Just in case anyone still thinks Prado can ride

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

[hockey2315]

Yup. . . it's not jockey racing.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Yup. . . it's not jockey racing.

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

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Yup. . . it's not jockey racing.

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.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by pgardn

So if a jock gets lucky and makes 3 good decisions during a difficult race ......

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

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

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.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

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...

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

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

You gave me a half a credit for number 3 and none for the others. OK for #2 means noted, but no soup for you.
So basically there is nothing kent D. could have done to lose the K. Derby on Big brown. I thought it was a bit more difficult than that.

You are a tough one.
Its that evil pope avatar.