I personally consider jockeys to be much of a muchness. Put say, NSW country jockey Greg Ryan or Vic jockey Peter Mertens on Saturdays winners and I doubt whether the result would be much different. It is mainly about opportunities.

Consider Scott Seamer. A few years ago he was riding at Ballina, Murwillumbah, Coffs Harbour etc. He's given an opportunity and wins the Caulfield & Melbourne Cups and a string of other Group 1's. In my view, Seamer is one of the top 3 jockeys in Australia behind Oliver (clearly best) and W.A's Paul Harvey.

These 3 have the ability to make very quick decisions during a race and are able to sum up situations extremely well. For example, many jockeys persist in trying to gain runs between horses and may well obtain the run but often lose ground by waiting for that to occur. Oliver, Harvey & Seamer won't waste any time doing that if they believe the process will slow them down at all. They will quickly pull the horse out into clear ground and give it every chance unimpeded.

Horses make jockeys and trainers look good. Plenty of cashed up owners and sheer weight of numbers ensure the best bred horses go to the "top" trainers who have many qualified supporting staff to help out.

Would Lohnro still be a great horse if he was trained by John Morrissey in Canberra? I'd think so.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is try and not get too wrapped up in jockeys and trainers. (I don't bother with them at all) If they are influencing factors for you however, ensure that you place as much weight on the form of the horse as you do on the jockey/trainer and don't simply rely on a jockey, a trainer or a combination of both to win money. In most cases, it is the horse that is first past the post!

* DURRAH in Sydney today.

With regard to jockeys, I think that great horses will win regardless of the jockey... Donkeys will run last regardless of who's riding them.

But there are a lot of inbetweens where the jockey makes a big difference. A few weeks ago I saw an average jockey make a mistake midrace that cost the horse the race. I had $100 on it at 12's, and I wasn't happy - it went down by a nostril in a photo. Could a top jockey have made the same mistake? Certainly! But the average / poorer jockeys are more likely to make those mistakes in my opinion.

Privateer, you say that the top jockeys will make their decisions much quicker... How much quicker? One or two strides could mean the difference between a win and a 4th in a lot of races.

If it's a contest between an average horse with a good jockey, and a good horse with an average jockey, I know which one I'll put my money on every time.

Cheers,
Chris.

G'day Chris...

How much quicker? I've seen thousands and thousands of races over the years as I expect many of us have.

With the 3 jockeys I mentioned, their summation of a situation, decision making process and reflexes all seem to be instinctive and pretty much immediate. They seem to be able to read ahead, if that makes sense. Whereas others may wait for the miracle split for 50 metres or so, they'll look, sum it up, decide "no" and look for other options seemingly within a few strides. That, I feel, is the difference.

For what it's worth, BOSS crucified Classy Dane on Saturday. Looking for rails runs when the horse hates others around it. If he comes to the outside in the straight, it wins. His effort on Thornhill wasn't much better. Be on both next start.

Know what you are saying and mostly agree but not on good horses making good jockeys in your earlier post Privateer.

By the time I do the form and decided on my winning chance to plonk money on, I will usualy find it has a good jockey riding it [if not it is usualy my mistake in doing the form and I probably have done my dough].
The top jocks do the form long before we do and with more info. They get offered and pursue the best chances in the race. They get there by being very good selectors as well as riders. Good horses rack up wins regardless, but top jocks remain top jocks even on crappy mounts that can't win.

So what comes first the chicken or the egg ?

Cheers.

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-06 16:11 ]

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-06 16:13 ]

Hi crash,
Afraid I disagree with your post in the most part - sorry.
Most jockeys are very poor tipsters, they get the mounts because the owners and trainers seek them out (the top ones that is).
The rest have to try and do form and make phone calls to plead their case.
Good jockeys are not good because of their ability to pick winners, but rather make split second judgements, have a feel for what needs to be done in a situation by instinct rather than thought.
These are the jockeys that are snapped up by the good stables and offered good horses.
I've seen many good horses slaughtered by apprentices and even average jockeys.
That's not to say that the top jocks get it wrong sometimes, but less than the others.
A top jock on a crappy horse, won't be any better than a crap rider on a crap horse.
Good horses are often robbed of racking up wins because of poor judgement by an inexperienced or less talented jockey.

The UniTAB Wt. Ratings can be useful.
80% winners come from Mules with 100-93 Pts.

If your selection is less than this 100-93 Pts , proceed with caution E.g.you might place a half bet on these ,if the price is right.

