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.

__________________
Cheers.

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:

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 413,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/01/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

[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