Waley-Cohen suspended again

To be the best in anything is judged by your performance against a similar group, isn't it? To be champion NH jockey, Tony McCoy rode the most winners. It didn't matter that he rode day in and out and took on any sort of nag, whether he rode against plonkers or other highly-gifted riders - he just simply rode the most horses that won. It's a pretty simple index! Formula One - the most points scored in a season, end of, regardless of what make of car you drive or who is the sponsoring company.

"The best" has to be expressed as the most winning rides, surely? You might be very stylish and have a charming personality, but if you've only ridden 10 winners against a less elegant rider's 25, how would that indicate you're the best?

It's a different index for top sire, for example, but a rider's remit is simply to obtain the best possible result from his race. If he can take any sort of animal and cajole a win more often than other riders, then by the requirement of his remit, he's done his, and the, best. I can't think of any other significant marker.
 
krizon said:
To be the best in anything is judged by your performance against a similar group, isn't it? To be champion NH jockey, Tony McCoy rode the most winners. It didn't matter that he rode day in and out and took on any sort of nag, whether he rode against plonkers or other highly-gifted riders - he just simply rode the most horses that won. It's a pretty simple index! Formula One - the most points scored in a season, end of, regardless of what make of car you drive or who is the sponsoring company.

"The best" has to be expressed as the most winning rides, surely? You might be very stylish and have a charming personality, but if you've only ridden 10 winners against a less elegant rider's 25, how would that indicate you're the best?

It's a different index for top sire, for example, but a rider's remit is simply to obtain the best possible result from his race. If he can take any sort of animal and cajole a win more often than other riders, then by the requirement of his remit, he's done his, and the, best. I can't think of any other significant marker.
Click to expand...

the best judge of a jockey imo is his results versus odds offered..obvioulsy amongst the top riders they themselves influence the odds...with these types of riders you simply write down all their rides..the odds expected wins and see who is best
 
Sorry, way too mathematical an approach for a numbers dimwit like me, EC! It ain't what determines the championships, where the winner is the most wins, regardless of whether the odds are long or short. I understand your reasoning, but I'd never be able to figure out the returns versus the number of rides versus the number of wins, and perhaps throwing in the horses' ratings as well?!! :confused:

You could run "the best" based on how much his/her horses won, which is no doubt the way some trainers might view it, more than just straight wins. 5 wins at £2K a piece, or 5 wins over £7K a piece? Would that mean the most prize-winning rider was the best?
 
krizon said:
Sorry, way too mathematical an approach for a numbers dimwit like me, EC! It ain't what determines the championships, where the winner is the most wins, regardless of whether the odds are long or short. I understand your reasoning, but I'd never be able to figure out the returns versus the number of rides versus the number of wins, and perhaps throwing in the horses' ratings as well?!! :confused:

You could run "the best" based on how much his/her horses won, which is no doubt the way some trainers might view it, more than just straight wins. 5 wins at £2K a piece, or 5 wins over £7K a piece? Would that mean the most prize-winning rider was the best?
Click to expand...

it would still be the odds for me Kri..they are the most reliable thing in racing ....its not hard to calculate either
 
EC1 said:
it would still be the odds for me Kri..they are the most reliable thing in racing ....its not hard to calculate either
Click to expand...

Would really love to see a study like this done, some really great jocks out there that don't get the recognition they deserve!
 
Innit? :D You honestly don't know how thick I am with numbers. At school, I returned a total score of 9% from three exams each worth 100% - my dear Mum asked if that was for writing my name right at the top of the papers. I came last in Maths year after year - good, solid, reliable form, exam after exam. :lol: A shame to be so innumerate, as I longed to be a croupier at one time!
 
Such studies have been carried out, KK, Dick Whitford and Adrian Massey have both produced figures in the past.

The Adrian Massey site has been wound up and Mr. Whitford has gone to a better place, I'm sorry to say.

(edit : I've got the feeling I've got the wrong man with Dick Whitford but there was/is someone who produces jockey ratings based on comparative performances on a horse, he rated Graham Lee the best one season before most punters had heard of him)
 
Last edited:
Level stake profit or loss is one indicator, but not the only one, especially for a rider like Nina Carberry who is overbet, or somebody who gets home on a big outsider and might then be flattered by such a statistic.

The percentage of winning rides is another statistic, but it too has limitations. Taking Nina again, she might be winning more than another rider simply because she is getting better chances. Nevertheless, once they have become established the best riders should have a decent win percentage.