The 100 Pt. system I posted some time ago , is still showing a profit.

Howdy Chrome,

Then you would also believe that a top race car driver would do no better that a average driver in a crappy car ? Don't think so.
Good jocks make mistakes but far less than poor ones. Races are often taken from a great horse with a poor or inexperienced rider by an average horse with a top jock because he/she is making all the right moves and judgements while the poor rider progresses from one poor judgement to another. We see it again and again.

What comes first the chicken or the egg [?],was addressing the notion that top horses make top jockeys. As absurd as top race cars make top drivers from poor ones. Same rationality.
My other point was what happens to top jocks when they can only get poor rides [Harry White comes to mind] and as a result get very few winners [and I watched Harry bring home some long priced winners just through riding ability, not wipping ability]. Are they suddenly no longer great Jockeys with ability, or just no longer getting the good rides to demonstrate those abilities ?

After training as a chef I eventualy became a chef de party at a five star hotel but left to own and drive a Melb. Cab [until recently]. Do you think I suddenly became a poor cook when I left the trade ?

Cheers.

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-07 10:26 ]

Ho Bhagwan,

Are those ratings just based on weight ? If so and the % is as you have provided, then what does that say about so many factors beside weight that we all attribute various degrees of importance too ? Collectivly far more than 20% importance anyway if you get my drift.

If it isn't too much trouble, what were your system's rules ?

Cheers.

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-10-07 10:39 ]

Agree 100%.


Yes I see your point.
I'll give you my take on it...
It is a chicken or egg scenario.
The jockeys don't get the outstanding rides unless they have proven to be superior in talent prior to obtaining the good horse.
So why would you put a 3kg apprentice from Cranbourne on Northerly for example.
Northerly may win in spite of the jockey, but it's not worth the risk of the apprentice ballsing it up.
I think it's a case of the top jockeys getting the better rides because of inherent talent, if they didn't have it to begin with, then they wouldn't get the better rides. The whole thing is a rolling snowball, so the more opportunites to ride good horses the better the jockey does, but it wouldn't happen as successfully if the jockey didn't already display his prowess.



Good ole handbrake Harry.
:lol:

Another talent was R.J. Skelton at the longer races, he had the inner judgement far superior to some jockeys over distance.



Not at all.

By the way,
Are you Jamie (pukka) Oliver?

:lol:

[quote]
So why would you put a 3kg apprentice from Cranbourne on Northerly for example.
Northerly may win in spite of the jockey, but it's not worth the risk of the apprentice ballsing it up.
[quote]

also begs the question why would you put patrick payne on when you can have childs!

interesting topic. good jocks on good horses. bad jocks on good horses. probably get the same result 9/10.

good jocks on bad horses . bad jocks on bad horses. probably get the same result 3/10

My earlier comment was in fact "Horses make jockeys and trainers look good" and I'll stick to that. Vo Rogue, Cyril Small and Vic Rail are one example.

Regards to the comment "why would you put Payne on a horse instead of Childs" (or similar) The reason is, that Payne is a heavyweight jockey whereas Childs is able to ride at a much lighter weight. If a horse has a big weight, it often makes more sense to have the horse carry as much "live" weight as possible as opposed to "dead weight" in the form of lead.

what i meant is payne is no good and childs is/was undefeated on northerly.

payne slaughtered northerly not once(c.f orr) not twice(manion cup) but three times(bmw).

Sorry Umrum...misunderstood you!

Payne has lost it [if he ever had it]. Gone to la la land.

Cheers.

Hi All,

Haven't posted for a while but found some of the replies to this topic very interesting.

From my analysis of the past 30 months of racing (metropolitan S/M/B/A) here are a few tips I wish to share:

1. Sportsman's Zipform is a very reliable tool. Over 80% of winners are rated within four points of the top-rated horse;
2. Ranking the above horses by Average Prize Money and the first prize money on offer in the race is a good class measurement tool;
3. Place percentage is the best indicator of racing consistency;
4. On average over 80% of winners have an average place strike-rate greater than 45%;
5. This average rises for higher quality races;
6. Only consider weight fluctuations for horses weighted above 56kgs. Like Privateer said ensure a rise in weight is matched by a drop in class or at worst the same class;
7. Last start beaten margin is irrelevant;
8. Jockey's are irrelevant- except in Sydney, wherein the top 5 jockeys account for the bulk of winners.
9. Wide barriers only matter to on-pace runners;
10. On-pace runners account for greater than 70% of all winners.

