Hi All,

I've had a thought from watching races over the past few months that I wanted to bounce it off this forum.

Basically, the influence a jockey has on a race decreases with the distance of the race.

Why I think this is that the decisions a jockey makes in a 1000m race are much less in number than for say a 2400m race.

Seems obvious I know, but I was wondering what people's thoughts were...

:smile:

G'day Mac.
The other view is that because there are less decisions made in short race, they become more critical - make the wrong choice & you're gone. In a longer race perhaps a wrong decision can be countered by making a few better choices later in the race. Who knows?
It could be interesting to study the results of both types of races - if you're right the 'top jockeys' should do better in longer races, while the short races should be shared around a lot more.

Bomber

As a general rule the jockey is far more important in races 2000 metres plus. For leaders, very important to rate the horse correctly. For backmarkers, fine judgement of pace and when to make a move is essential.

CRAP//////ANY RACE BE IT THE MELBOURNE CUP 3200 OR A 800 MTR SPRINT AT NOODNADATA OR ANY OTHER BUSH TRACK A GOOD JOCKEY CAN AND DOES BLUFF OTHERS INTO MAKING A ERROR GOOD JOCKS WIN AS MANY RACES AS GOOD HORSES AND THATS THAT PHANTOM///////

Which has more bearing over the outcome of a race:

The influence of a jockey or a jockey under the influence.

Phantom,
Of course bad jockeys lose races over all distances. I definitely agree with you. But as a professional I also agree with Mr. Logic. More often than not it requires much more skill from a jockey in a distance race than a 1000 metres sprint.

jockey's are the most overated factor in racing. just my opinion.