Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
01 Sep 14
20:09
Joined:
Date Joined:
20 Feb 12
Gets em in poor positions, weak as skol in a finish. Pure hopeless
Show More
His ride at Kempton on Interception the other day had to be seen to be believed.
My opinion is that he is in the 'wins when he has to' group.
Yes Ted is terrible, just factor that into your betting and you'll be fine.
On behalf of the sane half of the forum, please refrain from asking this type of question in the future because ima will be along to defend them to all of our's cost...!
Jockeys like Ted Durcan are a layers paradise,also Shane Kelly is another to lay, both useless.
Cos he`s the best work rider in the country but agree he`s weak in a finish hence why he never made it to the top level. Still remember some trainers put jockeys up not necessarily to win but where to run it next...
At John Dunlop's old yard the staff called him Granddad but held him in high regard
Ted can make a bawls of it a LOT, but what you just saw there on Ragged Robin was genius.
Anyway get yourself home Ted put ya feet up leave the late races to the mug riders.....
Another of the alleged "Irish mafia" that only win when they have to..
I don't se your problem with him. 15 winners from 61 rides last month and a LSP of £32.
Very selective use of stats Oldgit1, Ted has never shown a LSP in any season riding in Britain, that is 17 years in total and majority of them are at least -100, the worst being -262 in 2004.
This year has been fairly good compared to most others but he is still managing a negative of -13 LSP this season with a win ratio of approx 15%.
This year has been fairly good compared to most others but he is still managing a negative of -13 LSP this season with a win ratio of approx 15%.
Cork Langer 01 Sep 14 22:21
On behalf of the sane half of the forum, please refrain from asking this type of question in the future because ima will be along to defend them to all of our's cost...!
What, you mean when I point out that he's a classic and multiple Gr1 winning jockey and a 6 times Champion Jockey who just like all of them win races and loses races?
He might not be the strongest in a finish but isn't that a bit like saying a particular footballer isn't that great on his left foot as if that trait alone determine their overall effectiveness? Too many people on here think a race only means the last 150 yards or so and that because he's not a power packed finisher and winning every close finish that that make him a poor jockey, despite the fact that he wins his fair share of close finishes anyway as all that matters is that they get theirs over the line first. How and in what style they do it in is irrelevant and you often see women jockeys or claimers beat the top jockeys in tight one because some are rhythm jockeys who can eek out that little bit extra by pushing and squeezing without having to look like Rambo.
I'm sure it would surprise many on he that whilst not necessarily a scientific way of proving anything, there was a statistic saying Kirsty Milczarek is more successful in close finishes than Ryan Moore. Over a set period when recorded she won 27 and lost 16 close finishes which is a 63% success rate compared to Moore winning 252 and losing 269 which is 48%, with Durcan's stats being 120 wins, 133 losses and a 47% success rate and a 1% difference between two jockeys who are perceived by many as one of the best/strongest and one of the worst/weakest in a finish.
http://www.flatstats.co.uk/jockeys/turf-jockeys-tight-finishes.html
On behalf of the sane half of the forum, please refrain from asking this type of question in the future because ima will be along to defend them to all of our's cost...!
What, you mean when I point out that he's a classic and multiple Gr1 winning jockey and a 6 times Champion Jockey who just like all of them win races and loses races?
He might not be the strongest in a finish but isn't that a bit like saying a particular footballer isn't that great on his left foot as if that trait alone determine their overall effectiveness? Too many people on here think a race only means the last 150 yards or so and that because he's not a power packed finisher and winning every close finish that that make him a poor jockey, despite the fact that he wins his fair share of close finishes anyway as all that matters is that they get theirs over the line first. How and in what style they do it in is irrelevant and you often see women jockeys or claimers beat the top jockeys in tight one because some are rhythm jockeys who can eek out that little bit extra by pushing and squeezing without having to look like Rambo.