Another angle I like to look at is to compare the number of 1st, 2nds, 3rds and 4ths a rider has. A really good jockey who is making a difference to a horse's chances should win a lot more often than they come second, and save the each way money by coming 3rd a lot more often than they finish 4th.
 
Grey said:
Level stake profit or loss is one indicator, but not the only one, especially for a rider like Nina Carberry who is overbet, or somebody who gets home on a big outsider and might then be flattered by such a statistic.

The percentage of winning rides is another statistic, but it too has limitations. Taking Nina again, she might be winning more than another rider simply because she is getting better chances. Nevertheless, once they have become established the best riders should have a decent win percentage.

Another angle I like to look at is to compare the number of 1st, 2nds, 3rds and 4ths a rider has. A really good jockey who is making a difference to a horse's chances should win a lot more often than they come second, and save the each way money by coming 3rd a lot more often than they finish 4th.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of LSP..one big priced winner when gifted a race at the last can skew data

you won't really beat comparing actual performance against expected results using betting odds..its as level a playing field as is possible at this game
 
Very simplified, as for me it's very necessary!

I, too, would like a system based on points, Grey, including all placings where they extend to prize money won (so up to sixth place for the premier races). I can understand why from a punting only perspective, money returned against the SP or ante-post is key to considering who's the best jockey for you to follow in, but that doesn't necessarily make the rider the most competent as being put up on a favourite due to your connections doesn't mean you are winning the race as much as the horse is doing it. If that makes any sense, which isn't immediately clear!
 
Last edited:
"Such studies have been carried out, KK, Dick Whitford and Adrian Massey have both produced figures in the past.

The Adrian Massey site has been wound up and Mr. Whitford has gone to a better place, I'm sorry to say.

(edit : I've got the feeling I've got the wrong man with Dick Whitford but there was/is someone who produces jockey ratings based on comparative performances on a horse, he rated Graham Lee the best one season before most punters had heard of him)"

John Whiteley was the man I meant his site is at:

http://www.racingresearch.co.uk/
 
Grey said:
Would you mind giving a practical example, simplified if necessary?
Click to expand...


you will need all a jockeys results..someone with a nice database should be able to supply..say the last 12 months.

add up all the % of all the odds..say these are a sample..obviously you need a lot more than this..which isn't too much of a problem with most jockeys..even amateurs..20 or 30 minimum is decent.


won 5/1
lost 10/1
lost 6/1
lost 12/1
won 2/1
won 3/1
lost 3/1
lost 5/1
lost 7/1

the % chance of those horses expressed as decimal is

.17
.09
.14
.08
.33
.25
.25
.17
.12

add them up..= 1.60

therefore you expect 1.6 winners

as the jockey actually rode 3 winners..his impact value is 3 actual winners divided by 1.6 expected winners = 1.87

an impact value of 1.0 means the jockey is riding to expectations..the above jockey is riding nearly twice the expected winners he should be at 1.87
 
Last edited:
I'll say 'thanks for that', EC1, even though it appears to be written in Cyrillic script for all that I can understand it!

Okay, seriously - I see that as a tool for picking winners, based on jockey stats. I'm sure it works on those grounds, or you wouldn't be bothering to consider it. I've now got to think how it doesn't - or does! - translate to 'best rider' status, versus most winners/most prize money won. I may be some time...

... no, can't see that it's not just as valid, although you'd need someone putting in a lorra-lorra effort to track all the data, versus just tallying up a straight first-past-the-post result. So, three possible 'best rider' stats: most wins, most prize money won, best returns to punters. No, four! There's also most points if you add in placings worth money, too, and therefore the most money won grows accordingly, too, so that would actually now make five ways to cut the cake. Someone will probably have found ten before midnight falls...
 
Last edited:
krizon said:
I'll say 'thanks for that', EC1, even though it appears to be written in Cyrillic script for all that I can understand it!

Okay, seriously - I see that as a tool for picking winners, based on jockey stats. I'm sure it works on those grounds, or you wouldn't be bothering to consider it. I've now got to think how it doesn't - or does! - translate to 'best rider' status, versus most winners/most prize money won. I may be some time...

