The current standard of Flat Jockeys

A

Ardross

Senior Jockey
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
5,489
Is it just me but are Flat Jockeys getting worse as a rule ? I know some people think that the weights are just too low now when one considers the general population . There is also far too much racing which may mean that some jockeys now have careers who would never have made it in the past but the Oaks yesterday saw even the best jockey of the day riding a complete stinker and many of the others getting into a mess . Also watching videos of the past at Epsom far fewer horses seemed to roll down the camber as dramatically as they do nowadays - I doubt there has been any change in the track just jockeys are not as good .

There are greats like Moore( despite yesterday) and Dettori - for all his competence though can you imagine de Sousa being Champion jockey in the 1950-1990s ? Not in a million years I reckon does he compare with Richards, Breasley, Piggott, (younger Carson) , Eddery , Mercer or Cauthen
 
I suspect the overall standard of jockeyship is probably higher - as a class, fitter, neater and more professional.

But I'm not struck at all by those at the top, Moore excepted. The Oaks wouldn't have been his finest hour but he's very good and he'd have been a leading jockey in any era.

One thing I have noticed is that I really struggle to identify a jockey during a race simply by his riding style. Off the top of my head, I used to able to identify Piggott, Eddery, Cauthen, Carson, Starkey, Mercer, Murtagh, Fallon - among many others - just from looking at race footage. Not the case now.
 
Last edited:
I genuinely think the biggest barrier to a profitable flat season is entrusting your bets to this lot. So many just uninspiring rides, and so may of them have no pro-activity in them. They just let **** happen.
 
It's an interesting debate.

I find myself checking jockey bookings almost as much as my ratings these days.

Serious positives:

Dettori, Atzeni, Kirby

Serious negatives [among the bigger names]:

Spencer, Fallon, Lee

Moore is maybe the best around but his rides tend to be over-bet and are seldom good value.
 
As a backer of Deauville I don't know what I want more, him to win or Spencer to fall off and get trampled.
 
De Sousa's main attribute is strength, he has a broad pair of shoulders and looks more like a boxer than a jockey. I reckon he'd pulverise any of his colleagues in a scrap.

Pat Smullen and Moore are the two best jockeys riding at the moment but overall there is a shortage of star quality on the flat at present. On the other hand the last few years over jumps have been outstanding.
 
I rarely vent over a bad ride on the jumps, I'm at it all the time this summer though. You see so many of them just sitting there hoping for the best.
 
None, and I've never directed a film or play a musical instrument but I can tell when a film is **** and a band are terrible.
 
I put up the Fahey horse in the first in Catterick to someone yesterday at 4/5. He wouldn't back it because Spencer was on it. Thankfully idiots like him mean I get 4/5 about a 2/5 shot.
 
SlimChance said:
If all the jockeys are sub par than what does it matter?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter a **** in terms of whether or not I back them, it's just a variable and it's hard to quantify like with Second Step he was ridden completely differently
in the Yorkshire Cup. Spencer though has cost me a lot the last few years with iffy tactical rides.
 
SlimChance said:
I put up the Fahey horse in the first in Catterick to someone yesterday at 4/5. He wouldn't back it because Spencer was on it. Thankfully idiots like him mean I get 4/5 about a 2/5 shot.
Click to expand...

I could've ridden that thing yesterday and it would've won!

In seriousness I rarely make a betting decision based on jockey. I don't believe there is much between the professionals, bar a few at the very top (Moore, Walsh etc). Most of them are equally competent. Of course there are bad rides but they're evenly distributed and can therefore be put down to luck (in the same way that fallers can over jumps).

In point to points and amateur races there's a massive difference between the best and the worst and it's definitely worth factoring in.
 
I think Mooreis the best ever

Smullen, Atzeni, Dettori, Soumillon are very good

De Sosua is riding very well, Buick is quite good too

Osin Murphy is one for the future. Marquand interesting too

In general, some good jockeys around

Carson at his prime, similar level to Hannagan now.
 
BennyB said:
I could've ridden that thing yesterday and it would've won!

In seriousness I rarely make a betting decision based on jockey. I don't believe there is much between the professionals, bar a few at the very top (Moore, Walsh etc). Most of them are equally competent. Of course there are bad rides but they're evenly distributed and can therefore be put down to luck (in the same way that fallers can over jumps).

In point to points and amateur races there's a massive difference between the best and the worst and it's definitely worth factoring in.
Click to expand...

I would say equally incompetent! I doubt Ineben look at the jockey for most of my bets. It's just a ready made excuse for punters. Look at the first race today at the Curragh. The 2nd was 'unlucky' but you knew the jockey was a stone penalty when you had the bet. Punters (including me) love to blame something rather than critique their selection process or discipline.
 
Moore is a great jockey no doubt but he has ridden three stinkers at Epsom over the last two days .

Piggott is the best I have seen and by some margin . Nowadays we are constantly told that jockey A is brilliant round course B - Lester was brilliant everywhere . I have no doubt that Piggott when he was Moore's age would have got US Ranger a good deal closer today .
 
I think Piggott would have lost the derby today on US Ranger

Piggott was a great
but today is a much more competitive sport and you have much more access to watch the races on tv than in the past.
 
sunybay said:
I think Piggott would have lost the derby today on US Ranger

Piggott was a great
but today is a much more competitive sport and you have much more access to watch the races on tv than in the past.
Click to expand...

He might well have done in that Harzand could well have found more when US Ranger came to him had the latter been given much less to do .
 
The scrutiny levels thing is a good point. You didn't get to see Lester giving one a stinker round Catterick on a Tuesday, but now you see endless replays
 
Euronymous said:
It doesn't matter a **** in terms of whether or not I back them, it's just a variable and it's hard to quantify like with Second Step he was ridden completely differently
in the Yorkshire Cup. Spencer though has cost me a lot the last few years with iffy tactical rides.
Click to expand...

You are the classic talk out of his pocket punter.
 
sunybay said:
I think Piggott would have lost the derby today on US Ranger
Click to expand...

In the sense that if he had ridden him in his textbook manner - no more than a few lengths off the pace - he might have used up too much gas too soon.

Then again, if was that great a jockey he would have realised they were going fast and would have reined back a bit.

Dettori is currently the best tactician round Epsom because he rides it almost identically to Piggott.

I will be interested to see Simon Rowlands's sectional analysis. It looked to me like they went fast for 4 furlongs then slowed up almost to a canter for about three furlongs before bombing it for the last five.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top