I'm sure it would surprise many on he that whilst not necessarily a scientific way of proving anything, there was a statistic saying Kirsty Milczarek is more successful in close finishes than Ryan Moore. Over a set period when recorded she won 27 and lost 16 close finishes which is a 63% success rate compared to Moore winning 252 and losing 269 which is 48%, with Durcan's stats being 120 wins, 133 losses and a 47% success rate and a 1% difference between two jockeys who are perceived by many as one of the best/strongest and one of the worst/weakest in a finish.
http://www.flatstats.co.uk/jockeys/turf-jockeys-tight-finishes.html
You are unbelievable ima, you take the bait every time and only serve to embarrass yourself with your immediate defence of jockeys.
Not everything is as clearcut as statistics and they can be found and used to suit anyone's argument if you look hard enough for them, whereas if you watch race after race for decades with your own eyes and have any semblance of impartiality you get a fair idea about what you are looking at, and believe me where Ted is concerned he is nothing but an average journeyman jockey irrespective of what he has won.
I asked you to watch Seb Sanders (yet another jockey you jumped into defend) and report back and discuss what you saw, have you seen any of his recent efforts...?
Not everything is as clearcut as statistics and they can be found and used to suit anyone's argument if you look hard enough for them, whereas if you watch race after race for decades with your own eyes and have any semblance of impartiality you get a fair idea about what you are looking at, and believe me where Ted is concerned he is nothing but an average journeyman jockey irrespective of what he has won.
I asked you to watch Seb Sanders (yet another jockey you jumped into defend) and report back and discuss what you saw, have you seen any of his recent efforts...?
Oh right so you were only setting bait Cork Langer and nothing else yet then go on to post follow up arguments that clearly show that not to be the case and then you say I'm unbelievable, you really couldn't make it up.
Statistics show winners and losers and as far as I was aware those are the two things we are all trying to find in order to make money and did you not see me say Durcan's not the strongest in a finish but all that really matters is crossing the winning line first, you know, where you get a winner to add to your statistics? I also said he wins some and loses some and that's patently obvious too as indicated by those very statistics that you are so dismissive of and yes it's all fine and dandy to ignore them and only watch races and use your eyes to judge (how do you think I was able to say I know Durcan isn't the strongest in a finish?) but if you only ever flag up the losses and not the wins then you aren't getting a fair and balanced picture, which is clearly the case here with you and which those stats help to show....I also think we've had the definition of journeyman jockeys argument before and to me journeymen don't win multiple classics and Gr1 ones around the world and rarely if ever even get to ride in them let alone win any.
You made one specific claim about Sanders and that was that he had lost his bottle and that very same day I saw him push his horse up the inner to take gap off the final bend having been drawn wide and deliberately missed the break so that he could cut across to the rail. This ensured for mist of the race he had horse in front, upsides and behind him rather than take the easy option and ride to his draw and go the safe outside route you would expect a jockey from a who had supposedly lost his bottle over a fall that happened about 7 years ago and had ridden hundreds of races since then.
I'm sure you are aware of the racing expression that they are going at a married man's pace and what that means and we've just seen a 19 year old kids pack up who freely admitted he has lost his confidence, which sounds so much more understanding than the cheap shot of losing their bottle when said by someone safely sat in their armchair or at their PC and you would think youngsters without a wife or kids (assuming most 19 year olds don't have) were a but more gung-ho that those in their 40s who probably are married and with kids and have made their money from the game and so it would be far easier for the older jockey to pack it in if they really had "lost their bottle" wouldn't you think?
Just out of interest, you've asked me to watch Sanders but why don't you tell me the rides where you clearly decided he lost his bottle then?