I hope some of you find this of interest and can continue this excellent thread...


Regards,
Lucky




[ This Message was edited by: Luckyboy on 2003-10-08 18:06 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Luckyboy on 2003-10-08 18:08 ]

Hi Luckyboy,
Agree with everything except points 7 and 8.



Last start beaten margin is not irrelevant in my opinion, but the last three beaten margins are perhaps more relevant.
Do some stats on horses beaten by more than 3 lengths then by more than 5 lengths at their last start and you'll see what I mean.

It depends on your system or method.
If you statistically choose your runners, then jockeys don't really come into it.
But I will not have any confidence in some selections when a known duffer is aboard my horse.

Luckyboy wrote...
8. Jockey's are irrelevant- except in Sydney, wherein the top 5 jockeys account for the bulk of winners.

Hi Luckyboy,

agree with most of your post, but find the above statement illogical. "Jockeys are irrelevant" - meaning that jockeys don't matter at all.... "except in Sydney"... meaning that ooopsss, yes they do!!!

I have a simple question for you...

You are going to punt on a horse tomorrow... Formline of 423 for it's past 3 starts, all reasonable runs, it has a real show and you expect it to start at around $3 or $4... It's a swoooper, so you know it'll get back in traffic...

You have a choice of two jockeys...

Jockey 1 has had 378 rides in the last 12 months for 19 wins.. a s/r of 5%. s/r in the last 3 months is slightly better, at 6%.

Jockey 2 has had 686 rides in the last 12 months for 145 wins.. a s/r of 21%. s/r in the last 3 months is slightly worse at 18%.

Q: Which jockey would you prefer to be riding your money around the track?

Cheers,
Chris.

Hi All.
I'd like to tell about jockeys.
Long time ego when Mick Ditman was a jockey
one saturday he have 6 rides 5 top selection and 1 donkey.I back them all up for place.
and I've lost because he won 1 race on 33/1 DONKEY the rest was UNPLACED.
Now is the same Look C.B and others they winning on FAVORITES when they HAVE TO.
VALUE is the key
Good Luck.

Hi All,

Sorry I couldn’t get back to your feedback last night...

Just to a follow up on a few points. The 'beaten margin last start' is an irrelevant statistic to look at in isolation. This was my inference and supported by a recent post from Chrome Prince



I guess the real point I make by my statement is to look thoroughly at a horse’s current form. Last start failures can be overlooked if there are mitigating circumstances.

With regard to my point about jockeys, I stand by this finding. Whilst my use of the English language may have seemed illogical - the fact remains Sydney is the only racing area where there are OVER DOMINANT trainers and OVER DOMINANT stable jockeys.

I remain hopeful that with further success and increasing stable numbers trainers like Gerald Ryan and John O'Shea will bring about a more even spread of winning trainers.

And to answer your question Chris, the statistics indicate a current above average performance for Jockey 1. Does this make a difference to me? If I had to choose between two horses ridden by these respective jockeys in a Sydney race and one of the jockeys was in the Top 5 it would make a difference.

So do we open up the debate? I really enjoy socialising my viewpoints against others. It is a great learning environment.


Regards,
Lucky

I think a very interesting point about jockeys can be seen from the following table

Good Jockeys

Name      Rides  Wins  2nds  3rds

C Brown    903   137   125   121

N Callow   686   145   100    75

G Childs   515    66    59    35

C Munce    623   106    56    68



Not As Good Jockeys

Name      Rides  Wins  2nds  3rds

A Findlay  465    36    55    39

S Wynn     378    19    23    22

T Uchiyama 226    26    32    34

With the first set of jockeys, they ride more winners than 2nds and 3rds....
The second group ride more 2nds and 3rds than winners.
Munce's win vs place strike rate is extraordinary to say the least....

I don't necessarily agree that just because they're good jockeys they get the plum rides... I think quite often owners / trainers will seek out the good jockeys on the hope that they will win on their donkey, and it doesn't always happen. And a good jockey wants to fill his riding card just as much as the next jockey.

I also agree that jockeys can have their off days just like horses. Munce's short term strike rate is well off at the moment, a very ordinary 8% vs a long term of 14%.

Cheers,
Chris.

[ This Message was edited by: stebbo on 2003-10-09 10:24 ]

[ This Message was edited by: stebbo on 2003-10-09 10:26 ]