... no, can't see that it's not just as valid, although you'd need someone putting in a lorra-lorra effort to track all the data, versus just tallying up a straight first-past-the-post result. So, three possible 'best rider' stats: most wins, most prize money won, best returns to punters. No, four! There's also most points if you add in placings worth money, too, and therefore the most money won grows accordingly, too, so that would actually now make five ways to cut the cake. Someone will probably have found ten before midnight falls...
Click to expand...


for flat jockeys its all done for you on Flatstats site..there is a lot of free stuff there but if you subscribe you get a lot more..i'm not connected to that site either..its just worth recomending.

For example..i've just looked at Fallons stats for the AW

overall is IV is 0.87
but at Southwell its only 0.35..just 5 wins from 66

the beauty of the actual versus expected IV is that you know that he rides below par there because he only wins 35% when it should be 100%...whereas if you only have bare 5/66 figure you have no idea whether they were 100/1 shots or even money shots

this is by far the best way to judge a trainer jockey horse..owt in fact..imo
 
Last edited:
krizon said:
I'll say 'thanks for that', EC1, even though it appears to be written in Cyrillic script for all that I can understand it!

Okay, seriously - I see that as a tool for picking winners, based on jockey stats. I'm sure it works on those grounds, or you wouldn't be bothering to consider it. I've now got to think how it doesn't - or does! - translate to 'best rider' status, versus most winners/most prize money won. I may be some time...

... no, can't see that it's not just as valid, although you'd need someone putting in a lorra-lorra effort to track all the data, versus just tallying up a straight first-past-the-post result. So, three possible 'best rider' stats: most wins, most prize money won, best returns to punters. No, four! There's also most points if you add in placings worth money, too, and therefore the most money won grows accordingly, too, so that would actually now make five ways to cut the cake. Someone will probably have found ten before midnight falls...
Click to expand...

the prize money depends on location though..a really good jockey in the poorer stable may not get the same chance as the luckier average jockey in the richer stable
 
its not rocket science..just logical really..and it beats x is better than y with no reasoning given bar y lost one particular race he should have won which wiped out 20 good efforts beforehand
 
Last edited:
Yes, okay, gotcha now, EC. It takes time with me at my advanced age - sometimes the penny never does drop - but I can understand your explanation, which is an advance on my relationship with any of my maths teachers!
 
It's way too easy to cite any one of a few Jockeys, compare him/her to Ruby, Barry, or a few other top jockeys and say the jockey riding a horse isn't good enough.

Luckily trainers and owners pay very little attention to such dribble and support their chosen jockeys.

While Sam may not be Nicky's chosen as such he is part of the package that wona King George and a Gold Cup for Seven Barrows and there is absolutely no question of him being placed. Why would they?

Sam knows the horse better than anyone and that's probably enough to negate any differenece sticking Barry on board would make.

Sam presents his horse at his fences as well as any professional would, it is Long Run who is at fault. Once under pressure he lowers his undercarriage and drags his hind legs through the odd fence which is the cause of him losing ground.

That's just him, he's had the best schooling in the world but it has made very little difference in that departemnt of his jumping and stick Barry on top isn't going to change that.

You couldn't knock Sam as being a bad judge of pace he always seems to be in the right place so I don't know where this massive improvemnt is going to come from that would have allowed him to beat kauto.

Incidentally Ruby had plenty up his sleeve and nothing could have made Long Run go faster, not even AP McCoy. Long Run was trying his very best to run for Sam, the head was down his teeth gritted you simply could ask for amore genuine horse in that department. AP can make a lazy horse go faster but you can't get blood out of a stone. if a horse is already giving his all, then that's it, there is no more.

You know the big difference here? it's that word Amatuer, If Barry had rode him a carbon copy of the race Sam rode then the horse would be a pig not the jockey.
 
Last edited:
Tanlic said:
While Sam may not be Nicky's chosen as such he is part of the package that wona King George and a Gold Cup for Seven Barrows and there is absolutely no question of him being placed. Why would they?
Click to expand...

Jose Kleberson was part of the package that won a World Cup for Brazil. Doesn't mean he is a good footballer, though.

I admire the way Waley-Cohen puts his son up on Long Run. I would do the same myself. And he clearly has a good understanding with the horse.

But to suggest that this doesn't compromise LR's chances in races is like suggesting that jockeyship isn't a skill that takes years to hone.
 
EC1 said:
you need another 10;)

could you explain how you judge who is better than who re jockeys?
Click to expand...

It's my opinion, all of those jockeys I provided are better judges of pace, presenting a horse at an obstacle and race riding than SWC.
 
Back
Top