Statistics show winners and losers and as far as I was aware those are the two things we are all trying to find in order to make money and did you not see me say Durcan's not the strongest in a finish but all that really matters is crossing the winning line first, you know, where you get a winner to add to your statistics? I also said he wins some and loses some and that's patently obvious too as indicated by those very statistics that you are so dismissive of and yes it's all fine and dandy to ignore them and only watch races and use your eyes to judge (how do you think I was able to say I know Durcan isn't the strongest in a finish?) but if you only ever flag up the losses and not the wins then you aren't getting a fair and balanced picture, which is clearly the case here with you and which those stats help to show....I also think we've had the definition of journeyman jockeys argument before and to me journeymen don't win multiple classics and Gr1 ones around the world and rarely if ever even get to ride in them let alone win any.
You made one specific claim about Sanders and that was that he had lost his bottle and that very same day I saw him push his horse up the inner to take gap off the final bend having been drawn wide and deliberately missed the break so that he could cut across to the rail. This ensured for mist of the race he had horse in front, upsides and behind him rather than take the easy option and ride to his draw and go the safe outside route you would expect a jockey from a who had supposedly lost his bottle over a fall that happened about 7 years ago and had ridden hundreds of races since then.
I'm sure you are aware of the racing expression that they are going at a married man's pace and what that means and we've just seen a 19 year old kids pack up who freely admitted he has lost his confidence, which sounds so much more understanding than the cheap shot of losing their bottle when said by someone safely sat in their armchair or at their PC and you would think youngsters without a wife or kids (assuming most 19 year olds don't have) were a but more gung-ho that those in their 40s who probably are married and with kids and have made their money from the game and so it would be far easier for the older jockey to pack it in if they really had "lost their bottle" wouldn't you think?
Just out of interest, you've asked me to watch Sanders but why don't you tell me the rides where you clearly decided he lost his bottle then?
Bait indeed ima, hence the "follow up arguments" as you refer to them, because it is obvious you can't resist once someone presses your buttons, as proven by your expected multi-paragraph reply, when a single sentence would have been sufficient.
In plain English, there is no reply required from you to this, I told you a long time ago that I accepted we will never agree about Ted, indeed I doubt very much we would agree over anything, having seen your contributions in many other threads, rest assured though there will be a place reserved for you in jockey heaven, for your services in defending them in your lifetime...!
In plain English, there is no reply required from you to this, I told you a long time ago that I accepted we will never agree about Ted, indeed I doubt very much we would agree over anything, having seen your contributions in many other threads, rest assured though there will be a place reserved for you in jockey heaven, for your services in defending them in your lifetime...!
LOL....@ "bait landed" and I really don't know which is sadder on your part, pretending that was your intention all along or actually bothering to do that kind of thing even if it genuinely was.
If you came on here and said something like that Enda Bolger, she's a decent trainer she is or those Thornton brothers Andrew and Robert are as bad as each other and I posted that "she" was actually a he and those brothers aren't actually brothers then you might get away with any baiting claims, unless you then went on to still deny Bolger was a man and still claimed that the Thornton jockeys were brothers then it's a bit hard to try to convince anyone (other than yourself maybe) that you were fishing and baiting anyone wouldn't you say?
Hence my point about your laughable baiting claims as if you don't genuinely believe the things you are saying about Ted Durcan and Seb Sanders anyway and forgive me here too as I don't mean this in a put-down kind of way but I do remember having the Ted Durcan discussion on here but didn't actually realise it was with you until you said as much.
Oh and by the way, it's not actually my defence of jockeys it's the stats that do that and would still be the case if you reproduced them to try to prove Durcan gets beaten far more often in close finishes when he actually doesn't, the same stats you were so dismissive of once they showed your sweeping generalisations to be way off the mark and I would also suggest those who slate a jockey after their own judgement was wrong actually embarrass themselves far more than those who state the jockey did nothing wrong and the horse just wasn't good enough.
I just always find it amusing how those who have achieved nothing of note in the game still feel comfortable enough to try to belittle and mock those who have achieved plenty in it and no before you say so, that's not a "how many winners have you ridden" point, it's a what justifiable entitlement do you think you have to be doing the mocking in the first place?
