR more than you see them help horses...

I agree they hurt horses far more than they help them. This is true even for the best riders. They have to. It's very hard to really make that much of a difference on the positive side and not that hard to screw it up. Sure, we all lose bets we should have won, Mike Luzzi CLEARLY cost me a score in the finale Friday when I needed the favorite for a good Pick-4 hit when he buried him unnecessarily on the rail behind a bad speed going down the backstretch and ended up getting shuffled back to last before rallying to lose by just over a length, but what I guess I should have said is that riders cost the average horseplayer only a fraction of the beats they blame on them. And, as I did say, you will be the positive beneficiary of other bad rides much more often. That's just a numbers game.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I agree they hurt horses far more than they help them. This is true even for the best riders. They have to. It's very hard to really make that much of a difference on the positive side and not that hard to screw it up. Sure, we all lose bets we should have won, Mike Luzzi CLEARLY cost me a score in the finale Friday when I needed the favorite for a good Pick-4 hit when he buried him unnecessarily on the rail behind a bad speed going down the backstretch and ended up getting shuffled back to last before rallying to lose by just over a length, but what I guess I should have said is that riders cost the average horseplayer only a fraction of the beats they blame on them. And, as I did say, you will be the positive beneficiary of other bad rides much more often. That's just a numbers game.

Yeah, this is true....you'll lose some wagers on jocks poor rides when you probably had the best horse, yet every bettor out there has probably also benefitted by a bad ride on a horse in a race that they won....you're right...it is law of numbers, and riders CANNOT move horses up but can hurt their chances...this is one thing that jocks are at a disadvantage about due to the nature of the game, but surprisingly a lot of people don't understand this reality...

[blackthroatedwind]

If you ask riders, while they obviously would love to be on the favorite every race, they will tell you it is easier to ride big priced horses, in that there are usually no big expectations. On a big favorite their job is absolutely not to screw it up. On a price, they can take a chance and hope to get lucky.

[Habersham000]

Kent Desormeaux.....I won't bet horses anymore with him abord...just watch the replay from sundays 6th race at Belmont...had the best horse and loses because he sits wayyyy to far off the pace on a sprint and no horse can catch the winner even though he has much the best horse in the race....also his rides on Sweetnorthersaint in the triple crown were both terrible