Double standard?

[Tim Y]

Horses run and horses win races. ANY competent jockey has less than 10% effect on the outcome when ridden well, even the best of them: a Pincay, Bailey or currently Ramon Dominguez etc.

Horses can be disastrously handled by a poor ride: getting used up, wide, trapped in tight, moved too early.... a myriad of reasons as, for example the WORST ride in a major contest I ever saw: Forty Niner's Breeder's Cup Classic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oksnqhosh8

A known front running, classic distanced horse, this one was a prompter to Winning Colors in the Derby, right on the pace in the Preakness, was the pace in beating Strike the Gold in both the Haskell and the Travers. NOTHING on that track (Churchill Downs) moved up from anything inside the three path all day (rail trips by every race, save Gulch, proved to be costly) so Krone takes this one back, goes RIGHT ON the rail letting the rival he looked in the eye in his Summer triumphs go and then tried to make a single run after strangling the competitiveness out of this very good three year old.

Let the horse run, Let the horse's style go, just KEEP him in his game plan and don't INTERFERE with the horse. That is what Krone did and the horse suffered a miserable defeat when the had quite a chance to do well.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Tim Y

Horses run and horses win races. ANY competent jockey has less than 10% effect on the outcome when ridden well, even the best of them: a Pincay, Bailey or currently Ramon Dominguez etc.

Horses can be disastrously handled by a poor ride: getting used up, wide, trapped in tight, moved too early.... a myriad of reasons as, for example the WORST ride in a major contest I ever saw: Forty Niner's Breeder's Cup Classic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oksnqhosh8

A known front running, classic distanced horse, this one was a prompter to Winning Colors in the Derby, right on the pace in the Preakness, was the pace in beating Strike the Gold in both the Haskell and the Travers. NOTHING on that track (Churchill Downs) moved up from anything inside the three path all day (rail trips by every race, save Gulch, proved to be costly) so Krone takes this one back, goes RIGHT ON the rail letting the rival he looked in the eye in his Summer triumphs go and then tried to make a single run after strangling the competitiveness out of this very good three year old.

Let the horse run, Let the horse's style go, just KEEP him in his game plan and don't INTERFERE with the horse. That is what Krone did and the horse suffered a miserable defeat when the had quite a chance to do well.

And thousands of other races as well. As an example, Majestic Prince's Belmont when either Johnny Longdon (trainer and ex-jockey) or Bill Hartack (current jockey) did not let this "undefeated" front runner go to the lead in a mind boggling 1:16 and change for the first 3/4 of a mile resulting in the horse chasing Arts and Letters home to finish second.

The point being "horsey stuff" DOES have a bearing on the outcome of a race, as you have brought to light, and those things ARE NOT limited to jockeys!

[Tim Y]

When Bailey won the B.C. Classic on Arcagnes, it was because, as he said it, "I didn't impose my will on the horse's natural running.

He mentioned that he was "instructed" French, didn't understand a word of it, so he let the horse RUN, the way the horse was used to running and the result was the animal's NOT HIS.

The good, honest riders know this.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

Which, without shifting away from the focus of the discussion, has to do with what? In order to refresh your recollection:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Y View Post
We go on and on about the horse being not only fit, but physically sound enough to start a race with pre-race vet inspections, paddock review and post parade evaluations. After the contest, blood and/or urine samples are taken to insure a relativity clean run.

Why aren't the riders subject to the same degree of scrutiny?

Recently on a day when a ride in a big stakes race later in the program beckoned, we had a rider contest the earlier races who could NOT flex his knee. I was not aware of how bad it was until a trainer, upset over the really poor ride this fellow had given his horse was muttering that "if he couldn't ride he should have let me know. I just wasted a start with this fellow."

We watched all his races after that one and this trainer's observations were right on. This rider could not sit down in the saddle, he stood with legs extended all the way back after each ride and was so obviously incompetent on the day (losing miserable on two very short price favorites) that many in the crowd openly booed him.

Came the big race. He was on one of the short priced horses and was close but no cigar. Not surprisingly he booked off all mounts after that race.

There is enough in racing to question without this kind of blatant disregard for the people wagering on what they expect to be competent jockeys.
__________________
WOW! Talk about a "double standard"!

This is a very interesting post from a guy who also made the following statements and I quote:

"-The HORSE produces what it is capable of producing and NOT another single soul".

-"forget the horsey talk of class structure, the effect of the trainer and rider"

-"The HORSE runs the race."

-"Class is speed and speed is class. All the rest is irrelevant. The HORSE runs the race not the trainer or the condition book."

Why the "double standard?"
Why are YOU concerned with jockeys?
Are you saying jockeys matter?

Try to stay on topic and address the issue.

This kind of sums it up and it is the reason this once great board has gone down the ****ter.

http://www.jeremyperson.com/wp-conte...09/topper3.jpg

[Ted Craven]

Really? The ****ter, and all because of one member?

Ted

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Really? The ****ter, and all because of one member?

Ted

Sorry Ted thats just one mans opinion... I miss the days with everyone sharing our thoughts on a big race, the contests etc. IMHO this board is now one mans soapbox.

[Tim Y]

People are free to talk about any subject. I can't help if I am the only one that pushes the envelope. Have the evidence to back it up. In the myriad of approaches to understanding a race, it is incumbent to find a niche that the crowd misses. It works well in that regard.

Just like the old saying quoted at Robert Kennedy's funeral: "Some people see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask why not?"

BOTTOM LINE: Jockey have the potential to cause more of a hindrance than a help.

If you like incestuous amplification of a single point of view, that is a pity.

[Tim Y]

Originally Posted by jms62

Sorry Ted thats just one mans opinion... I miss the days with everyone sharing our thoughts on a big race, the contests etc. IMHO this board is now one mans soapbox.

I don't see anyone else stepping forward. No one is hindering alternate views. least of all me.

Critical commentary with the PROGRAM'S READOUTS as evidence (one version or the other that MOST of us use) appears to make shrinking violets of those who depend on the horsey baloney of class or trainers stats, WHICH, have NOTHING to do with pace evaluation.

Then NO ONE, talks about the translation of wager construction from handicapping information.

That is the critical frontier I have been studying now for the last 8 months and have found a few answers hidden in the acceptance that randomness is hidden in all things statistical. This latter field on endeavor has been a joint project with a good friend, who's insight into that field has been very enlightening. A LOST frontier that few ever approach successfully.

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Tim Y

... I can't help if I am the only one that pushes the envelope.

Tim,

So, Val3 and then SpecPA would be the cutting edge, would they, because no one else but you ever pushed the envelope further than that? (And I guess that's still the cutting edge at Sartin Alums, is it?)

Hate to break it to you, but you're not the icon you consider yourself to be. You do have a (frequently) irritating didactic style though. Though I try my best to get people to do what I tell them , I can't yet convince dozens of folks to post stuff they're working on, new research, ways of using existing Methodology tools, simple plodding success stories, because (among other reasons) they don't have as much time as you or passion for endless, withering, debate. Some people are built like that...

A question for other readers: isn't it possible to just ignore commentary from members whose style just grates on you? Or who hijack your threads or insult you? Can't you just continue on as if they hadn't interrupted? Or is it really as polar as either kick them off or cede control of the place? What about if they actually sometimes post stimulating and useful information?

Just asking...

Ted

[Tim Y]

Interpretation of readouts is the new horizon as the basics of the methodology have not changed since Energy.

Icon? I consider myself a student. pressing and learning all the time. Nothing else. I may have walked further down that never ending road to enlightenment, but, like most who revere understanding, it is an unlimited road.