I know if I was a kid and set out with the ambition to ride big race winners such as the Oaks, St Leger and other Gr1s like the Sprint Cup at Haydock, Sun Chariot Stakes and Gr1s in France like the Prix Morny and the Premio Roma in Italy, as well as Royal Ascot winners, rode 40 group races at home and abroad and been 6 times Champion Jockey in the UAE like Durcan has (not bad for a journeyman eh?) or been UK Champion Jockey and won Gr1s like the Oaks, Irish 2,000 Guinea, the Cheveley Park Stakes, the Golden Jubilee Stakes, a July Cup, a Nunthorpe Stakes, the Prix de Diane Hermes/French Oaks, the Preis von Europa in Germany and 37 group races here and abroad like Sanders has then I would have thought I had done fairly well for myself.
It's just the equivalent of footballers playing on Hackney Marshes trying to belittle and mock international class footballers and maybe even worse as at least they actually take part in the sport and do the same thing as those they are trying to mock.
If you came on here and said something like that Enda Bolger, she's a decent trainer she is or those Thornton brothers Andrew and Robert are as bad as each other and I posted that "she" was actually a he and those brothers aren't actually brothers then you might get away with any baiting claims, unless you then went on to still deny Bolger was a man and still claimed that the Thornton jockeys were brothers then it's a bit hard to try to convince anyone (other than yourself maybe) that you were fishing and baiting anyone wouldn't you say?
Hence my point about your laughable baiting claims as if you don't genuinely believe the things you are saying about Ted Durcan and Seb Sanders anyway and forgive me here too as I don't mean this in a put-down kind of way but I do remember having the Ted Durcan discussion on here but didn't actually realise it was with you until you said as much.
Oh and by the way, it's not actually my defence of jockeys it's the stats that do that and would still be the case if you reproduced them to try to prove Durcan gets beaten far more often in close finishes when he actually doesn't, the same stats you were so dismissive of once they showed your sweeping generalisations to be way off the mark and I would also suggest those who slate a jockey after their own judgement was wrong actually embarrass themselves far more than those who state the jockey did nothing wrong and the horse just wasn't good enough.
I just always find it amusing how those who have achieved nothing of note in the game still feel comfortable enough to try to belittle and mock those who have achieved plenty in it and no before you say so, that's not a "how many winners have you ridden" point, it's a what justifiable entitlement do you think you have to be doing the mocking in the first place?
I know if I was a kid and set out with the ambition to ride big race winners such as the Oaks, St Leger and other Gr1s like the Sprint Cup at Haydock, Sun Chariot Stakes and Gr1s in France like the Prix Morny and the Premio Roma in Italy, as well as Royal Ascot winners, rode 40 group races at home and abroad and been 6 times Champion Jockey in the UAE like Durcan has (not bad for a journeyman eh?) or been UK Champion Jockey and won Gr1s like the Oaks, Irish 2,000 Guinea, the Cheveley Park Stakes, the Golden Jubilee Stakes, a July Cup, a Nunthorpe Stakes, the Prix de Diane Hermes/French Oaks, the Preis von Europa in Germany and 37 group races here and abroad like Sanders has then I would have thought I had done fairly well for myself.
It's just the equivalent of footballers playing on Hackney Marshes trying to belittle and mock international class footballers and maybe even worse as at least they actually take part in the sport and do the same thing as those they are trying to mock.
"In plain English, there is no reply required from you to this"
Knew it would be to tempting to you...!
Yes baiting you ima, because you fall for it over and over again, like now, you just can't help yourself, 7 paragraphs indeed...!
You are confusing criticism and mocking, I am happy to criticise Durcan and Sanders because like everyone I am entitled to an opinion, whether anyone else agrees is immaterial, because its just that, a personal opinion, voiced on a public forum, for others to comment on as they wish.
As for justifiable entitlement, all I can tell you is that I have watched too many races to remember over a 40 year period and still daily watch in excess of 100, doing so, has allowed me to retire at 40 on the proceeds and enjoy a much more enjoyable and relaxed lifestyle, where I am free to watch even more racing day and night, good or bad, pitting my ability against the books or others on here still gets the adrenalin pumping.
That makes me a fair judge of someones ability in the racing game in my book and therefore entitled to voice an opinion on it.
The mocking as you refer to it could only therefore be of you, would you ever wake up and smell the coffee, people continually goad you into responding (like above) do you honestly believe anyone is interested in your replies when they are repeated over and over in each post...? By all means have your say, but why the need to go over old ground in each post and lose the audience in doing so...?
Let me make it clear I won't be responding to your next essay, I am more than happy to let you have the last word(s) if it makes you feel good or superior, because that is the underlying message from the majority of your condescending posts that I have managed to wade through.
Knew it would be to tempting to you...!
Yes baiting you ima, because you fall for it over and over again, like now, you just can't help yourself, 7 paragraphs indeed...!
You are confusing criticism and mocking, I am happy to criticise Durcan and Sanders because like everyone I am entitled to an opinion, whether anyone else agrees is immaterial, because its just that, a personal opinion, voiced on a public forum, for others to comment on as they wish.
As for justifiable entitlement, all I can tell you is that I have watched too many races to remember over a 40 year period and still daily watch in excess of 100, doing so, has allowed me to retire at 40 on the proceeds and enjoy a much more enjoyable and relaxed lifestyle, where I am free to watch even more racing day and night, good or bad, pitting my ability against the books or others on here still gets the adrenalin pumping.
That makes me a fair judge of someones ability in the racing game in my book and therefore entitled to voice an opinion on it.
The mocking as you refer to it could only therefore be of you, would you ever wake up and smell the coffee, people continually goad you into responding (like above) do you honestly believe anyone is interested in your replies when they are repeated over and over in each post...? By all means have your say, but why the need to go over old ground in each post and lose the audience in doing so...?
Let me make it clear I won't be responding to your next essay, I am more than happy to let you have the last word(s) if it makes you feel good or superior, because that is the underlying message from the majority of your condescending posts that I have managed to wade through.
OK I'll humour you and also pretend you were baiting me too so do you seriously think that reflects well on you then? Is your life so lacking that that's the kind of thing you have to do to fill your time? Or do you somehow feel that inadequate that it makes you feel better about yourself after you do so? I treat everyone with the respect or contempt with which they treat me so if you feel my posts have been condescending towards you then there's the reason why.
You say this is a public forum and you are entitled you your opinion on jockeys or whatever and if you want coffee smelt then er what exactly is it you think I am doing when I give my view on a matter then? Oh and at the risk of sounding conceited, if someone starts a thread addressed to me and/or asks me a direct question in a thread then I would suggest they're interested in my reply wouldn't you say so? Or do you and they all collude together to "bait" me in some kind of secret society or something?
By the same token I expect plenty more aren't particularly bothered about what I might say and so if the thread title tells them what the subject matter is, I'm sure they can work out what to do if not interested or if they don't see their name in bold or me quoting them before replying then they can take or leave what I say, it's really not that complicated.
Oh and btw, since you seem to have replied to me often enough then can I also pretend I was baiting you all along too?
You say this is a public forum and you are entitled you your opinion on jockeys or whatever and if you want coffee smelt then er what exactly is it you think I am doing when I give my view on a matter then? Oh and at the risk of sounding conceited, if someone starts a thread addressed to me and/or asks me a direct question in a thread then I would suggest they're interested in my reply wouldn't you say so? Or do you and they all collude together to "bait" me in some kind of secret society or something?
By the same token I expect plenty more aren't particularly bothered about what I might say and so if the thread title tells them what the subject matter is, I'm sure they can work out what to do if not interested or if they don't see their name in bold or me quoting them before replying then they can take or leave what I say, it's really not that complicated.
Oh and btw, since you seem to have replied to me often enough then can I also pretend I was baiting you all along too?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539